Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Bataar on May 04, 2021, 05:55:51 PM
-
A family member of mine recently went to confession at a local FSSP church. She confessed to feeling guilty of being so angry about how Francis and the bishops are ruining the church and asked for advice on how to deal with it. The priest flat out told her that he just ignores everything that comes out of Francis' mouth.
This is an FSSP priest not a sedevacantist priest who claims to recognize that Francis is the true pope. For him to say he ignores everything the man he believes is the true pope says, isn't that an act of schism?
-
Your family member was ABSOLUTELY WRONG for spreading her Confessor's advice. Confession is a SACRAMENT; it's not a facebook post which should be spread to anyone and everyone.
-
A family member of mine recently went to confession at a local FSSP church. She confessed to feeling guilty of being so angry about how Francis and the bishops are ruining the church and asked for advice on how to deal with it. The priest flat out told her that he just ignores everything that comes out of Francis' mouth.
This is an FSSP priest not a sedevacantist priest who claims to recognize that Francis is the true pope. For him to say he ignores everything the man he believes is the true pope says, isn't that an act of schism?
I think you need to look up the definition of schism.
I sense from your confusion that you must be a sede (ie., if he is pope, we must obey).
Not even indulters believe that.
Obviously, the more Francis teaches error, the more one will have to resist him.
-
While I do think the extent some people take it to, i.e "he's the pope but treat him like he isn't in every conceivable way", is borderline schismatic, just telling someone to ignore the nonsense he comes out with isn't at all.
Saying Francis talks a lot of rot is just saying he's a bad pope, not saying that he's not the pope.
-
While I do think the extent some people take it to, i.e "he's the pope but treat him like he isn't in every conceivable way", is borderline schismatic, just telling someone to ignore the nonsense he comes out with isn't at all.
Saying Francis talks a lot of rot is just saying he's a bad pope, not saying that he's not the pope.
Then what's the point of a pope?
-
While I do think the extent some people take it to, i.e "he's the pope but treat him like he isn't in every conceivable way", is borderline schismatic, just telling someone to ignore the nonsense he comes out with isn't at all.
Saying Francis talks a lot of rot is just saying he's a bad pope, not saying that he's not the pope.
Well, then, I guess I must be borderline schismatic, because that's what I do.
I will accept any plenary indulgences he promulgates (assuming I could be worthy of a plenary indulgence in the first place), in that I do acknowledge him as Pope, I acknowledge that he has the authority to do such things, and I would not hesitate to call him "our sweet Christ on earth". But as a practical matter, I give him very little if any thought whatsoever.
-
A family member of mine recently went to confession at a local FSSP church. She confessed to feeling guilty of being so angry about how Francis and the bishops are ruining the church and asked for advice on how to deal with it. The priest flat out told her that he just ignores everything that comes out of Francis' mouth.
This is an FSSP priest not a sedevacantist priest who claims to recognize that Francis is the true pope. For him to say he ignores everything the man he believes is the true pope says, isn't that an act of schism?
She asked for advice on how to deal with it (Francis and the bishops ruining the Church) and he told her how he deals with it. What is the problem?
-
Well, then, I guess I must be borderline schismatic, because that's what I do.
I will accept any plenary indulgences he promulgates (assuming I could be worthy of a plenary indulgence in the first place), in that I do acknowledge him as Pope, I acknowledge that he has the authority to do such things, and I would not hesitate to call him "our sweet Christ on earth". But as a practical matter, I give him very little if any thought whatsoever.
What I meant are people who dismiss the pope's authority entirely, like dismissing his changes to canon law as invalid or whatever else. Not people who just don't pay attention to what he says or gets up to.
-
Then what's the point of a pope?
To govern the Church.
-
Even for sedevacantists, there should be a difference between ignoring most of the babbling done by Bergoglio (his interviews, weekly speeches, etc.) and anything Magisterial. Nobody's required to hang on his every word and treat it like divine revelation.
Really the broader question is whether formal submission and full communion are required.
There is in fact a very dangerous attitude from R&R of ignoring their Magisterium, but that's a separate consideration, and it's hard to know from this third-hand report what the priest meant. As a member of the FSSP, he remains in canonical submission to Bergoglio.
-
Thus far, the only Magisterial acts that have emanated from Bergoglio are the Recyclical (Laudato si') [there's also Lumen fidei, but that's though of as having mostly been written by Benedict XVI] ... and then the notorious Amoris Laetita (the joy of fornication), a papal "exhortation", whatever that means, but it looks official.
Everything else are just his ramblings as a private theologian.
