Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: HeidtXtreme on May 14, 2025, 12:19:43 PM
-
Are there any Dogmatic Sedevacantists on CathInfo? Or any Dogmatic non una-cuмers?
-
There are "dogmatc sedes" which is just another term for anyone who is a devout and consistent Catholic who believes in papal claims (I am one of them). There are "dogmatic non una-cuмers" but, thankfully, very few. These are the Stephen Heiner wannabes (minus the ugly gook face) that everyone else pretty much ignores.
-
I'm on the fence on the una-cuм issue.
-
Are there any Dogmatic Sedevacantists on CathInfo? Or any Dogmatic non una-cuмers?
For the record, I am only asking this out of curiosity. I do not hold either of these positions.
-
There are "dogmatc sedes" which is just another term for anyone who is a devout and consistent Catholic who believes in papal claims (I am one of them). There are "dogmatic non una-cuмers" but, thankfully, very few. These are the Stephen Heiner wannabes (minus the ugly gook face) that everyone else pretty much ignores.
Ugly gook face! So true.
-
There are plenty of dogmatic R and R, who get very angry when you suggest that the Pope may not be one and really OK with other parishioners attending indult masses.
They are the most closed minded trad catholics I have ever come across.
-
There are plenty of dogmatic R and R, who get very angry when you suggest that the Pope may not be one and really OK with other parishioners attending indult masses.
They are the most closed minded trad catholics I have ever come across.
Not to mention the fact that the sspv are the only “non dogmatic sede” group. In reality I have never seen a sedevacantist disagreeement on scary “dogmatic sedevacantism”
the four big splits are
1. Thesis vs Totalism
2. Una cuм vs Non Una cuм
3. Pre-55 vs 58
4. Thuc vs Mendez
-
I'm on the fence on the una-cuм issue.
Priests and laypeople forget or deny that it is only their opinion that the Chair is vacant. Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."
-
how do you think the eclipse of the church will be removed and the papacy filled by a true pope?
-
There are "dogmatc sedes" which is just another term for anyone who is a devout and consistent Catholic who believes in papal claims (I am one of them).
See, this is precisely the mistake that the dogmatic sedes make, where SV is dogmatically true because of the nature of the papacy (which is dogmatic).
But the dogmatic SVs forget that there are other premises involved.
(over-simplified for clarity)
MAJOR: Pope can't teach error.
MINOR Montini taught error.
CONCLUSION: Montini wasn't pope.
So, because you hold that the MAJOR is dogmatically certain, you falsely conclude that the SV conclusion is dogmatically certain.
Basic principle of logic is that peiorem partem sequitur conclusio, what I refer to as the logical "weakest link" principle, where a conclusion cannot be more certain than the weakest premise.
Are you dogmatically certain that Montini taught error? You may be morally certain, but you can't be dogmatically certain. Someone might argue a "hermeneutic of continuity". While you may disagree with that, you can't have dogmatic certainty about it ... since only the Church has the authority to teach with dogmatic certainty.
That by itself prevents the SV conclusion from being dogmatically certain.
Or, what if I say that Montini was drugged, locked up in a dungeon, and replaced in public with a double? I may be crazy ... but you cannot say with DOGMATIC certainty that this position is false and that therefore Montini wasn't Pope.
Or what if someone argues that Montini was pope, but he was being blackmailed and his acts were not free and were therefore null and void?
Again, they may be wrong, they may be crazy ... but you can't assert that with dogmatic certainty.
Now what if I distinguish the MAJOR. So, the Pope cannot teach error in teachings that meet the notes of infallibility, but he can teach error in things that do not meet the notes. There's no Catholic theologian who would dispute this. It's possible for a Pope to teach error in matters that do not meet the notes of infallibility. YOU might disagree ... but then "that's like ... your opinion, man" and it's not dogmatically certain, and you won't find a single theologian after Vatican I who believed in absolute papal infallibility.
But then you might argue: "But the Vatican II teachings SHOULD HAVE BEEN protected by infallbility." Maybe, but again, that's like you're opinion, man. And it lacks dogmatic certainty.
Now, it's true that nearly all R&R do reject the SV conclusion precisely by rejecting the MAJOR above. But not all do, and it's not logically necessary to reject it in order to avoid the SV conclusion.
Consequently, the dogmatic SVs exaggerate the theological note of their conclusion.
-
how do you think the eclipse of the church will be removed and the papacy filled by a true pope?
We're obviously not sure, and I don't trouble myself over it too much, knowing that with God all things are possible. Regardless of how bad it gets, it's a piece of cake for God to fix it.
Anna Maria Taigi reported a private revelation where Sts. Peter and Paul would intervene directly to select a Pope ... and that then there would be a "Three Days of Darkness" even to wipe out all the enemies of the faith that had embedded themselves everywhere, including into the Church (at least materially).
-
Priests and laypeople forget or deny that it is only their opinion that the Chair is vacant. Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."
I laid out the logical error as to why they end up exaggerating the theological note of the SV conclusion, since it has premises that are less than dogmatically certain.
Nevertheless, on the opposite side you have those who do in fact run afoul of dogma by claiming that the free exercise of legitimate papal authority can wreck the Church so badly that it's no longer recognizable as Catholic, corrupt the Magisterium, promulgate a Rite of Public Worship that offends God and harms souls ... making it so bad that Catholics are not only permitted but even obliged in conscience to several subjection to and communion with the Vicar of Christ in ordert to please God and to save their souls.
So that is NOT anyone's opinion, and if you reject it you're a heretic, a thinly-veiled Old Catholic.
Yes, if you accept this and come up with other reasons why SV doesn't necessarily follow ... then, yeah, at that point it's your opinion.
But please don't throw Catholic dogma regarding the papacy under the bus in order to avoid the evil SV conclusion. There are other ways to do that without lapsing into heretical theses. I recommend Father Chazal's opinion, for instance.
-
Ugly gook face! So true.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but not necessarily to express it.
“Is it kind? Is it true? What if it were said of you?”
~ Consider this a message from your Kindergarten teacher!
-
Are there some on CathInfo who elevate their private opinion to the level of dogma, and treat uncondemned, unaccused Catholics as excommunicated heretics and vitandi (to be avoided)?
Perhaps I missed a couple with my ban hammer.
Why would I ban them, you ask? It's simple. They are the most disagreeable, unreasonable, and unpleasant pr***** you can imagine. They make rational discourse impossible. They are by definition unreasonable, since they *pretend* that God has intervened already and made it clear the He teaches the "truth" of sedevacantism, and therefore everyone else is clearly in error -- and every non-Sedevacantist is going against Christ and is of bad will.
That is the definition of dogmatic sedevacantist. It's a quite ludicrous position really. Does the Catholic Church really teach, as dogma, that the Papal see is vacant? Of course not! At best, it's a temporary status or an opinion. So why LITERALLY treat it like a dogma that every Catholic must accept?
As if this Crisis were routine -- nay, that it had *ever* happened before, and been resolved by the Church (councils, Papal bulls, etc.) If we had such a history, we could easily solve the problem. But no, the current Crisis is absolutely unprecedented. WHICH MEANS there is a certain requirement for TOLERANCE and LEEWAY -- and allowing difference of opinion -- when judging individual Catholics in how they respond and react to said unprecedented Crisis.
If someone won't live in peace in CathInfo (agree to disagree, live and let live), so as to have discussions with other Catholics, I have to ban them. And yes, that is the conclusion any "major" forum will have to accept. Sure, you have micro-forums with 100 people or less who are desperate for traffic and users, who try to allow fire and water to coexist in the same container. But as the moderator of a major forum for 19 years, I'm here to tell you that in practice, it doesn't work. In practice, certain individuals would actually cost you more members than "tolerating" that one insane member would gain you. In practice, you have to choose. And yeah -- those who are extreme and unreasonable should be the first to go, not the last.
A forum is about discussions. Reasonable discussions, not empty name calling. Those who can't do that certainly don't belong on such a forum.
-
But please don't throw Catholic dogma regarding the papacy under the bus in order to avoid the evil SV conclusion. There are other ways to do that without lapsing into heretical theses. I recommend Father Chazal's opinion, for instance.
When it comes to the question of una cuм, what Fr. Wathen said is absolute truth no matter how the whole issue gets sliced, diced and juiced.
-
Non-dogmatic non una cuм-ism is a logical impossibility. All patience and subjective benefit of the doubt to whoever hasn't realized that yet.
-
just for the heck of conversation, If there was a movie made about the crisis in the church, Wouldn't it be more dramatic if the destroyer of God's truth was actually the pope. Or Popes. Just like the motley crew that killed our Savior.
They were supposed to adore Him instead of killing Him. The story of salvation is much better this way.
I don't want a fake pope to be the destroyer, That's too easy. An inside job is much more exciting and confusing.
-
When it comes to the question of una cuм, what Fr. Wathen said is absolute truth no matter how the whole issue gets sliced, diced and juiced.
Exactly.
However clearly or intelligently you argue, or how "good" you think your opinion is, in the end it will never by more than your personal opinion.
Fundamentally, we are lacking dogmatic clarity on the exact nature of the Crisis in the Church. Until God intervenes and clarifies the situation for us all, there WILL BE some confusion or disagreement as to the exact nature of the Crisis. The correct course of action will always be inconclusive, or a matter of personal prudence, or opinion.
You can't condemn Catholics for having a different opinion than you. If they are baptized and have the Catholic Faith (they accept everything the Holy Catholic Church teaches), they are Catholic, period. You must be in communion with them in order to be Catholic yourself. You can't shun part of the Mystical Body of Christ unless YOU want to cut YOURSELF off from it.
-
Non-dogmatic non una cuм-ism is a logical impossibility. All patience and subjective benefit of the doubt to whoever hasn't realized that yet.
Ridiculous. This type of thinking comes precisely from people who don't actually understand logic, your token use of the word "logical" notwithstanding.
