Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Gregory I on October 20, 2011, 01:44:52 AM
-
There seems to be a trend for those who do not like the sedevacantist position, or find it to be erroneous to think that people like myself and others are somehow in this special class of "Dogmatic" sedevacantists.
First, such a position is utterly untenable. Sedevacantism cannot, nor will it ever be, a dogma. It is a word used to describe a state of affairs that belong to the temporal order: Sede Vacante. The Seat is vacant.
A sedevacant-ist is a person who contends, against the majority who say otherwise, that there is no Pope because the people who claim to be Pope are manifest, public and pertinacious heretics.
Sedevacant-ism is the actual contention itself.
Nor is it unheard of: I think most of us here have seen the theological writings and have seen the papal writings. The scenario of an heretical Pope being deposed ipso facto by his own public, manifest and notorious heresy is held by the vast majority of theologians who even posit the possibility.
Now, such a theological opinon CANNOT belong to the realm of dogma, because it is, itself, not part of the apostolic preaching, nor is it necessary to believe for salvation.
So why do we contend against those who deny it? Well, there are actually two arguments that often get jumbled and treated (incorrectly) as one:
1. The possiblity of a Pope being a public, manifest and notorious heretic,
2. The Historical reality of this having occured.
Now, first of all, even the SSPX'ers here, I would say at least half of them believe, theologically speaking that point 1 is at least possible.
I do not think the fact that the theologians teach it is possible is the issue: The issue is when we say: Look it happened. And other People say: no, it didn't. But that is not so much a question of theology as it is a question of history. The arguments are historical in nature: Did Paul VI do or say this? Wojtyla Do or say that? Did Benny do or say this? These are all actions that are clearly of an HISTORICAL nature.
A priori, I think most of us accept the theological possiblity of the thing itself: But there are some who contend the "popes" have not done such and such, but they actually make the point; for their argument hinges on the same proposition as ours: That he did NOT DO what we accuse him of doing. This of course presupposes that if he DID we would be right. This is a tacit admission to the theological point.
Therefore the difference is a matter of history and interpreting historical events:
Not DOGMA.
We all affirm the same dogmas. None of us are heretics. But we contend and strive for the truth of the sedevacantist position for the same reason a scholar contends for the accuracy of any other history: IT IS THE TRUTH. It is an objectively verifiable historical fact.
So abandon the misnomer DOGMATIC Sedevacantist and just call us Roman Catholics Who Contend the See is Vacant.
God bless you all,
Gregory I (Daniel).
-
There are sedes out there who believe sedevacantism is a dogma of some sort, like David Landry. Thus why I will not drop the dogmatic sedevacantist label because there are some of them out there. You aren't a dogmatic sede, nor is anyone else here for that matter except roscoe (even though he says there's no such thing as a sede LOL). But to clarify, when I address someone as a "dogmatic sedevacantist" it's only when that person says that everyone must be a sede to be part of the Church and blah blah blah.
-
One does not need to hold to the belief in invalid succession of the men after Pope Pius XII. It is easy enough to see that each of the men following him in their claims to the Papacy have been manifest heretics in their own right.
This is why I say in my signature that I don't need to be a sedevacantist. I don't have to swear by all of the contingencies and if/thens regarding succession, etc. It is enough for me that it has been made perfectly clear by God Almighty which men have been faithful and which have not.
Deo volente, soon we will have our Holy Father to return Rome to her visible and undeniable authority in the world as well as in the hearts of all of us who suffer these wicked usurpers.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
This is a great topic.
I could never go to a mass that is una cuм Benedict XVI, because of the fact that the reason I am sedevacantist is because I believe he is a public, obstinate and stubborn heretic who is promoting Anti-Christ ideas and dogmas such as ecuмenism, modernism, indifferentism. I believe that with these ideas, he is trying to make a mockery of Christ's incarnation and passion.
No, sedevacantism is not a dogma, but anti-sedevacantism in these times is against all dogma.
-
One does not need to hold to the belief in invalid succession of the men after Pope Pius XII. It is easy enough to see that each of the men following him in their claims to the Papacy have been manifest heretics in their own right.
This is why I say in my signature that I don't need to be a sedevacantist. I don't have to swear by all of the contingencies and if/thens regarding succession, etc. It is enough for me that it has been made perfectly clear by God Almighty which men have been faithful and which have not.
Deo volente, soon we will have our Holy Father to return Rome to her visible and undeniable authority in the world as well as in the hearts of all of us who suffer these wicked usurpers.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Wait, do I need to swear by contingencies and if/thens regarding succession?