Now, traditionally, even those two, the Encyclical and the Exhortation, are supposed to received with a spirit of reverence and religious assent by Catholics. When in the history of the Church have Catholics routinely mocked papal Magisterium like we do with these two docuмents?
That's kindof the bigger picture problem here. Let's say this Crisis passes. Will Catholics ever look at Encyclicals again the same way? Are these merely the pope opining about something as a private theologian or are these actually teachings of the Magisterium? R&R seriously blurs the two so that there's precious little difference. In fact, will Catholics ever look the pope the same way. We have statements from both Pope St. Pius V and Pope St. Pius X to the effect that the Pope IS Christ (on earth) and he is to be treated as such. I get the impression that those were statements of principle and not dependent on the worthiness of the See's present occupant.
Then how do we go back to the pre-Vatican II Encyclicals and credibly hold them up as authoritative? If Vatican II, an Ecuмenical Council, was wrong about Religious Liberty, then what if Vatican II was actually right while Pius IX was wrong?
This is just NOT the same attitude that Catholics have traditionally had toward papal teaching.
-
Even for sedevacantists, there should be a difference between ignoring most of the babbling done by Bergoglio (his interviews, weekly speeches, etc.) and anything Magisterial. Nobody's required to hang on his every word and treat it like divine revelation.
Really the broader question is whether formal submission and full communion are required.
There is in fact a very dangerous attitude from R&R of ignoring their Magisterium, but that's a separate consideration, and it's hard to know from this third-hand report what the priest meant. As a member of the FSSP, he remains in canonical submission to Bergoglio.
...except that 96% of anything Bergoglio teaches is not magisterial (for want of temporal niversality), and therefore contains the binding force of a Sunday sermon (ie., none).
-
...except that 96% of anything Bergoglio teaches is not magisterial (for want of temporal niversality), and therefore contains the binding force of a Sunday sermon (ie., none).
I think I just said that ... in the post right after the one you quoted. Only things I can think of that are Magisterial are Laudato si' and Amoris Laetitia, so it might be more than 96%. His rambling aboard Pope Force I are exactly that, the ramblings of a private "theologian" (so to speak). I'll be honest that I haven't read either one of these, just a few excerpts from Amoris Laetitia ... due to lack of interest.
-
Given the lack of any authoritative teaching from Bergoglio, the question still revolves around whether one in general submits to the Vatican II system and the Conciliar Church. Given that this FSSP priest is in such submission, I don't see anything necessarily schismatic about him.
-
I think I just said that. Only things I can think of that are Magisterial are Laudato si' and Amoris Laetitia, so it might be more than 96%. His rambling aboard Pope Force I are exactly that, the ramblings of a private "theologian" (so to speak). I'll be honest that I haven't read either one of these, just a few excerpts from Amoris Laetitia ... due to lack of interest.
Those also would not/could not be magisterial for the same reason.
Despite using the form of an encyclical, they have no binding force, and lacks temporal universality.
-
Given the lack of any authoritative teaching from Bergoglio, the question still revolves around whether one in general submits to the Vatican II system and the Conciliar Church. Given that this FSSP priest is in such submission, I don't see anything necessarily schismatic about him.
This comment suggests that those like Lefebvre/SSPX/Resistance who acknowledge the papacy of the conciliar popes are schismatic for not submitting to their errors.
Typical sede error.
-
Those also would not/could not be magisterial for the same reason.
Despite using the form of an encyclical, they have no binding force, and lacks temporal universality.
Right, I know that this is where you and I disagree, but let's not turn this into another round. Basically, this priest is not schismatic simply for saying that Bergoglio needs to be ignored. As explained by Msgr. Fenton, even Encyclicals require religious assent, but that is not the same necessarily as absolute intellectual assent to the truth of every single assertion. It's more an attitude of assuming that it's Catholic unless grave reasons suggest otherwise. With Bergoglio, I'm afraid that most of us assume that it's erroneous until proven otherwise. He's like an anti-rule of faith, where if Bergoglio teaches it, there's a high likelihood that the opposite is actually true.
This is one point on which I disagreed with Drew. He confused the notion of religious assent with accepting each proposition as absolutely true. Msgr. Fenton differentiates the two. One could respectfully disagree with any proposition for grave reasons and not absolutely belief it to be true while giving it a religious assent. It's more of an attitude than strict philosophical certitude.
-
Here's Msgr. Fenton, who devoted an entire article to the authority of papal Encyclicals. Basically, he says that there CAN be infallible statements in them, but generally speaking they are not infallible. But they require "religious assent" (which he defines here):
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
The distinguished theologians who deny the papal encyclicals the status of infallible docuмents teach, none the less, that the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent. To this end many of them, like Fr. De Groot, [30] apply to the encyclicals a teaching with the eminent and brilliant Dominic Palmieri had developed about the Catholic attitude towards non-infallible teaching in the Church. [31] Pegues, in his Revue thomiste article, makes this application with his usual clarity.