You can be non-una-cuм based on a moral certainty ... which is the best we can achieve without the intervention of Church authority ... which alone can "dogmatically" decide anything that is even a single logical step removed from a directly contradiction of defined dogma.
Does Vatican II contradict Tradition. Yes. I'm morally certain. Am I dogmatically certain? No ... I cannot be dogmatically certain until the Church intervenes.
Would the protection of papal infallibility have covered the teaching of Vatican II and prevented it from being erroneous. Yes. I'm morally certain that it would have prevented it from being THIS erroneous. Am I dogmatically certain? No.
It's precisely because you miss decomposing your conclusion into all the different logical steps that you somehow compress them and conflate the dogmatic nature of one of your premises into resulting in a dogmatic conclusion ... and that's simply false.
Let's look at the corollary. I'm a priest who wakes up at 5:30 one morning and offers Mass "una cuм". But I hadn't checked the news that day, and it turns out the Pope whose name I put in there had died a few hours earlier. In Medieval time when news travelled more slowly, it could be days or weeks before the news gets out to you. Still dogmatically certain about una cuм?
Or St. Vincent Ferrer ... was he dogmatically certain putting the name in there? If he thought he was, he was dead wrong ... since it turned out that he was wrong.
-
There are "dogmatc sedes" which is just another term for anyone who is a devout and consistent Catholic who believes in papal claims (I am one of them). There are "dogmatic non una-cuмers" but, thankfully, very few. These are the Stephen Heiner wannabes (minus the ugly gook face) that everyone else pretty much ignores.
Yes, because insulting people you disagree with is going to help. Dogmatic non-una-cuм is a weird position anyway; it turns the entire Trad movement into a cult of personality.
-
When it comes to the question of una cuм, what Fr. Wathen said is absolute truth no matter how the whole issue gets sliced, diced and juiced.
What I wrote wasn't even about the "question of una cuм", but about the SV syllogism ... for which "una cuм" is merely one possible conclusion. Dimond Brothers, who are about as dogmatic SV as they come, don't hold that "una cuм" is a dogmatic issue.
"what Fr. Wathen said is absolute truth"
Do you even understand the words you throw out there? "absolute". So Wathen's opinion is "absolute" truth. Yet of course you blow off the Vicar of Christ's Magisterial authority, so you replaced some other infallible rule of faith ... for you, Wathen ... for the papal teaching authority.
You're also just conflating "una cuм" with SVism in general, so you don't even appear to understand this debate.
-
Exactly.
However clearly or intelligently you argue, or how "good" you think your opinion is, in the end it will never by more than your personal opinion.
Fundamentally, we are lacking dogmatic clarity on the exact nature of the Crisis in the Church. Until God intervenes and clarifies the situation for us all, there WILL BE some confusion or disagreement as to the exact nature of the Crisis. The correct course of action will always be inconclusive, or a matter of personal prudence, or opinion.
You can't condemn Catholics for having a different opinion than you. If they are baptized and have the Catholic Faith (they accept everything the Holy Catholic Church teaches), they are Catholic, period. You must be in communion with them in order to be Catholic yourself. You can't shun part of the Mystical Body of Christ unless YOU want to cut YOURSELF off from it.
So, your responise appears contradictory. I agree with most of what you said after the "Exactly", but you were saying exactly to a statement from Stubbonr that contradicted your next sentence. He was saying that Father Wathen's opinion on "una cuм" is "absolute truth".
Unless Wathen somehow had some direct inspiratio fromt the Holy Ghost, his position too will "never be more than [his] personal opinion", as you then stated.
Yes, this is precisely what I was saying, except that your opinion can be MORE than JUST your opinion, and there's a bit of gray area between just your opinion (flip a coin, 50-50 shot it's right) and dogmatic certainty. I think someone can construct arguments that render it more than JUST an opinion, i.e. where it's basically moral certainty. Theologians do that all the time where they hold that certain conclusions are "theologically certain", where they are certain based on a close logical connection to various revealed truths that we know to be true ... and yet because they're just logical conclusions they're not "de fide" or even proximate to faith, etc. That's precisely the error that Dimonds and many dogmatic SVs make, where they construct a very solid syllogism based on dogmatic truths, and then declare their conclusion to be dogmatically certain. No. As soon as you start layering logic on top of a dogmatic premise, it's no longer dotmatically certain. If it's just a tiny logical step removed from a dogmatic truth, it might be "proximate" to dogma (i.e. extremely close where no one can see how it isn't), but if it's a little more removed, then theologically certain, then probable, etc. There are different degrees of certainty that a lof of individuals don't consider. This also plays into many shoot-from-the-hip accusations of heresy against the Conciliar papal claimants, where they might here an error uttered by the Pope and declare it heresy. "Where's the dogma he's contradicting?" In most cases, the accusations involve error that, while grave, fall short of being "de fide", where they're more "theologically certain". While the case can be made that you still sin against faith by rejecting something theologically certain, the distinction is crucial for the SV hypothesis, since you don't lose membership in the Church for denying a theological certainty or even rejecting something that's proximate to faith (and thereby being proximate to heresy).
Heresy is a much higher bar than just "error", but it's often used interchangeably, and incorrectly.
-
What I wrote wasn't even about the "question of una cuм", but about the SV syllogism ... for which "una cuм" is merely one possible conclusion. Dimond Brothers, who are about as dogmatic SV as they come, don't hold that "una cuм" is a dogmatic issue.
"what Fr. Wathen said is absolute truth"
Do you even understand the words you throw out there? "absolute". So Wathen's opinion is "absolute" truth. Yet of course you blow off the Vicar of Christ's Magisterial authority, so you replaced some other infallible rule of faith ... for you, Wathen ... for the papal teaching authority.
You're also just conflating "una cuм" with SVism in general, so you don't even appear to understand this debate.
Fr. Wathen: "We say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy." This is absolutely true, it is an absolute truth that private judgement has no place whatsoever in the sacred liturgy.
You can argue the matter and beat the wind all you like, but truth is always true.
I am not conflating anything, if anyone is conflating anything, you are.
-
So, your responise appears contradictory. I agree with most of what you said after the "Exactly", but you were saying exactly to a statement from Stubbonr that contradicted your next sentence. He was saying that Father Wathen's opinion on "una cuм" is "absolute truth".
Unless Wathen somehow had some direct inspiratio fromt the Holy Ghost, his position too will "never be more than [his] personal opinion", as you then stated.
Amazing the lengths sede doubtists go to.......Fr. Wathen said something along the lines of: "All of the cardinals in the conclave accepted him as pope and we must also." That the pope was elected and accepted by all of the cardinals is reality, not opinion. On the contrary, that the election was invalid for any number of reasons is only an opinion.
-
Fr. Wathen: "We say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy." This is absolutely true, it is an absolute truth that private judgement has no place whatsoever in the sacred liturgy.
You can argue the matter and beat the wind all you like, but truth is always true.
I am not conflating anything, if anyone is conflating anything, you are.
Is it that simple? A priest who is certain that the conciliar popes are not popes would be acting against his own certain conscience in naming them in the mass, and therefore sinning. The logical conclusion of Fr. Wathen's statement is that no one can come to be certain that they are not actual popes, but that is merely his opinion
-
Amazing the lengths sede doubtists go to.......Fr. Wathen said something along the lines of: "All of the cardinals in the conclave accepted him as pope and we must also." That the pope was elected and accepted by all of the cardinals is reality, not opinion. On the contrary, that the election was invalid for any number of reasons is only an opinion.
I am so confused. If you accept Pope Leo XIV as pope, then why are you here. Pope Leo XIV would not accept any of us as Catholics in good standing. That is just a fact (it doesn't matter if we attend the SSPX (ok maybe them), but the rest SSPX "resistance", CMRI, SSPV, RCI, Independent chapel, we are all essentially in schism (not the dogmatic one, but we are at odds) with Rome. Why do we have to make any of this dogmatic? It just is. And we pray and wait and hope that we haven't made the wrong decision and that God forgives us if we did. We try to keep going forward knowing that we will probably die before anything is clear.
I don't even know who this Father Wathen is. Did he continue his priesthood in his diocese? Did he become and independent priest? What makes him someone I should be taking advice from?
-
I don't even know who this Father Wathen is. Did he continue his priesthood in his diocese? Did he become and independent priest? What makes him someone I should be taking advice from?
You don't know who Fr. Wathen is, so you even admit you don't know everything.
...and yet you glorify and push your opinions upon us?
"we are all essentially in schism (not the dogmatic one, but we are at odds) with Rome. Why do we have to make any of this dogmatic? It just is."
Is it unreasonable for one to suggest you should do more LEARNING and less TEACHING on these matters?
-
Is it that simple? A priest who is certain that the conciliar popes are not popes would be acting against his own certain conscience in naming them in the mass, and therefore sinning. The logical conclusion of Fr. Wathen's statement is that no one can come to be certain that they are not actual popes, but that is merely his opinion
What did he say that is not true? What did he say that is contrary to what the Church teaches?
There are some things we may not do, one of those things priests may not do, is introduce their opinion into the Church's liturgy. Far as that goes, the Church has taught explicitly that the name of the pope must be mentioned in the Mass. There is no way out of this, you must leave your opinion at the door in this matter.
-
I don't even know who this Father Wathen is. Did he continue his priesthood in his diocese? Did he become and independent priest? What makes him someone I should be taking advice from?
Fr. Wathen was a traditional priest who requested and was granted a leave of absence from his diocese in the late '70s. He went on to provide the sacraments to the faithful across the country until he was physically unable to do so due to leukemia. Even while bedridden he still taught the faithful through email letters, much like +Williamson's Eleison Comments. They can probably be found online but are also compiled in book form titled I Know Mine and Mine Know Me. He also wrote The Great Sacrilege, Who Shall Ascend?, and I believe several other books. His brother wrote a biography on him titled Thou Art A Priest Forever, which contains pretty much everything you could want to know about him
-
I am so confused. If you accept Pope Leo XIV as pope, then why are you here. Pope Leo XIV would not accept any of us as Catholics in good standing. That is just a fact (it doesn't matter if we attend the SSPX (ok maybe them), but the rest SSPX "resistance", CMRI, SSPV, RCI, Independent chapel, we are all essentially in schism (not the dogmatic one, but we are at odds) with Rome. Why do we have to make any of this dogmatic? It just is. And we pray and wait and hope that we haven't made the wrong decision and that God forgives us if we did. We try to keep going forward knowing that we will probably die before anything is clear.
I don't even know who this Father Wathen is. Did he continue his priesthood in his diocese? Did he become and independent priest? What makes him someone I should be taking advice from?
Gray, don't let yourself be confused about all of this, which primarily revolves around the misunderstanding of papal infallibility, which leads to the idea that we must decide the status of popes.
A little about Fr. Wathen - he wrote the book The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf/) when most people never heard of the new mass yet, and he was one priest who remained faithful, never strayed from the traditional faith. I attached a pdf of one of his other books. You would do well to learn about the faith from him - but he has very little to say in the way of sedeism. The video below is, as far as I know, probably the most he ever talked about it in one sitting - interviewed by one of the Dimond bros.
https://youtu.be/_OKbykOfMb4?t=1
-
What did he say that is not true? What did he say that is contrary to what the Church teaches?
There are some things we may not do, one of those things priests may not do, is introduce their opinion into the Church's liturgy. Far as that goes, the Church has taught explicitly that the name of the pope must be mentioned in the Mass. There is no way out of this, you must leave your opinion at the door in this matter.
No one can be compelled to act against their certain conscience. If a priest comes to a moral certainty that someone who claims to be Pope is not actually the Pope, he would be sinning by mentioning his name in the Mass. But from the perspective of Fr. Wathen's statement, the sedevacantist priest with moral certainty would sin if he mentioned the name of the man he believed to be an antipope, but would also sin if he didn't mention the name as he would be "introducing his opinion" into the Mass. It's not possible, unless you have the opinion that no one can come to a moral certainty that there is no pope
-
You don't know who Fr. Wathen is, so you even admit you don't know everything.
I don't know everything.
...and yet you glorify and push your opinions upon us?
Doesn't everyone here push and glorify there own opinions?
Is it unreasonable for one to suggest you should do more LEARNING and less TEACHING on these matters?
I never said it was unreasonable for one to suggest I learn more and teach less. I don't think I have ever taught anything on CathInfo. I just am simplifying the matter. You are either with the Vatican (as it is right now in 2025) or you are against the Vatican (as it is right now in 2025). My family has picked where we stand, but others are allowed to pick where they stand. Until God fixes this Crisis, then most of us are against the Vatican and have to wait and pray and persevere and try not to jump ship.
-
No one can be compelled to act against their certain conscience.
Yes, you can be. The Church compelled many heretics to do 'x' even though they thought 'x' was heresy. I'm not saying that anyone on either side of this debate is a heretic, i'm just pointing out that "one's conscience" is not the end all, be all. You must have a CORRECTLY FORMED conscience, first of all. And even then, the Church's decision on a matter of faith/liturgy has nothing to do with one's conscience. You either obey or not.
If a priest comes to a moral certainty that someone who claims to be Pope is not actually the Pope, he would be sinning by mentioning his name in the Mass.
I think Fr Wathen's take on this is that NO ONE can come to any moral certainty about the crisis, except the Church. Ergo, this whole issue remains in the realm of opinion.
Much like the status of the new mass' validity...even Fr Wathen said that the Church will have to decide this matter. All any of us can do is make decisions on 'positive doubt'. But no one can claim with 100% certainty that the new mass is invalid.
Moral certainty on a matter necessarily means that ALL CATHOLICS would have to follow said idea. There's no such thing as "Bob's moral certainty" vs "Jim's moral certainty". That's just the error of subjectivism. In absence of a church decision, it's all opinion.
But from the perspective of Fr. Wathen's statement, the sedevacantist priest with moral certainty would sin if he mentioned the name of the man he believed to be an antipope, but would also sin if he didn't mention the name as he would be "introducing his opinion" into the Mass. It's not possible, unless you have the opinion that no one can come to a moral certainty that there is no pope
The point being, there is no way anyone can have OBJECTIVE certainty on the papal issue until the Church decides. Everyone can ascertain that the V2 popes are heretics, but to what degree? At what point (and who decides when?) does a heretic pope lose office? This issue has never been decided. So it's just opinion.
-
I highly suggest the writings of Cardinal Henry Manning. "The Present Crisis in the Holy See" "The True Story of the Vatican council". Any of his writings /lectures will direct us in these times.
-
Yes, you can be. The Church compelled many heretics to do 'x' even though they thought 'x' was heresy. I'm not saying that anyone on either side of this debate is a heretic, i'm just pointing out that "one's conscience" is not the end all, be all. You must have a CORRECTLY FORMED conscience, first of all. And even then, the Church's decision on a matter of faith/liturgy has nothing to do with one's conscience. You either obey or not.
Alright, I should have phrased that differently. To act against a certain conscience is sinful. Whether or not you sinned through vincible ignorance arriving at a certain conscience, to act against what you believe to be morally right is a sin. I don't think a heretic can be presumed to have a inculpable certain conscience after being corrected by the Church because the Church is the sole authority that can teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals. They have been made aware of their heresy, whether they were ignorant or otherwise.
I think Fr Wathen's take on this is that NO ONE can come to any moral certainty about the crisis, except the Church. Ergo, this whole issue remains in the realm of opinion. Much like the status of the new mass' validity...even Fr Wathen said that the Church will have to decide this matter. All any of us can do is make decisions on 'positive doubt'. But no one can claim with 100% certainty that the new mass is invalid.
As far as I know, Father Wathen came to a 100% moral certainty that the Novus Ordo was sacrilegious. He said that the faithful could not attend an NO mass for any reason, even a funeral out of respect for the dead. Genuinely asking, what exactly is the difference between his moral certainty on that and a sedevacantists moral certainty on the status of the papacy? How could he have come to that conclusion without the Church deciding the matter?
Moral certainty on a matter necessarily means that ALL CATHOLICS would have to follow said idea. There's no such thing as "Bob's moral certainty" vs "Jim's moral certainty". That's just the error of subjectivism. In absence of a church decision, it's all opinion.
The point being, there is no way anyone can have OBJECTIVE certainty on the papal issue until the Church decides. Everyone can ascertain that the V2 popes are heretics, but to what degree? At what point (and who decides when?) does a heretic pope lose office? This issue has never been decided. So it's just opinion.
I don't think so. Moral certainty is a personal judgement. I may be morally certain that the NO mass is sacrilegious (in the sense that I would not attend a Latin Mass at a Novus Ordo church due to the desecration of the altar), but an SSPX priest may just think it is "deficient" or "irreverent" and may have no problem saying mass at a NO Church with permission from the local Bishop. What authority is going to decide on the matter for us?
My point is that if you say that a sedevacantist priest cannot omit the name of a conciliar Pope because he is inserting his own opinion into the Mass, you are elevating your own opinion regarding the papacy to a fact. If a sede priest omits the name of the conciliar Pope, he is simply doing what he believes to be right
-
We're obviously not sure, and I don't trouble myself over it too much, knowing that with God all things are possible. Regardless of how bad it gets, it's a piece of cake for God to fix it.
Anna Maria Taigi reported a private revelation where Sts. Peter and Paul would intervene directly to select a Pope ... and that then there would be a "Three Days of Darkness" even to wipe out all the enemies of the faith that had embedded themselves everywhere, including into the Church (at least materially).
If you deny premise b you aren’t a Catholic……. That means you believe in Vatican 2
-
Genuinely asking, what exactly is the difference between his moral certainty on that and a sedevacantists moral certainty on the status of the papacy? How could he have come to that conclusion without the Church deciding the matter?
Moral certainty only applies to morals. The question of a sacrilegious mass is a moral question. Canon law has told us what to do in cases of doubtful validity and illicit abuses of the liturgy. These cases all have moral repercussions, as Canon Law tells us.
But the situation of a heretic pope is not a moral issue, in the sense that it’s not a moral obligation to “figure it out”. History shows us multiple examples of bad popes, multiples popes, etc. and Saints were on all sides of each situation.
Now we DO have a moral obligation to NOT follow a bad pope, same as not following a bad superior. Plenty of saints have told us (and shown us) how to handle a bad leader.
But there’s no clear, catholic teaching (or in canon law) or even from theologians (many of whom disagree) on what to do with a heretic pope (in regards to his papal status). This is a unique situation, which involves legality, validity and papal authority. It has nothing to do with morality. So there can’t be any moral certitude.
-
This is absolutely true, it is an absolute truth that private judgement has no place whatsoever in the sacred liturgy.
So you are totally cool with the NOM? If you go to a TLM, it must be diocesan approved, etc?
Traddieland as a whole -- from inception to this very day -- completely violates your standard.
-
Priests and laypeople forget or deny that it is only their opinion that the Chair is vacant. Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."
For clarity, I'm on the fence wether it is right for ME to attend an Una cuм mass. i don't pass judgement over others on this issue.
I do believe it would be a sin to attend a Mass that names another antipope in the canon, such as the Palmarian antipope, but I don't know if I can apply that same logic to Masses that name the Novus Ordo antipope.
-
just for the heck of conversation, If there was a movie made about the crisis in the church, Wouldn't it be more dramatic if the destroyer of God's truth was actually the pope.
No because then the gates of hell would have prevailed.
-
A little about Fr. Wathen - he wrote the book The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf/) when most people never heard of the new mass yet, and he was one priest who remained faithful, never strayed from the traditional faith.
Clearly he held some strong opinions about the NOM (ones with which you seem to agree), yet those opinions were the complete opposite of the purported Pontiffs who forced it upon the world.
-
Moral certainty only applies to morals. The question of a sacrilegious mass is a moral question. Canon law has told us what to do in cases of doubtful validity and illicit abuses of the liturgy. These cases all have moral repercussions, as Canon Law tells us.