‘Hence it follows that the authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn definition, the one properly so-called. The definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same.
This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church.
Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’. [32]
Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” [33] Lyons [34] and Phillips [35] use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings. Fr. Yves de la Brière speaks of the “submission and hierarchical obedience” due to these pronouncements. [36]
So Drew mistook the notion of religious assent with having to believe them to be "certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term". But Fenton, citing numerous theologians, says that this religious assent is an attitude of submission and respect, and unless "the decision should be discovered to be erroneous." So it's basically an attitude of respect and giving the benefit of the doubt that they're true unless it's proven otherwise.
Does any Traditional Catholic receive the acts of Bergoglio with respect and with the presumption of their being true?
I know that I don't. But if I were convinced that Berogoglio were in fact the Vicar of Christ, I would be required to make an attitude adjustment.
-
This comment suggests that those like Lefebvre/SSPX/Resistance who acknowledge the papacy of the conciliar popes are schismatic for not submitting to their errors.
Typical sede error.
The SVs, right or wrong, speak of schism where ABL and the SSPX are concerned precisely because of the undeniable fact that a parallel, worldwide apostolate has been created and maintained for decades. It is a case of Altar-vs-Altar, regardless of all protestations to the contrary.
Considering the present, sad reality, it is the steadfast refusal to accept the errors of V2 that constitutes the glory, such as it is, of the SSPX and draws praise even from those whose take on the crisis is different. I realize that granting a reasonable degree of latitude to those with whom we disagree is not very fashionable in most circles of Traddieland (or the world at large), but such is life in 2021.
-
I think I just said that ... in the post right after the one you quoted. Only things I can think of that are Magisterial are Laudato si' and Amoris Laetitia, so it might be more than 96%. His rambling aboard Pope Force I are exactly that, the ramblings of a private "theologian" (so to speak). I'll be honest that I haven't read either one of these, just a few excerpts from Amoris Laetitia ... due to lack of interest.
That most of what he says, as well as what his predecessors said, isn't "magisterial" isn't much of a comfort to the hundreds of millions who've likely ended up in hell since V2.
The faith of hundreds of millions (notably more than a billion since 1962?) has been destroyed; many such have died and likely gone to Hell for all eternity. Is it supposed to be comforting that none of this destruction has been accomplished by "official" or "binding" means?
I'd love to see a flow chart delineating what has proceeded from the Conciliar Church since 1962 and what from Rome's occupants has pertained to the Catholic Church. Something tells me that, oddly enough, practically nothing would be judged as being Catholic.
-
That most of what he says, as well as what his predecessors said, isn't "magisterial" isn't much of a comfort to the hundreds of millions who've likely ended up in hell since V2.
The faith of hundreds of millions (notably more than a billion since 1962?) has been destroyed; many such have died and likely gone to Hell for all eternity. Is it supposed to be comforting that none of this destruction has been accomplished by "official" or "binding" means?
I'd love to see a flow chart delineating what has proceeded from the Conciliar Church since 1962 and what from Rome's occupants has pertained to the Catholic Church. Something tells me that, oddly enough, practically nothing would be judged as being Catholic.
Agreed. The bigger picture is whether in general we can or must submit to the "Conciliar Church", Vatican II, and the New Mass. I've never liked the argument from infallibility. To me it's missing the forest for the trees, the forest of indefectibility for the trees of infallibility.
To counter the R&R assertion that this Crisis could have emanated from legitimate pontifical authority on account of not everything being infallible, sometimes the sedevacantists go in the other direction and exaggerate the scope of "strict infallibility" as Msgr. Fenton calls it. There's a bigger picture infallibility or indefectibility of the Magisterium that goes beyond the question of whether some Wednesday audience of Bergoglio should be considered infallible.
Bottom line in my mind is: Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church? Does it have the marks of the Church?
-
Bottom line in my mind is: Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church? Does it have the marks of the Church?
I have LONG held that the pope issue serves as a massive distraction. The REAL question is: Is that Thing HQ'd in Rome the Catholic Church? If so, we should all act accordingly. I saw something you said in the una cuм thread which zeroed in on this as the real issue. It was part of a syllogism (maybe your second minor).
If what has happened since 1962 is truly compatible in ANY way with the Church's indefectibility, the obvious question is: WHAT GOOD is such a pathetic "safeguard"???