But the situation of a heretic pope is not a moral issue, in the sense that it’s not a moral obligation to “figure it out”. History shows us multiple examples of bad popes, multiples popes, etc. and Saints were on all sides of each situation.
Now we DO have a moral obligation to NOT follow a bad pope, same as not following a bad superior. Plenty of saints have told us (and shown us) how to handle a bad leader.
But there’s no clear, catholic teaching (or in canon law) or even from theologians (many of whom disagree) on what to do with a heretic pope (in regards to his papal status). This is a unique situation, which involves legality, validity and papal authority. It has nothing to do with morality. So there can’t be any moral certitude.
But is it not a moral obligation for Catholics to be subject to the Pope?
Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world."
First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus
I would think it follows that considering the status of the heretical, by-all-appearances-non-Catholic man who claims to be Pope, and whether or not you will "accept, recognize and obey [his] authority and supremacy" is a moral matter of the upmost importance.
-
Father Wathen came to a 100% moral certainty that the Novus Ordo was sacrilegious
Sure sounds like a private judgment to me. Last I heard, no one with any actual authority has declared -- from 1969 until 2025 -- anything substantially negative, etc.
How did Traddieland even come to exist, unless informed, pious clerics and laymen did, in fact, form opinions and take strong action against that which was obviously the work of the Enemy?
-
Sure sounds like a private judgment to me. Last I heard, no one with any actual authority has declared -- from 1969 until 2025 -- anything substantially negative, etc.
How did Traddieland even come to exist, unless informed, pious clerics and laymen did, in fact, form opinions and take strong action against that which was obviously the work of the Enemy?
Moral certainty is fine. That is enough certainty to act.
I was talking about *theological* certainty. Enough to condemn people over.
-
Moral certainty is fine. That is enough certainty to act.
I was talking about *theological* certainty. Enough to condemn people over.
Thank you. I understand your comment and overall take on this sad situation.
I want Stubborn to address the points I have made.
-
But is it not a moral obligation for Catholics to be subject to the Pope?
Which pope are sedevacantists subject to at the moment? If it's a moral obligation, then wouldn't sedevacantism (except for the conclave period) be impossible?
I would think it follows that considering the status of the heretical, by-all-appearances-non-Catholic man who claims to be Pope, and whether or not you will "accept, recognize and obey [his] authority and supremacy" is a moral matter of the upmost importance.
If one (erroneously) believes that 99% of what a pope does, is subject to obedience, then your logic is sound. But not everything (and not most things) a pope does concerns some major, doctrinal or theological command. A lot of the what the pope does, is admin/govt stuff. Appointing new bishops, going over disputes, etc.
If a pope is a heretic, then we don't follow him. You either don't follow him, because a) you grasp the concept of ignoring a sinful command (R&R), or b) you ignore him because you say he has no authority (sedevacantism). The main difference between R&R and sedevacantism is one of TIME.
R&R reject bad actions, on a case by case basis, while still allowing for a pope to keep his authority (and, in theory, to convert) in the future.
Sedevacantists reject one, major bad action and reject the pope's authority now and in the future.
Both camps reject V2 errors, it's just a matter of how you deal with the aftermath. R&R think a heretic pope is allowed to regain his authority, by a conversion. Sedes do not. Neither of them "accept, recognize and obey" the pope. No Trad does. This isn't the "gotcha" question you think it is.
-
how will the Church ever get a real pope again without Divine intervention?
-
how will the Church ever get a real pope again without Divine intervention?
please ignore. sorry for posting again. I see that my question was answered. thanks everyone.
-
Ridiculous. This type of thinking comes precisely from people who don't actually understand logic, your token use of the word "logical" notwithstanding.
You can be non-una-cuм based on a moral certainty ... which is the best we can achieve without the intervention of Church authority ... which alone can "dogmatically" decide anything that is even a single logical step removed from a directly contradiction of defined dogma.
Does Vatican II contradict Tradition. Yes. I'm morally certain. Am I dogmatically certain? No ... I cannot be dogmatically certain until the Church intervenes.
Would the protection of papal infallibility have covered the teaching of Vatican II and prevented it from being erroneous. Yes. I'm morally certain that it would have prevented it from being THIS erroneous. Am I dogmatically certain? No.
It's precisely because you miss decomposing your conclusion into all the different logical steps that you somehow compress them and conflate the dogmatic nature of one of your premises into resulting in a dogmatic conclusion ... and that's simply false.
Let's look at the corollary. I'm a priest who wakes up at 5:30 one morning and offers Mass "una cuм". But I hadn't checked the news that day, and it turns out the Pope whose name I put in there had died a few hours earlier. In Medieval time when news travelled more slowly, it could be days or weeks before the news gets out to you. Still dogmatically certain about una cuм?
Or St. Vincent Ferrer ... was he dogmatically certain putting the name in there? If he thought he was, he was dead wrong ... since it turned out that he was wrong.
Sorry in advance if I'm misinterpreting.
Are you saying I hold the pope as certainly pope? I'm a long way from that. I am uncertain and it's erroneous for anyone to imagine themselves as knowing the answer.
Since it's impossible to know, non una cuм is unacceptable. You may not delete prayers out of the Canon until you're sure. If you jump the gun, you're playing with schism. Love danger and you will perish in it!
Do you pretend to know whether the pope is real? What precisely is the damage caused by praying for a miserable pope?
-
Which pope are sedevacantists subject to at the moment? If it's a moral obligation, then wouldn't sedevacantism (except for the conclave period) be impossible?
No pope, because they believe there is no pope. I'm sure you know their arguments about interregnum periods, which have lasted for several years in the past (but 60+ years in this case :laugh1:). I don't doubt they believe they are subject to the Papacy, just that there is no one currently holding the office
If a pope is a heretic, then we don't follow him. You either don't follow him, because a) you grasp the concept of ignoring a sinful command (R&R), or b) you ignore him because you say he has no authority (sedevacantism). The main difference between R&R and sedevacantism is one of TIME.
R&R reject bad actions, on a case by case basis, while still allowing for a pope to keep his authority (and, in theory, to convert) in the future.
Sedevacantists reject one, major bad action and reject the pope's authority now and in the future. Both camps reject V2 errors, it's just a matter of how you deal with the aftermath. R&R think a heretic pope is allowed to regain his authority, by a conversion. Sedes do not. Neither of them "accept, recognize and obey" the pope. No Trad does. This isn't the "gotcha" question you think it is.
Not supposed to be a gotcha, what I'm trying to point out is that at no point in time have Catholics been forced to either hold that the See have been vacant for 60+ years, or to R&R a succession of bad popes for 60+ years, or to believe that the popes have lost all teaching authority for that period of time, etc. All of these are opinions in an unprecedented situation where there is no authority to settle the matter. But I think what, at least most of, these Catholics have done is come to a "moral certainty" that what they are doing is correct and right..you shouldn't be SV, R&R, sedeprivationalist, etc. unless you have, as subjection to the Papacy (whether than entails believing the See is Vacant, or that the Pope has lost authority, or whatever else) is necessary for salvation
-
I am so confused. If you accept Pope Leo XIV as pope, then why are you here.
If you reject Prevost as legitimate pope, why are you calling him "Pope Leo XlV"? :confused:
Pope Leo XIV would not accept any of us as Catholics in good standing. That is just a fact (it doesn't matter if we attend the SSPX (ok maybe them), but the rest SSPX "resistance", CMRI, SSPV, RCI, Independent chapel, we are all essentially in schism (not the dogmatic one, but we are at odds) with Rome. Why do we have to make any of this dogmatic? It just is. And we pray and wait and hope that we haven't made the wrong decision and that God forgives us if we did.
Have no worries. Even if trads are wrong, we will still make it to Heaven because the Conciliar church essentially says everyone goes to Heaven, so that must include trads and schismatics. :smirk: "Bishop" Barron says, publicly, and on video, "even atheists of good will can make it to Heaven" ... so if an atheist can make it to Heaven, you can sure betcha a trad can make it to Heaven :smirk:. But if the Conciliar church is wrong and trads are right, then the usurpers are going to hell and the trads who die in the state of grace still go to Heaven. :smirk:
-
No one can be compelled to act against their certain conscience. If a priest comes to a moral certainty that someone who claims to be Pope is not actually the Pope, he would be sinning by mentioning his name in the Mass. But from the perspective of Fr. Wathen's statement, the sedevacantist priest with moral certainty would sin if he mentioned the name of the man he believed to be an antipope, but would also sin if he didn't mention the name as he would be "introducing his opinion" into the Mass. It's not possible, unless you have the opinion that no one can come to a moral certainty that there is no pope
No, he would not be sinning by mentioning his name because the Church does not require the priest to decide the status of popes, the Church does require the priest to mention the name of the pope.
As Lad pointed out earlier, even saints have mentioned the name of the wrong pope in the past - it is no sin.
Again, non una cuм is only the priest's private judgement of something he is not required, and not even supposed to judge. This fact is what is being completely lost in all of this.
-
Last I heard, no one with any actual authority has declared -- from 1969 until 2025 -- anything substantially negative, etc.
That's like Satan being the judge at his own trial while he's being tried. ::)
-
So you are totally cool with the NOM? If you go to a TLM, it must be diocesan approved, etc?
Traddieland as a whole -- from inception to this very day -- completely violates your standard.
No, I have avoided all things NO essentially since the crisis began. By the time I was 8 or 9, I knew my Latin responses and was serving Mass in basements, halls, etc. and continue to avoid all things NO and continue in the true faith till this day.
The NO violates my standards. See my sig.
-
For clarity, I'm on the fence wether it is right for ME to attend an Una cuм mass. i don't pass judgement over others on this issue.
I do believe it would be a sin to attend a Mass that names another antipope in the canon, such as the Palmarian antipope, but I don't know if I can apply that same logic to Masses that name the Novus Ordo antipope.
The Church mandates that the priest say the pope's name in the canon and does so without any regard whatsoever to our opinion, when the Church tells us not to mention his name is when priests must stop saying his name, but not before.
But non una cuм won't change as long as there are priests out there who place too high a value on their opinion.
-
how will the Church ever get a real pope again without Divine intervention?
We won't ... IMO. I think you mean extraordinary divine intervention... since God is always intervening through His Providence.
We have a lot of naturalistic thinking here where if something can't work itself out naturally then there's no hope.
St Pius X said that naturally speaking the Church is finished.
Even if you're R&R, how is this going to happen without Divine Intervention anyway? 95% of Novus Ordites are heretics, by their own polls, and we had only 4 "Cardinals" sheepishly present a mealy-mouthed "dubia" to Bergoglio regarding the blatant heresy in Amoris Laetitia.
That's why there's much prophecy about a chastisement and even a Three Days of Darkness, to purge the infiltrators out of the Church.
-
The Church mandates that the priest say the pope's name in the canon and does so without any regard whatsoever to our opinion, when the Church tells us not to mention his name is when priests must stop saying his name, but not before.
But non una cuм won't change as long as there are priests out there who place too high a value on their opinion.
Please stop wasting everyone's time with your stupidity, and crack open a basic book on logic before posting again.
What's precisely in dispute is whether (currently) Leo XIV is actually pope, as the Church also forbids putting the name of a non-pope in that spot in the Canon.
You constantly beg the question that the V2 papal claimant is in fact the pope and can't get it through your thick skull ... since you're poisoned by your various heresies.
Yeah, it's people's "opinions" vs. the Novus Ordo "Church" "telling you", right? Well, the Novus Ordo "Church" is also telling you to accept the New Mass and Vatican II.
You need to just shut up and get off the internet ... since at best you're wasting everyone's time with this stupidity.
-
Clearly he held some strong opinions about the NOM (ones with which you seem to agree), yet those opinions were the complete opposite of the purported Pontiffs who forced it upon the world.
He sure did, but all one need do is look at the NOM for what it is and they will see it for what it is, a sacrilege.
But presumably because of the consequences, most trad laypeople and priests and bishops utilizing the same type of "group think" NOers use, have convinced themselves to see it only as inferior to the True Mass.
-
Please stop wasting everyone's time with your stupidity, and crack open a basic book on logic before posting again.
What's precisely in dispute is whether (currently) Leo XIV is actually pope, as the Church also forbids putting the name of a non-pope in that spot in the Canon.
Please stop wasting everyone's time with your stupidity, and crack open a basic book on logic before posting again.
You're sede pontificating all over CI like a lunatic, stop it already. Post quotes where "the Church forbids putting the name of a non-pope in that spot in the Canon." When you find there is no such condemnation, post that too.
You constantly beg the question that the V2 papal claimant is in fact the pope and can't get it through your thick skull ... since you're poisoned by your various heresies.
He was elected pope by all of the cardinals, same as has been done for over a thousand years, all of the cardinals who elected him accept him as pope and we must also. Very simple. Nothing complicated. Sorry you can't get that through your thick skull.
Yeah, it's people's "opinions" vs. the Novus Ordo "Church" "telling you", right? Well, the Novus Ordo "Church" is also telling you to accept the New Mass and Vatican II.
No, it's priests who value their opinion like you value your opinion and decide to do what the NOers themselves did - change the canon of the Mass to suit their opinion.
You need to just shut up and get off the internet ... since at best you're wasting everyone's time with this stupidity.
Ahh, the wrath of Lad resurfaces lmao. That's what it always comes down to with you, you cannot defend your bs, so you resort to verbal bullying. Go take a few deep breaths.
-
Ahh, the wrath of Lad resurfaces lmao. That's what it always comes down to with you, you cannot defend your bs, so you resort to verbal bullying. Go take a few deep breaths.
All of the triglycerides in Ladislaus' brain from his vulture diet makes him cranky and induces hypoxia. :popcorn:
-
No, he would not be sinning by mentioning his name because the Church does not require the priest to decide the status of popes, the Church does require the priest to mention the name of the pope.
As Lad pointed out earlier, even saints have mentioned the name of the wrong pope in the past - it is no sin.
Again, non una cuм is only the priest's private judgement of something he is not required, and not even supposed to judge. This fact is what is being completely lost in all of this.
Objectively a SV priest who names in the mass, as Pope, the man who he believes to be an antipope may or may not be in error. That depends on if the man is actually pope, or not
Subjectively he is sinning because he would be acting against what he believes is morally right. Namely, saying mass in union with an antipope.
The saints were doing what they believed to be morally right, whether or not they were objectively in error. That is my entire point. Any saint who named an antipope, who they believed to be a true Pope, in the Mass was doing so out of private judgement! They erred, but were following their certain conscience.
You can't use Lad's point in your favour because you are disagreeing with it
-
Objectively a SV priest who names in the mass, as Pope, the man who he believes to be an antipope may or may not be in error. That depends on if the man is actually pope, or not
Subjectively he is sinning because he would be acting against what he believes is morally right. Namely, saying mass in union with an antipope.
The saints were doing what they believed to be morally right, whether or not they were objectively in error. That is my entire point. Any saint who named an antipope, who they believed to be a true Pope, in the Mass was doing so out of private judgement! They erred, but were following their certain conscience.
You can't use Lad's point in your favour because you are disagreeing with it.
Again, the Church never made it anyone's responsibility to determine the status of popes, quite the contrary. This is true no matter how badly one believes they need to. The Church has always condemned omitting the name of the pope as an act of schism. On that fact alone it makes zero sense for any priest to risk it by presuming to think their opinion is somehow the correct opinion and the Church is ok with it in this situation by purposely doing the exact opposite of what the Church teaches.
If a priest, contrary to his opinion, names one he believes to be a non-pope, he is not sinning because the offense is strictly an offense against his own opinion no matter how strongly he values his opinion. This is why no, subjectively he is not sinning at all.
It's crazy how it happens that things get twisted 180 degrees, particularly by those who should know better, aka priests and bishops.
-
The NO violates my standards. See my sig.
Everyone rails against Sedes saying there's no basis to make a 'private judgement' on the matter then you get this from R'n'R. Not picking on Stubborn but this is classic and exactly the point. The NO clearly violates the standards of everyone who takes the time to look at, and address, the situation.
-
No pope, because they believe there is no pope. I'm sure you know their arguments about interregnum periods, which have lasted for several years in the past (but 60+ years in this case :laugh1:). I don't doubt they believe they are subject to the Papacy, just that there is no one currently holding the office
You've answered your own question...the doctrinal obligation of catholics is the be subject to the PAPACY, not a particular pope.
Not supposed to be a gotcha, what I'm trying to point out is that at no point in time have Catholics been forced to either hold that the See have been vacant for 60+ years, or to R&R a succession of bad popes for 60+ years, or to believe that the popes have lost all teaching authority for that period of time, etc. All of these are opinions in an unprecedented situation where there is no authority to settle the matter.
Exactly what I said before. There is no 'standard operating procedure' for this situation, because, it's not a standard situation. Ergo, there is not 100% completely right way to handle it (detailed-wise). At a high-level, we are obliged to "hold to Tradition" which is what Trads do. All Trads agree that avoiding V2 is necessary for salvation (this is the moral certainty). Where we disagree is the legal/canon law details...how to handle a heretic hierarchy (there cannot be moral certainty on this, because the Church has never told us).
But I think what, at least most of, these Catholics have done is come to a "moral certainty" that what they are doing is correct and right..you shouldn't be SV, R&R, sedeprivationalist, etc. unless you have, as subjection to the Papacy (whether than entails believing the See is Vacant, or that the Pope has lost authority, or whatever else) is necessary for salvation
I reject the notion that the status of the pope (beyond the acceptance that he is unorthodox and heretical) is a moral question. History is full of situations where the status of the pope (legal/canonical status) was not known until after his death (i.e. the Church ruled on the matter).
-
I'm sure you know their arguments about interregnum periods, which have lasted for several years in the past (but 60+ years in this case :laugh1:). I don't doubt they believe they are subject to the Papacy, just that there is no one currently holding the office
...All of these are opinions in an unprecedented situation where there is no authority to settle the matter...
Exactly.
-
Again, the Church never made it anyone's responsibility to determine the status of popes, quite the contrary. This is true no matter how badly one believes they need to. The Church has always condemned omitting the name of the pope as an act of schism. On that fact alone it makes zero sense for any priest to risk it by presuming to think their opinion is somehow the correct opinion and the Church is ok with it in this situation by purposely doing the exact opposite of what the Church teaches.
If a priest, contrary to his opinion, names one he believes to be a non-pope, he is not sinning because the offense is strictly an offense against his own opinion no matter how strongly he values his opinion. This is why no, subjectively he is not sinning at all.
It's crazy how it happens that things get twisted 180 degrees, particularly by those who should know better, aka priests and bishops.
Did St. Vincent Ferrer not "determine the status of pope", "[presume] to think [his] opinion [was] somehow the correct opinion"? He was wrong, but his actions were never condemned. He asserted his opinion into the Liturgy, but believed he was doing what was right. How is that different than what SV priests do?
-
Did St. Vincent Ferrer not "determine the status of pope", "[presume] to think [his] opinion [was] somehow the correct opinion"? He was wrong, but his actions were never condemned. He asserted his opinion into the Liturgy, but believed he was doing what was right. How is that different than what SV priests do?
It's not. If you put the wrong name into the Canon, then it's a material or objective error.
Question becomes WHY you put the name in there. If it's because you think the man is a Pope, then you have the correct formal intention (despite being in material error), just like St. Vincent Ferrer.
On the contrary, putting their names IN the Canon is similarly motivated by the same formal motive. You're putting the name in there because you think they're popes ...
Or it could be you think they at least might be popes and give them "benefit of the doubt".
Or a sedeprivationist could put them in there because they think that their material possession of the office justifies or even requires putting the name in there.
Or Father Chazal puts the name in there due to their possession of the office, despite holding that the individual is "quarantined" and therefore lacking in authority.