What good is it that Holy Mother Church made it from 33AD to 1962AD as a clearly-distinguishable, unified entity if She has now become a disunited Monster vomiting forth soul-killing trash for 50-60 years, so much so that the most loyal of her own children have to resist her at every turn with every fiber of their being?
-
Even for sedevacantists, there should be a difference between ignoring most of the babbling done by Bergoglio (his interviews, weekly speeches, etc.) and anything Magisterial. Nobody's required to hang on his every word and treat it like divine revelation.
Really the broader question is whether formal submission and full communion are required.
There is in fact a very dangerous attitude from R&R of ignoring their Magisterium, but that's a separate consideration, and it's hard to know from this third-hand report what the priest meant. As a member of the FSSP, he remains in canonical submission to Bergoglio.
As do I. That is what I meant in my comments above. Formal submission (even though none too happy about it), and full communion, no problem. I'm not a sedevacantist, at least if I am called to come down on one side or the other, I'm not. As a practical matter, I just live my Catholic life out of Tom Nelson's old catalog, and go on about my business. In homeschool, we treat the Novus Ordo and things like dissent from Humanae vitae as though they don't exist. (I just tell my son, with regard to the latter, "they're living in mortal sin and shouldn't be receiving communion, hope they don't have a brain aneurysm and die in their sleep". Ditto for his mother's invalid "remarriage". We mince no words in our home.)
Prior to JPII, you really didn't have such a thing as papolatry, or rather, the personality cult of one particular pope. He was the first real "media pope", young, handsome, well-spoken, couple with this the rise of mass electronic media. I noted throughout his pontificate that you would have these people, usually young single men, who (forgive me if this is a bit harsh) came across as having kind of "ecclesiastical daddy issues", romanticizing him as "the best pope ever", and so on. (I had to murmur to myself, all right, what are you planning to do when he dies? Will he stay "best pope ever", or will you transfer that sentiment to the next pope? It's what I call the phenomenon of "recentism".) They treated, and continue to treat with Bergoglio, his every word as divine utterance, more like he was a Mormon "prophet, seer, and revelator" than simply God's vicegerent on earth. It is as though they woke up every morning and said "what is the Pope's will for me today?" --- one imagines, progressing things a few years, a software app ("MyPope"?) with words from on high, "this is how you are to live and believe today". What the Pope emphasizes, I emphasize. What the Pope likes, I like. What the Pope doesn't like, I don't like. And so on. You get the idea. Their ilk is still around today, the kind who insist upon referring to him as "St John Paul The Great", the kind who bury themselves in the Catechism (to their mind there is only one) as though it is this "big massive encyclical about everything". Needless to say, they are lost to the TLM, because... well... that wasn't, and isn't, the Pope's Mass of preference.
-
If what has happened since 1962 is truly compatible in ANY way with the Church's indefectibility, the obvious question is: WHAT GOOD is such a pathetic "safeguard"???
What good is it that Holy Mother Church made it from 33AD to 1962AD as a clearly-distinguishable, unified entity if She has now become a disunited Monster vomiting forth soul-killing trash for 50-60 years, so much so that the most loyal of her own children have to resist her at every turn with every fiber of their being?
Our times are a mystery. Our Lady said "the Church will be in eclipse". So she did describe some THING which obstructed (most) of the truth of the Church. How can that be? Future church leaders will be able to explain it, with guidance from the Holy Ghost, but we cannot now, as we endure it.
-
Our times are a mystery. Our Lady said "the Church will be in eclipse". So she did describe some THING which obstructed (most) of the truth of the Church. How can that be? Future church leaders will be able to explain it, with guidance from the Holy Ghost, but we cannot now, as we endure it.
Granting all you say, does it seem reasonable for anyone to wax "dogmatic" about his understanding of the situation, acting as if those who disagree are manifestly no longer Catholic?
-
I have LONG held that the pope issue serves as a massive distraction. The REAL question is: Is that Thing HQ'd in Rome the Catholic Church? If so, we should all act accordingly. I saw something you said in the una cuм thread which zeroed in on this as the real issue. It was part of a syllogism (maybe your second minor).
If what has happened since 1962 is truly compatible in ANY way with the Church's indefectibility, the obvious question is: WHAT GOOD is such a pathetic "safeguard"???
What good is it that Holy Mother Church made it from 33AD to 1962AD as a clearly-distinguishable, unified entity if She has now become a disunited Monster vomiting forth soul-killing trash for 50-60 years, so much so that the most loyal of her own children have to resist her at every turn with every fiber of their being?