You could hold the Cajetan theory where the heretic Pope would need to be "ministerially" deposed.
None of these motives constitutes any formal adherence to the errors of the Conciliar Church, as Traditional Catholics are Traditional Catholics precisely because they reject those errors.
-
It's not. If you put the wrong name into the Canon, then it's a material or objective error.
Question becomes WHY you put the name in there. If it's because you think the man is a Pope, then you have the correct formal intention (despite being in material error), just like St. Vincent Ferrer.
On the contrary, putting their names IN the Canon is similarly motivated by the same formal motive. You're putting the name in there because you think they're popes ...
Or it could be you think they at least might be popes and give them "benefit of the doubt".
Or a sedeprivationist could put them in there because they think that their material possession of the office justifies or even requires putting the name in there.
Or Father Chazal puts the name in there due to their possession of the office, despite holding that the individual is "quarantined" and therefore lacking in authority.
You could hold the Cajetan theory where the heretic Pope would need to be "ministerially" deposed.
None of these motives constitutes any formal adherence to the errors of the Conciliar Church, as Traditional Catholics are Traditional Catholics precisely because they reject those errors.
So to steelman stubborns argument, it might be something like, since you can’t dogmatically prove these individuals aren’t popes, you have to “give them the benefit of the doubt” or you’re sinning. That does seem reasonable to me. of course I do have issues with this, like why the same “benefit of the doubt” wouldn’t be given to V2 and the NOM… the principle seems to be the same
the reality of universal acceptance was always a dealbreaker to me for SVism and was why “RandR” (of the variety that argued that V2 and the NOM were able to err because they weren’t promulgated ex cathedra) and hermeneutic of continuity were the only two positions I seriously considered before ultimately concluding that, ya know, the RC simply has defected
-
So to steelman stubborns argument, it might be something like, since you can’t dogmatically prove these individuals aren’t popes, you have to “give them the benefit of the doubt” or you’re sinning. That does seem reasonable to me. of course I do have issues with this, like why the same “benefit of the doubt” wouldn’t be given to V2 and the NOM… the principle seems to be the same
the reality of universal acceptance was always a dealbreaker to me for SVism and was why “RandR” (of the variety that argued that V2 and the NOM were able to err because they weren’t promulgated ex cathedra) and hermeneutic of continuity were the only two positions I seriously considered before ultimately concluding that, ya know, the RC simply has defected
Yes, I'm not trying to blow this up into a debate about the individual positions ... but listing them to show that any given position (even if you think it's wrong) doesn't necessarily speak to a defective formal motive for why the name is in there, and simply putting the wrong name in there (despite correct motives) is not as the dogmatic una-cuм types assert tantamount to professing adherence to a false pope (if they're wrong) and a false religion.
But Stubborn's argument that the "Church tells" priests that they must "put the name of the pope" in there is his typical begging the question where these men are actually Popes. He does that regularly and many have tried to point this out to him, but it won't penetrate the thickness of his skull.
-
The main points are as follows.
1. The naming of the pope in the canon has its MAIN purpose as to express that the priest is offering his mass in union with the PAPACY and with the DIOCESE. Contrary to the orthodox and anglicans, who recognize no pope at all.
2. The secondary purpose is to pray for the pope/diocesan bishop, as an individual. The prayer even mentions that such prayers are only effective if the pope/bishop are “orthodox in belief”. If they aren’t, then they don’t get the benefit of the prayers.
3. There are multiple ways in which one can interpret the meaning of the pope. (That’s one good outcome that will come out of this crisis.).
a. I pray for the guy elected, who runs the Vatican.
b. The actual pope who has full authority.
c. I pray for the papacy and if this guy is him, even if a heretic, I’ll pray for his conversion.
Sedes refuse to acknowledge that there are any options of viewing this crisis outside of “b”. You either are all for the pope or all against. No in between. No distinctions.
The ‘una cuм’ debate is a distinction-less stupidity. It’s one of the dumbest things that Trads argue about (and that’s saying something).
-
Moral certainty = probability so great as to allow no reasonable doubt.
Yes, there is moral certainty that V2 and the new mass aren't catholic. Which is why 99.9% of Trads agree. And even non-Trads agree. There's no "reasonable doubt" that V2 and the new mass are anti-catholic.
But it's incorrect to say that a heretical pope automatically loses his office, ipso facto, immediately, with no trial. This legal question has MUCH reasonable doubt. In fact, theologians have debated it for centuries. Ergo, moral certainty is not able to be obtained. The proof is that the various opinions among Trads is all over the place.
If you want to argue that "Fr Jim has moral certainty" on the papal status (beyond the heresy question) then you're basically saying there is no reasonable doubt. If there is no reasonable doubt, then such an opinion is no longer in the realm of personal opinion (i.e. conscience) but MUST be elevated to some kind of unquestionable truth. If there can be no doubt, then it's a fact.
So, it's illogical for (some) Sedes to say that "my conscience has moral certainty" for that is akin to using the modern saying of "it's my truth". But there's only 1 truth. Not multiple truths. Truth does not depend on your conscience, as it exists outside of your reality, and MUST APPLY TO EVERYONE. Ergo, if you say you have "moral certainty" on a topic, you are necessarily demanding that EVERYONE has the same certainty.
Or you're just using the term "moral certainty" erroneously. In which case, reasonable doubt exists, which means, you have an opinion.
It could be a VERY STRONG OPINION; it could be 90% accurate. It could even be 100% accurate, but we don't know yet. The undetermined part is we don't have any authority to get rid of the tiny amount of doubt which remains. This doubt means the topic is in the realm of opinion.
-
Did St. Vincent Ferrer not "determine the status of pope", "[presume] to think [his] opinion [was] somehow the correct opinion"? He was wrong, but his actions were never condemned. He asserted his opinion into the Liturgy, but believed he was doing what was right. How is that different than what SV priests do?
The point is, St. Vincent named the pope, whether he chose the correct pope or not is irrelevant, the point is that he did not omit the name. The Church says we must not omit the name, St. Vincent did not omit the name. Perhaps other saints also named the wrong pope, who knows? He had 3 to choose from, we have 1.
What matters is, the Church *explicitly* instructs us that we are not permitted to judge the status of popes - so there is no need to judge his status, no reason whatsoever. How can I say that? Easy, it's because the Church told us not to do that, that's all the reason we need.
-
The point is, St. Vincent named the pope, whether he chose the correct pope or not is irrelevant, the point is that he did not omit the name. The Church says we must not omit the name, St. Vincent did not omit the name. Perhaps other saints also named the wrong pope, who knows? He had 3 to choose from, we have 1.
No, the Church has never made this prayer a litmus test for morality. In the historical crisis situations, some saints followed the "omit the name", some saints "named the pope" and some saints "named the wrong pope". The point being, naming/non-naming/wrong naming...nobody is going to hell over that (in a crisis situation).
In a situation where there's no crisis (i.e. an Anglican or Orthodox priest refuses to name the pope), then it could be a heretical act. But the heresy would come from the will, the prayer would just be an external indicator that the person rejects a dogma.
What matters is, the Church *explicitly* instructs us that we are not permitted to judge the status of popes - so there is no need to judge his status, no reason whatsoever. How can I say that? Easy, it's because the Church told us not to do that, that's all the reason we need.
Sure, and that's the whole debate at hand. Is 'una cuм' a judgment/statement on the papal status? I say 'no', based on history. Sedes try to say that naming/non-naming the pope is some kind of 'line in the sand' where you are (and must) make a judgement.
Now, the Credo prayer...THAT is a litmus test of doctrine. If someone goes to Mass and refuses to say (or accept) the Credo, then they are a heretic. This is clear and is the purpose of the prayer - to pray in unison, as a Church.
-
Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."
So, the NOM -- which was duly promulgated by an authority the legitimacy of which you assert cannot be questioned -- can, in its entirety, be questioned/judged/rejected?
Please tell me you can see the blatant, colossal contradiction involved.
-
No, I have avoided all things NO essentially since the crisis began.
The NO violates my standards.
Upon whose authority have you rejected it/them? Your own?
The men you say are absolutely indisputable Pontiffs (and thus the living guardian and expositor of the Faith) have stated otherwise, both in word and deed. They have done so, without equivocation or variance, since 1969. Upon what grounds do you contradict their teaching and practice?
-
What matters is, the Church *explicitly* instructs us that we are not permitted to judge the status of popes - so there is no need to judge his status, no reason whatsoever. How can I say that? Easy, it's because the Church told us not to do that, that's all the reason we need.
Perhaps St. Robert Bellarmine (and others) simply didn't get the memo...
Clearly -- in your opinion -- we are, in fact, permitted (maybe even encouraged?) to judge the orthodoxy/status/acceptability of duly promulgated liturgies. Is this the case?
-
So, the NOM -- which was duly promulgated by an authority the legitimacy of which you assert cannot be questioned -- can, in its entirety, be questioned/judged/rejected?
Please tell me you can see the blatant, colossal contradiction involved.
"Condemned" is the correct adjective.
As I said, "...all one need do is look at the NOM for what it is and they will see it for what it is, a sacrilege."
I have quoted Fr. Wathen saying: "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable, that’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy."
IOW, a sacrilegious NOM is a sacrilegious NOM, no matter who promulgated it.
-
Upon whose authority have you rejected it/them? Your own?
The men you say are absolutely indisputable Pontiffs (and thus the living guardian and expositor of the Faith) have stated otherwise, both in word and deed. They have done so, without equivocation or variance, since 1969. Upon what grounds do you contradict their teaching and practice?
The Church's authority.
Their teaching and practice are contrary to what the Church has always taught.
-
IOW, a sacrilegious NOM is a sacrilegious NOM, no matter who promulgated it.
So, you maintain that legitimate authority can promulgate sacrilegious rites? Holy Mother Church can, in fact, give poison to Her own children?
-
Perhaps St. Robert Bellarmine (and others) simply didn't get the memo...