In his book Contra Cekadam, Fr. Chazal quotes Zapalena regarding the Church's visibility: "for it to be necessary for salvation, its joining must be possible, something that lack of universal visibility would exclude."
The visibility of the Conciliar Church serves the Lord's purposes in a negative way if you will during this crisis. We are told we will "see" the "abomination of desolation," and that there will be various signs before Christ's return, one being an invasion of the Temple of God by a "son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:4). As I have noted to Prots and Orthodox - and I think this is strong argument in favor of the Catholic Church - how would Christ's sheep be able to "see" this revealed sign if there was no specific, visible and known "temple" or church as referent. What Prot Church? What Orthodox bishop and what See? It's Rome, and it's the pope of Rome and his See/church.
That's not a good as a "safeguard," but that's a vital role in God's design as a significant and necessary (in God's Providence and Predestination) sign. It's a very great "good" for us with eyes to see. So, in some ways it is actually a "safeguard" for the elect.
You could disagree with me, but if I'm right, the purpose served by "Holy Mother Church" - or her being invaded by the Antichrist - by this crisis would indeed be "good" in the eyes of God.
-
I have LONG held that the pope issue serves as a massive distraction.
I agree. It took me some time to come around to this realization, so I congratulate you. If V2 and the NOM and the new canonizations hadn't taken place, and we had a Bergoglio running around spouting heresies, my attitude would be: "That's not my problem. It's above my pay grade. Let the Cardinals deal with the guy." But they made it my problem when they imposed the NOM and the teachings of V2 and the new canonizations, etc.
There's long been this debate:
SVs: "R&R is sifting the Magisterium, subjecting the Magisterium to private judgment."
R&R: "SVs sift the popes, deciding by their private judgment who is a legitimate pope."
Both criticisms are valid.
But we needn't go there. There is one place on the journey to faith where private judgment does play a role ... as taught by Vatican I. It is the rational judgment regarding whether the Catholic Church has the motives of credibility to be the authoritative teacher of Revelation. This judgment "precedes faith" (as per the Catholic Encyclopedia).
I look at this Conciliar Church and fail to recognize it at the Catholic Church, since it lacks all the marks of the Church. God in His Mercy made it abundantly clear. He could have allowed the Modernists to sneak one error in here, one there, so that over the course of a few centuries the faith would be corrupted in a "boil the frog" manner. But God forced them to change everything so that the marks of the Church would be completely lacking, and so no one would need a theology degree to determine: "This isn't the Catholic Church." That's how the simple faithful (myself included) originally become Traditional Catholics. "Hey, this thing here doesn't resemble the Catholic Church that I know [either from experience or from history]".
I myself became a Traditional Catholic that way. I recall one time during my Jesuit High School years that a teacher showed a video ridiculing the Tridentine Mass, with how the priest babbled in a foreign tongue and had his back turned to the faithful. They made a mistake showing footage of the Tridentine Mass and I immediately fell in love with it. Eventually my family sought out an Indult Mass. Then, away at a Jesuit University in Chicago, I stopped by a Catholic bookstore to get a Christmas present for my Mom. I saw something by this "St. Alphonsus" called the "Glories of Mary." I reasoned that it must be decent if it had been written by a saint. So I got a copy for my Mom and then another one for myself. Upon reading it, I realized, "St. Alphonsus does not have the same faith as these Novus Ordites." I started kneeling for Holy Communion at the NO ... regularly being reprimanded by the NO prelates. Little did I know, my Mom had the exact same reaction, started kneeling for Holy Communion (back home, while I was at college). In any case, after multiple reprimands from NO priests, we realized that these people by and large do not have the same faith that the Church did for its entire history. That was the depth of the "theology" required to make that determination.
It's basically that the sheep know the voice of the Shepherd. We do not hear or recognize the voice of Christ in Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio. We do not recognize this Conciliar institution as the Catholic Church. No high-level scholastic theology required. We know that this thing lacks the marks and characteristics of the True Church.
-
In his book Contra Cekadam, Fr. Chazal quotes Zapalena regarding the Church's visibility: "for it to be necessary for salvation, its joining must be possible, something that lack of universal visibility would exclude."
Of course it's visible, but how does one "join" the Visible Church ... through the visible Sacrament of Baptism, through the outward profession of the true faith, and through formal subjection to the Supreme Pontiff. It's not like we carry around some ID card.
During the Great Western Schism, the Church remained essentially visible, despite disagreement about the whereabouts of its head. During papal vacancies, the Church remains visible. Paying the lip service of "yeah, that guy over there, he's the pope alright." doesn't suffice to be visibly united to that visible body known as the Conciliar Church. Traditional Catholics remain visibly separated from that visible Church ... by your narrow definition of visibility.
If you define visibility as subsisting in the Conciliar Church, then you (and Father Chazal) had better make haste to visibly join this visible Church ... or else you're outside the Church and damned.
Our Lady of LaSalette use the metaphor of an eclipse, that the Church would be "in eclipse". Something that is eclipsed is still essentially and substantially visible ... just hidden from the view of the observer.
-
The visibility of the Conciliar Church serves the Lord's purposes in a negative way if you will during this crisis.
The ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan is similarly visible. So is the local VFW.
The Holy Roman Catholic Church must be absolutely identifiable as such and not confounded in any way whatsoever with anything else; i.e., it must be both One AND Visible AND Holy, etc. The visibility of other entities saves no one and nothing.
FWIW, I am about as "contra Cekadam" as a man can be, so no need to bother. That does not make his "opponents" right in every instance.
-
It's basically that the sheep know the voice of the Shepherd. We do not hear or recognize the voice of Christ in Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio. We do not recognize this Conciliar institution as the Catholic Church. No high-level scholastic theology required. We know that this thing lacks the marks and characteristics of the True Church.
Yessir!
Sadly, some seem to endlessly feel a need to use and often abuse citations from this or that theologian or Saint, as if any of them were considering such an incomprehensibly insane situation. Making matters worse, all who disagree with such men, even in obviously disputed and disputable territory, are cast aside as schismatic morons of manifestly bad will! Oh, the irony...
Having been raised with the NOM, I, too, read my way into an understanding that what I had seen up to that point in my life and what Catholics had always thought, said and done were not the same thing.
-
The ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan is similarly visible. So is the local VFW.
The Holy Roman Catholic Church must be absolutely identifiable as such and not confounded in any way whatsoever with anything else; i.e., it must be both One AND Visible AND Holy, etc. The visibility of other entities saves no one and nothing.
FWIW, I am about as "contra Cekadam" as a man can be, so no need to bother. That does not make his "opponents" right in every instance.
You are spectacularly missing a critical point: no one would confuse the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan or the VFW with the Temple of God. And the end times deception will be such as "insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." Mt. 24:24.
-
FWIW, I am about as "contra Cekadam" as a man can be, so no need to bother. That does not make his "opponents" right in every instance.
??????
No need to bother with what?
-
During the Great Western Schism, the Church remained essentially visible, despite disagreement about the whereabouts of its head.
Holy Mother Church was visible from day one. Unfortunately, that didn't help 99.9% of the earth's inhabitants, as they lived and died far from the Apostles and their sphere of influence.
I know we moderns tend to be convinced of and in love with our superior understanding of just about everything, but what does or does not constitute the necessary visibility of Holy Church (or any other society large or small) is just another example of how supremely skillful we are when it comes to making the simple overly complex.
-
You are spectacularly missing a critical point: no one would confuse the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan or the VFW with the Temple of God. And the end times deception will be such as "insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." Mt. 24:24.
You have posited that the indisputable visibility of what we all take to be the Whore of Babylon is somehow beneficial to establishing the largely-disputable visibility of Holy Church (which you have not even attempted to elucidate), yet you think I am the one missing something?
Perhaps. Cheerio.
-
You have posited that the indisputable visibility of what we all take to be the Whore of Babylon is somehow beneficial to establishing the largely-disputable visibility of Holy Church (which you have not even attempted to elucidate), yet you think I am the one missing something?
Perhaps. Cheerio.
Indeed. Both as to you missing something and "cheerio.'
Cheerio.
-
Fr. Chazal quotes Zapalena regarding the Church's visibility: "for it to be necessary for salvation, its joining must be possible, something that lack of universal visibility would exclude."
And Zapalena is???
FWIW, universality (i.e., catholicity), visibility and universal visibility are three different things. Do you have the quote in Latin? The priests of Traddieland have a nasty habit of mutilating Latin to meet their needs, although it must also be granted that many never received solid instruction in Latin, philosophy, theology, etc. Such is this era.
What is more, was Holy Church "universally visible" in, say, 40 or 45 AD? When did visibility morph into "universal visibility" and who determines the standard or measure or extent thereof?
-
Interesting that people who claim to be Catholic think that the pope is merely a distraction.
-
Interesting that people who claim to be Catholic think that the pope is merely a distraction.
LOL :laugh2:
The pope, as you put it, and the obviously-disputed question of whether or not someone is, in fact, the pope are -- to clear, honest minds not seeking to misrepresent the words or ideas of others -- manifestly different things.
Although I do not presume to know the answer (which is between you and God), the question for you clearly is: Have you completely misrepresented what we have said through ignorance or malice?