Clearly -- in your opinion -- we are, in fact, permitted (maybe even encouraged?) to judge the orthodoxy/status/acceptability of duly promulgated liturgies. Is this the case?
St. Robert's speculations aside, no, we have no authority "to judge the orthodoxy/status/acceptability of duly promulgated liturgies." What we are bound to is the law of Quo Primum and the traditions of the Church.
-
So, you maintain that legitimate authority can promulgate sacrilegious rites? Holy Mother Church can, in fact, give poison to Her own children?
No, I maintain the pope can create a new sacrilegious religion and rite - because that's what he / they did.
Holy Mother the Church is not the pope and cannot, did not, and will never give poison to Her own children.
-
The Church's authority.
Their teaching and practice are contrary to what the Church has always taught.
Says you. I don't disagree.
However, you are also claiming that these men have legitimately possessed the Keys of St. Peter, the divinely-instituted power to teach, rule and sanctify the sheep. What kind of protection is the Holy Ghost providing under such circuмstances? If what has happened these last few decades can take place under the guidance and agency of legitimate authority, protected by the Holy Ghost at that, what was/is the purpose of having a church at all, ever?
-
No, I maintain the pope can create a new sacrilegious religion and rite - because that's what he / they did.
Holy Mother the Church is not the pope and cannot, did not, and will never give poison to Her own children.
So creating and promulgating evil rites does not actually have any consequences for those who did so? At least none in this life, or with respect to the possession/use/abuse of authority?
Rome has been distributing nothing but poison for decades, to the utter destruction of the faith of billions. How does that align with Holy Church's mission and purpose? Seems like a rather textbook epic fail, to use modern lingo.
-
Says you. I don't disagree.
However, you are also claiming that these men have legitimately possessed the Keys of St. Peter, the divinely-instituted power to teach, rule and sanctify the sheep. What kind of protection is the Holy Ghost providing under such circuмstances? If what has happened these last few decades can take place under the guidance and agency of legitimate authority, protected by the Holy Ghost at that, what was/is the purpose of having a church at all, ever?
The protection of the Holy Ghost obviously was, as far as we know, non-existent in the making/implementing of the new religion and it's sacrilegious mass - except perhaps in stopping it from being worse than it was.
We need the Church for salvation, and we know it will remain till the end of time. The V2 church ain't it.
-
So, you maintain that legitimate authority can promulgate sacrilegious rites? Holy Mother Church can, in fact, give poison to Her own children?
That's irrelevant to the discussion. What was promulgated (i.e. theory) is not what is used (i.e. practiced). It's very convoluted. Please stop sidetracking the discussion of 'una cuм'.
Secondly, I reject the notion that the new mass was ever/is an obligation. So it's promulgation was/is optional. If something is allowed to be ignored, then it was not promulgated with full authority. Ergo, it is not a true Roman rite (both per Quo Primum and per Benedict's 2005 motu).
-
We need the Church for salvation, and we know it will remain till the end of time. The V2 church ain't it.
So, there are TWO churches, but just ONE head, yes? Bit of a monstrosity, no?
Holy Church is sharing its legitimate head with a diabolical, illegitimate body, the very purpose of which is to destroy Her? I guess truth is stranger than fiction after all...
-
So creating and promulgating evil rites does not actually have any consequences for those who did so? At least none in this life, or with respect to the possession/use/abuse of authority?
You tell me - what consequences have they suffered and by whom?
Rome has been distributing nothing but poison for decades, to the utter destruction of the faith of billions. How does that align with Holy Church's mission and purpose? Seems like a rather textbook epic fail, to use modern lingo.
Rome has lost the faith, the conciliar religion is not the Catholic religion. Meanwhile, those faithful still know the Church is still here to feed us the Mass and sacraments. Personally, I believe the prophesy if Jeremiah is telling of these times.....
23:1 Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord 2 Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. 3 And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied. 4 And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord.
-
That's irrelevant to the discussion. What was promulgated (i.e. theory) is not what is used (i.e. practiced). It's very convoluted. Please stop sidetracking the discussion of 'una cuм'.
This thread is not explicitly about the 'una cuм' issue. My line of questioning is as relevant as any other to this oft-repeated, largely-fruitless discussion. Kindly pound sand.
-
You tell me - what consequences have they suffered and by whom?
You have already told me that you believe they have not suffered any consequences whatsoever, at least not in this life within the juridical sphere.
All else -- i.e., what occurred once they died -- would be mere speculation well above our pay grade or concern.
-
Rome has lost the faith, the conciliar religion is not the Catholic religion.
However, there is but ONE, single head for TWO distinct bodies, no? The man you claim to be the acting and legitimate Sovereign Pontiff is, simultaneously, the head of BOTH the diabolical V2 anti-church AND the Holy Roman Catholic Church, yes?
-
So creating and promulgating evil rites does not actually have any consequences for those who did so? At least none in this life, or with respect to the possession/use/abuse of authority?
Of course, it has spiritual consequences.
Rome has been distributing nothing but poison for decades, to the utter destruction of the faith of billions. How does that align with Holy Church's mission and purpose? Seems like a rather textbook epic fail, to use modern lingo.
And whether or not the heretic pope/bishops are fully in office, or only partially in office, won't change any of this. Just like the question of "Did the Arians possess valid sacraments?" is an irrelevant and pointless discussion, in regards to the spiritual chaos they wrought.
The point being, neither R&R nor Sedevacantism solves anything. New-rome continues on.
Traditionalism solves many things, because it forces people to pick orthodoxy vs heresy. And this is sufficient.
-
So, there are TWO churches, but just ONE head, yes? Bit of a monstrosity, no?
Holy Church is sharing its legitimate head with a diabolical, illegitimate body, the very purpose of which is to destroy Her? I guess truth is stranger than fiction after all...
The reader is implored to believe that as it is in the spirit of Christian charity that we have been compelled to proclaim the
Catholic Church to be the sole and exclusive instrument of salvation for men on earth, it is in the same spirit that we assert the major thesis of this third part, viz., the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who maintains membership within it can be saved. We say that we speak thus with genuine charity, because true charity seeks to inform one's neighbor what he must do for his salvation, and when he is in danger of losing it. - Who Shall Ascend?
-
You have already told me that you believe they have not suffered any consequences whatsoever, at least not in this life within the juridical sphere.
All else -- i.e., what occurred once they died -- would be mere speculation well above our pay grade or concern.
Agreed, that's how it goes when the pope is a criminal.
-
However, there is but ONE, single head for TWO distinct bodies, no? The man you claim to be the acting and legitimate Sovereign Pontiff is, simultaneously, the head of BOTH the diabolical V2 anti-church AND the Holy Roman Catholic Church, yes?
That's right, the pope is head of both, the conciliar and Catholic Church. Fr. Hesse explains this pretty plainly in one of his talks.
-
However, there is but ONE, single head for TWO distinct bodies, no? The man you claim to be the acting and legitimate Sovereign Pontiff is, simultaneously, the head of BOTH the diabolical V2 anti-church AND the Holy Roman Catholic Church, yes?
It should start right at the mark, just listen for a minute or so as regards one pope for two churches.
https://youtu.be/yFfnTdlrGK4?t=4413
-
Here is where Fr. Hesse tells of the worst of all heresies......
https://youtu.be/yFfnTdlrGK4?t=4244
-
Although I have known your stance for years, and that absolutely nothing new would be revealed, perhaps someone else can profit from seeing how self-contradictory your ideas and practice are. Thank you for answering honestly. Godspeed.
-
That's right, the pope is head of both, the conciliar and Catholic Church. Fr. Hesse explains this pretty plainly in one of his talks.
Fr. Hesse also says in one of his talks that a pre-68 bishop who uses the new rite of consecration validly consecrates; and the opposite, a post-68 bishop (new rite bishop) who uses the traditional formula also validly consecrates. I disagree with both these hypotheticals because the new rite of episcopal consecration is highly doubtful.
Fr. Hesse reasoned that he who bestows the higher power necessarily bestows also the lesser power. He conjectures that a man who is not even a priest, were he to be consecrated a bishop, would necessarily receive the priesthood. I am not buying this hypothetical scenario.
-
Although I have known your stance for years, and that absolutely nothing new would be revealed, perhaps someone else can profit from seeing how self-contradictory your ideas and practice are. Thank you for answering honestly. Godspeed.
In fact, it's only contradictory for those who believe they are duty bound, or that in some way it's their religious obligation to judge the status of popes. But for those who accept reality, it's just simple truth, fundamental Catholicism, and not at all contradictory....and is also the safest course to take.
-
Fr. Hesse also says in one of his talks that a pre-68 bishop who uses the new rite of consecration validly consecrates; and the opposite, a post-68 bishop (new rite bishop) who uses the traditional formula also validly consecrates. I disagree with both these hypotheticals because the new rite of episcopal consecration is highly doubtful.
Fr. Hesse reasoned that he who bestows the higher power necessarily bestows also the lesser power. He conjectures that a man who is not even a priest, were he to be consecrated a bishop, would necessarily receive the priesthood. I am not buying this hypothetical scenario.
In one of his talks, he says: "...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the new rite of ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination..."
So we have +ABL, +Fellay, Fr. Schmidberger and +Williamson, none of which are idiots, all saying that the NREC and Ordinations are, or at least at that time were valid.
I never understood that.
-
It should start right at the mark, just listen for a minute or so as regards one pope for two churches.
https://youtu.be/yFfnTdlrGK4?t=4413
Is their officially two churches?
-
Is their officially two churches?
Of course not officially. There is in reality.
-
In one of his talks, he says: "...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the new rite of ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination..."
So we have +ABL, +Fellay, Fr. Schmidberger and +Williamson, none of which are idiots, all saying that the NREC and Ordinations are, or at least at that time were valid.
I never understood that.
Yeah, Fr Hesse always said he “felt sure” his ordination was valid. Of course, feelings are irrelevant. And the Sspx gave in to human respect and didn’t push the issue. Horrible leadership and unprincipled decisions.