-
Then what's the point of a pope?
To preserve the Faith and to pass on what has been passed on to us.
-
And Zapalena is???
FWIW, universality (i.e., catholicity), visibility and universal visibility are three different things. Do you have the quote in Latin? The priests of Traddieland have a nasty habit of mutilating Latin to meet their needs, although it must also be granted that many never received solid instruction in Latin, philosophy, theology, etc. Such is this era.
What is more, was Holy Church "universally visible" in, say, 40 or 45 AD? When did visibility morph into "universal visibility" and who determines the standard or measure or extent thereof?
Veritatis,
It appears that you are one of a group with a fairly large representation around here: the easily triggered, with chips on their shoulders and points to prove.
Since "cheerio" doesn't mean "goodbye" as I thought, I'll try to clear the air a bit with you.
Zapalena is an author with a quote that I wanted to use to make a point. Fr. Chazal happens to have written a book that I am reading from which I lifted the quote, and was mentioned by way of attribution of the quote, nothing more. Apparently, since the Zapalena quote refers to "visibility" of the Church, and Fr. Chazal is ant-Sedevacantist, you saw "Zapalena," "visibility" and "Fr. Chazal" and your Sedevacantist sensibilities suspected an anti-Sedevacantist polemic and you went into your default mode of argumentation and confrontation against anti-Sedevacantist sentiment. Perhaps I was wrong in sensing that, but your comparison of the "visibility" of the Catholic Church with the visibility of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan or a VFW - a VFW? - particularly in the context of my remarks about the "temple of God" and 2 Thessalonians I took to be purposely ridiculous, and hence my response.
I intended no negative commentary on Sedevacantism by the mere mention of Zapalena, visibility and Fr. Chazal. Indeed the occupation of the seat of Peter and the edifices of the Church by these interlopers arguably and reasonably supports Sede claims.
I take it you disagree with my point. That's fine. I'm sorry that we got off on the wrong foot.
I say "cheerio" and mean it in this thread. Take the last shot.
DR
PS- I belive TKGS is Sedevacantist. I believe you are misreading him as well; perhaps not. Take care.
-
Granting all you say, does it seem reasonable for anyone to wax "dogmatic" about his understanding of the situation, acting as if those who disagree are manifestly no longer Catholic?
Agree, the only ones who can be dogmatic about the situation are the College of Cardinals (if they somehow depose the pope). Absent that, we all have to wait for God to clean up this mess. As it says in St Matthew 24, "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved."
-
Interesting that people who claim to be Catholic think that the pope is merely a distraction.
Only in the sense that the final disposition of the papal status is a disputed question and can only be resolved ultimately by the Church: Bellarmine vs. Cajetan/John of St. Thomas, sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sedeimpoundism, Siri-ism, Montini-blackmailism. What's at issue is whether the Church's legitimate authority, given its protection by the Holy Spirit, could bring about the magnitude of destruction we have seen. Catholic response: negative. Or is this destruction just an illusion, brought about by the exploitation of various ambiguities or "timebσɱbs" in Vatican II?
-
Only in the sense that the final disposition of the papal status is a disputed question and can only be resolved ultimately by the Church: Bellarmine vs. Cajetan/John of St. Thomas, sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sedeimpoundism, Siri-ism, Montini-blackmailism. What's at issue is whether the Church's legitimate authority, given its protection by the Holy Spirit, could bring about the magnitude of destruction we have seen. Catholic response: negative. Or is this destruction just an illusion, brought about by the exploitation of various ambiguities or "timebσɱbs" in Vatican II?
If, as you say, it is clear that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, then it should also be clear that the head of the false Conciliar Church can not be the Head of the true Catholic Church.
-
Veritatis,
It appears that you are one of a group with a fairly large representation around here: the easily triggered, with chips on their shoulders and points to prove.
Since "cheerio" doesn't mean "goodbye" as I thought, I'll try to clear the air a bit with you.
Zapalena is an author with a quote that I wanted to use to make a point. Fr. Chazal happens to have written a book that I am reading from which I lifted the quote, and was mentioned by way of attribution of the quote, nothing more. Apparently, since the Zapalena quote refers to "visibility" of the Church, and Fr. Chazal is ant-Sedevacantist, you saw "Zapalena," "visibility" and "Fr. Chazal" and your Sedevacantist sensibilities suspected an anti-Sedevacantist polemic and you went into your default mode of argumentation and confrontation against anti-Sedevacantist sentiment. Perhaps I was wrong in sensing that, but your comparison of the "visibility" of the Catholic Church with the visibility of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan or a VFW - a VFW? - particularly in the context of my remarks about the "temple of God" and 2 Thessalonians I took to be purposely ridiculous, and hence my response.
I intended no negative commentary on Sedevacantism by the mere mention of Zapalena, visibility and Fr. Chazal. Indeed the occupation of the seat of Peter and the edifices of the Church by these interlopers arguably and reasonably supports Sede claims.
I take it you disagree with my point. That's fine. I'm sorry that we got off on the wrong foot.
I say "cheerio" and mean it in this thread. Take the last shot.
DR
PS- I belive TKGS is Sedevacantist. I believe you are misreading him as well; perhaps not. Take care.
Thank you very much for the thoughtful reply.
For what it is or is not worth, I am not actually sedevacantist. I believe that the commonly-understood versions of both sedevacantism AND sedeplenism are overly-simplistic and utterly fail to adequately address/explain the current situation. What is more, I believe our understanding of the Divine promise to be with the Church all days is likely radically flawed. How? Well, the Master really and truly died -- something no one would've thought possible until it actually happened. Even then, those present apparently failed to process the magnitude of events -- the Blessed Virgin excepted. If the Church relives His life, as many learned and holy people have said over the millenia, then perhaps Her death is somehow not inconsistent with the Divine promise. Christ died, but His Divinity remained united to both His Body AND His Soul, despite the two being separated. Countless intelligent men of good-will have spoken of this time being Holy Church's passion, etc., but none seems to draw the logical conclusion -- that She will also die and will be, like Her Master and Spouse, resurrected by power which is unquestionably Divine.
I had no doubt about the background of Zapalena, but he is far from what anyone would style an authority. Not a big deal; just saying. My only issue was the concept of a necessarily universal visibility. What does that even mean? Is mere visibility not enough? Holy Church was truly visible from Pentecost onward, despite the fact that most of the world was clueless as to what was happening.
Misreading anyone via such a limited medium is all too easy, but I do not think TKGS' comment was anything other than a dig at the exchange between myself and Lad. I suppose we shall see, should clarification be forthcoming.
Thank you again for the thoughtful comment. Godspeed.
-
If, as you say, it is clear that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, then it should also be clear that the head of the false Conciliar Church can not be the Head of the true Catholic Church.
Au contraire!!! :laugh2:
This is precisely the CORE claim of ALL who see fit to recognize and resist. :fryingpan:
Logic is so very early 20th century. You must be racist. ;)
-
Misreading anyone via such a limited medium is all too easy, but I do not think TKGS' comment was anything other than a dig at the exchange between myself and Lad. I suppose we shall see, should clarification be forthcoming.
Not a dig. Just an observation.
-
If, as you say, it is clear that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, then it should also be clear that the head of the false Conciliar Church can not be the Head of the true Catholic Church.
I've already laid out why this isn't necessarily and absolutely the case.
One scenario is where Montini might have been blackmailed and controlled. In that case, he could have been the legitimate Pope but his acts were not free and therefore did not reflect acts of papal authority.
Another is the distinction that these papal claimants might in fact have been MATERIAL heads of the Church but deprived of formal authority, i.e. the sedeprivationist thesis or even Fr. Chazal's sedeimpoundism.
Finally, there's the Siri thesis, in which case the See would not have been vacant through 1989
I don't know why I have to keep repeating these.
-
Not a dig. Just an observation.
Copy. Cheers :)
-
Let us pray for the Holy Father and for the Bishops to remain faithful.
One can only remain what one already is -- and faithful does not describe those claiming authority within the Thing HQ'd in Rome.
-
I've already laid out why this isn't necessarily and absolutely the case.
One scenario is where Montini might have been blackmailed and controlled. In that case, he could have been the legitimate Pope but his acts were not free and therefore did not reflect acts of papal authority.
Another is the distinction that these papal claimants might in fact have been MATERIAL heads of the Church but deprived of formal authority, i.e. the sedeprivationist thesis or even Fr. Chazal's sedeimpoundism.
Finally, there's the Siri thesis, in which case the See would not have been vacant through 1989
I don't know why I have to keep repeating these.
I am not sure you have to, particularly because Montini was a Modernist through and through (thus, no need to blackmail or control); what is more, Scenario One changes nothing post-1978 and Scenario Three, if you will, changes nothing post-1989. It is now 2021, so even the wildest of theories from 32-plus years ago has limited applicability, to put it mildly. Again, what good are "divine promises" if the present insanity is consistent therewith and that Thing in Rome is (somehow) fundamentally identifiable with the Holy Church of the 13th century? We ALL know it is NOT; that is why we resist.