-
Yeah, Fr Hesse always said he “felt sure” his ordination was valid. Of course, feelings are irrelevant. And the Sspx gave in to human respect and didn’t push the issue. Horrible leadership and unprincipled decisions.
Yes, that's disappointing that someone who's otherwise intellectual would proceed on the basis of a "felt sure".
There's absolutely plenty there that could be construed as positive doubt, and so there's no legitimate reason whatsoever not to conditionally ordain ... other than that it's being done for political reasons, because, well, we can't get the Conciliars upset with us and have our questions about their Orders ruin our chances for regularization. They overplay (on purpose) this idea that you "can't" conditionally administer Sacraments unless you have positive doubt and then artificially raise the bar for what suffices to create positive doubt. It's all very dishonest, and if they're wrong, their eternal salvation could be on the line, especially if this kind of dishonesty factored into their "decision".
There's no risk of sacrilege whatsoever in conditional administration of the Sacraments, since that's what the CONDITIONAL form is, where if it had already been validly administered, there's no risk of a repetition of the Sacrament. Outside of that, there would be a risk of sacrilege if some bishop or priest just went around willy-nilly administering the Sacraments to anyone with a pulse ... but this is clearly NOT that type of situation. We have a bunch of Modernists who have infiltrated the Church and have clearly CHANGED and tampered with the Sacramental Rites.
-
There's no risk of sacrilege whatsoever in conditional administration of the Sacraments, since that's what the CONDITIONAL form is, where if it had already been validly administered, there's no risk of a repetition of the Sacrament.
Additionally, it would seem to be both the safer course for the individual involved as well as the most truly shepherd-like action for the peace of mind and sanctification of the sheep. If they cared, about themselves and those they intend to sanctify, they'd take the appropriate action. The fact that most (if not all) hesitate or even refuse to do so says a lot.
-
Additionally, it would seem to be both the safer course for the individual involved as well as the most truly shepherd-like action for the peace of mind and sanctification of the sheep. If they cared, about themselves and those they intend to sanctify, they'd take the appropriate action. The fact that most (if not all) hesitate or even refuse to do so says a lot.
Agreed ... just providing peace of soul to the faithful would alone suffice.
Even Bishop Williamson took this angle, with a slight variation. He said that while he himself personally believed the NO Sacraments were valid, he recognized that other intelligent people might come to a different conclusion. So he made a distinction between subjective positive doubt vs. there being objective positive doubt if some others have reasonable grounds to consider them doubtful. That makes all the sense in the world. If you send the NO priests in among the faithful, you're effectively imposing your own conscience upon them, and only the Church has the authority to impose upon consciences.
-
I rewatched this earlier today and it's absolutely filled with strawmen, gaslighting, and in fact doing exactly what they falsely accuse the other side of doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEsReiIMyc
When I have time, I'll dissect this dishonest piece of trash.
Let's get this straight. Despite their excuse, THE NUMBER ONE REASON that they assert that NO Orders are valid is in order to maintain their relationship with the Conciliars. That's it.
Now, they come up with other reasons for it ... but (and they misrepresent this also) they need to get this straight. Burden of proof is 100% on them to prove there's no positive doubt. Guess what. They can't do it. They (have to) admit that at the very least there were significant changes to the Rite of Episcopal Consecration. They can ARGUE that, oh, it's valid ... but they absolutely cannot do so with the degree of authority sufficient to dispel rational positive doubt. Only the Church can do that. But you'll notice that THE strongest argument they have, they can't go to. So, the strongest argument is that if a legitimate Pope promulgates Rites, they cannot be doubtful or invalid. Period. That would be contrary to the Church's indefectibility. But if they say that then they'd have to admit that the Pope also cannot enganger souls in other ways, such as with bad teaching ... and so their entire R&R position would be gutted.
Also, they laughably claim (and gaslight) that it's SVs who came up with this because they feel the need to declare anything from the "Church" (as they call it unequivocally, having dropped +Lefebvre's qualification of it as Conciliar Church) invalid or problematic.
Hogwash. SVs have no such "need". We recognize the validity of NO Baptism, Confession, Confirmation (when proper matter & form are used), etc. and would certainly recognize the validity of the other NOM Sacraments ... HAD THEY NOT CHANGED THEM. That has nothing to do with the SV position, just as the Orthodox's valid Sacraments do not somehow legitimize them. It's exactly the opposite ... if they were honest enough to admit it, where if you hold that Montini et al. were legitimate Popes, you MUST hold that their Sacramental Rites are valid ... except, as I mentioned, they're not honest enough to admit it.
-
Agreed ... just providing peace of soul to the faithful would alone suffice.
Sadly, one would naturally presume that such a thing would be at the forefront of a real shepherd's mind and heart, especially given the tumultuous nature of these times. Nope. They apparently don't care and find it offensive that anyone even suggests such a thing.
-
All of the triglycerides in Ladislaus' brain from his vulture diet makes him cranky and induces hypoxia. :popcorn:
:laugh2:
-
:laugh2:
So, laughing at your own jokes now between your different accounts?
Serious, though, aren't you embarrassed about your behavior ... constantly signing up with new accounts after the forum owner banned you and told you to stop it?
-
I rewatched this earlier today and it's absolutely filled with strawmen, gaslighting, and in fact doing exactly what they falsely accuse the other side of doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEsReiIMyc
When I have time, I'll dissect this dishonest piece of trash.
Let's get this straight. Despite their excuse, THE NUMBER ONE REASON that they assert that NO Orders are valid is in order to maintain their relationship with the Conciliars. That's it.
Now, they come up with other reasons for it ... but (and they misrepresent this also) they need to get this straight. Burden of proof is 100% on them to prove there's no positive doubt. Guess what. They can't do it. They (have to) admit that at the very least there were significant changes to the Rite of Episcopal Consecration. They can ARGUE that, oh, it's valid ... but they absolutely cannot do so with the degree of authority sufficient to dispel rational positive doubt. Only the Church can do that. But you'll notice that THE strongest argument they have, they can't go to. So, the strongest argument is that if a legitimate Pope promulgates Rites, they cannot be doubtful or invalid. Period. That would be contrary to the Church's indefectibility. But if they say that then they'd have to admit that the Pope also cannot enganger souls in other ways, such as with bad teaching ... and so their entire R&R position would be gutted.
Also, they laughably claim (and gaslight) that it's SVs who came up with this because they feel the need to declare anything from the "Church" (as they call it unequivocally, having dropped +Lefebvre's qualification of it as Conciliar Church) invalid or problematic.
Hogwash. SVs have no such "need". We recognize the validity of NO Baptism, Confession, Confirmation (when proper matter & form are used), etc. and would certainly recognize the validity of the other NOM Sacraments ... HAD THEY NOT CHANGED THEM. That has nothing to do with the SV position, just as the Orthodox's valid Sacraments do not somehow legitimize them. It's exactly the opposite ... if they were honest enough to admit it, where if you hold that Montini et al. were legitimate Popes, you MUST hold that their Sacramental Rites are valid ... except, as I mentioned, they're not honest enough to admit it.
SSPX is “high” newChurch.
Like a big Jєωιѕн Hollywood production, they have all the costumes, the stage sets, rituals and funding.
One may comically note the SSPX’s European characteristic for being stingy and miserly in their consistent use of second-rate spokesmen to do their bidding.
These poorly qualified peritus such as Fr. Paul Robinson, Siscoe & Salza and the above priest reflect a level of arrogance and malice towards the intellects of the TLM faithful.
-
I rewatched this earlier today and it's absolutely filled with strawmen, gaslighting, and in fact doing exactly what they falsely accuse the other side of doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEsReiIMyc
When I have time, I'll dissect this dishonest piece of trash.
Let's get this straight. Despite their excuse, THE NUMBER ONE REASON that they assert that NO Orders are valid is in order to maintain their relationship with the Conciliars. That's it.
Now, they come up with other reasons for it ... but (and they misrepresent this also) they need to get this straight. Burden of proof is 100% on them to prove there's no positive doubt. Guess what. They can't do it. They (have to) admit that at the very least there were significant changes to the Rite of Episcopal Consecration. They can ARGUE that, oh, it's valid ... but they absolutely cannot do so with the degree of authority sufficient to dispel rational positive doubt. Only the Church can do that. But you'll notice that THE strongest argument they have, they can't go to. So, the strongest argument is that if a legitimate Pope promulgates Rites, they cannot be doubtful or invalid. Period. That would be contrary to the Church's indefectibility. But if they say that then they'd have to admit that the Pope also cannot enganger souls in other ways, such as with bad teaching ... and so their entire R&R position would be gutted.
Also, they laughably claim (and gaslight) that it's SVs who came up with this because they feel the need to declare anything from the "Church" (as they call it unequivocally, having dropped +Lefebvre's qualification of it as Conciliar Church) invalid or problematic.
Hogwash. SVs have no such "need". We recognize the validity of NO Baptism, Confession, Confirmation (when proper matter & form are used), etc. and would certainly recognize the validity of the other NOM Sacraments ... HAD THEY NOT CHANGED THEM. That has nothing to do with the SV position, just as the Orthodox's valid Sacraments do not somehow legitimize them. It's exactly the opposite ... if they were honest enough to admit it, where if you hold that Montini et al. were legitimate Popes, you MUST hold that their Sacramental Rites are valid ... except, as I mentioned, they're not honest enough to admit it.
The New Rite of Confirmation is valid with proper form and matter?
-
The New Rite of Confirmation is valid with proper form and matter?
The Novus Ordo form for Confirmation is valid, based upon Eastern liturgical forms -- but truncated and ugly in comparison to the traditional Roman form. And this validity is simply speaking of the form in isolation from everything else.
The Novus Ordo matter for Confirmation is all over the place. There is the imposition of hands. However, the anointing and Chrism used for the anointing is doubtful for various reasons, including doubtfully valid bishops consecratibg the oil, use of of oils other than olive, and even cases where a priest will anoint whilst the bishop says the form. Bad. Bad. Bad.