I thought merely seeing that these men's claims to the papacy when they are manifest heretics and thus not Catholic and therefore, not popes, was sedevacantism.
-
There is no such thing as 'sede vacantism'.
-
So what are Catholics who do not believe we've had a valid pope for over 50 years called roscoe ?
-
You don't think it's something akin to a dogma that a public, manifest heretic can't be Pope? While it may not have been explicitly defined, isn't it Pharisacal to brush it aside on that basis? It's more like common sense than like a dogma, I'll grant you. So maybe the SSPX is not so much heretical as just irrational; and it really is.
Because if a manifest heretic who teaches soul-damning error to the universal Church can be Pope, the Church makes no sense; it's like saying that God can lie. How would we ever know the truth in those circuмstances? The only way would be to appoint a de facto Pope to sift the sayings of the nominal Pope. That is what SSPX has done, the head of the SSPX is in reality, for those who are in SSPX, a de facto Pope, who is looked to the way that Catholics should only look to the Pope. Because if he can tell us when to listen to the Pope and when not to, if he has veto power over the Pope, what does that make him? That's right, kids -- bigger than the Pope, more powerful than the Pope, ergo, the de facto Pope.
Then there are others in SSPX who just deny that they are heretics, as you go on to say ( excellent post by the way ). That is even more irrational.
A priori, I think most of us accept the theological possiblity of the thing itself: But there are some who contend the "popes" have not done such and such, but they actually make the point; for their argument hinges on the same proposition as ours: That he did NOT DO what we accuse him of doing.
And to try to prove their point, they have to deny the evidence of their own eyes. It reminds me of that line from A Day at the Races with Groucho Marx. He is dressed up as a doctor, pretending to be a doctor, but with bare hairy legs sticking out of his lab coat, looking like a madman, etc. Someone comes in and isn't quite sure they trust him, for obvious reasons. Groucho keeps telling him he's a doctor, and when it's still not working, he says "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Genius line that so accurately describes the superstitious, hoaxed, scared-of-their-own-shadow masses: "Oooh, we might go to hell if we say the obvious non-Catholic who they show on TV is not a Pope." Even if you were WRONG, God does not work like that; if you are sincerely wrong, you wouldn't go to hell for being a sede. I said it before and I'll keep saying it, despite our age of technology and the information superhighway, we are more superstitious and less able to think clearly than illiterate medieval peasants with common sense.
-
You don't think it's something akin to a dogma that a public, manifest heretic can't be Pope? While it may not have been explicitly defined, isn't it Pharisacal to brush it aside on that basis? It's more like common sense than like a dogma, I'll grant you. So maybe the SSPX is not so much heretical as just irrational; and it really is.
Because if a manifest heretic who teaches soul-damning error to the universal Church can be Pope, the Church makes no sense; it's like saying that God can lie. How would we ever know the truth in those circuмstances? The only way would be to appoint a de facto Pope to sift the sayings of the nominal Pope. That is what SSPX has done, the head of the SSPX is in reality, for those who are in SSPX, a de facto Pope, who is looked to the way that Catholics should only look to the Pope. Because if he can tell us when to listen to the Pope and when not to, if he has veto power over the Pope, what does that make him? That's right, kids -- bigger than the Pope, more powerful than the Pope, ergo, the de facto Pope.
Then there are others in SSPX who just deny that they are heretics, as you go on to say ( excellent post by the way ). That is even more irrational.
A priori, I think most of us accept the theological possiblity of the thing itself: But there are some who contend the "popes" have not done such and such, but they actually make the point; for their argument hinges on the same proposition as ours: That he did NOT DO what we accuse him of doing.
And to try to prove their point, they have to deny the evidence of their own eyes. It reminds me of that line from A Day at the Races with Groucho Marx. He is dressed up as a doctor, pretending to be a doctor, but with bare hairy legs sticking out of his lab coat, looking like a madman, etc. Someone comes in and isn't quite sure they trust him, for obvious reasons. Groucho keeps telling him he's a doctor, and when it's still not working, he says "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Genius line that so accurately describes the superstitious, hoaxed, scared-of-their-own-shadow masses: "Oooh, we might go to hell if we say the obvious non-Catholic who they show on TV is not a Pope." Even if you were WRONG, God does not work like that; if you are sincerely wrong, you wouldn't go to hell for being a sede. I said it before and I'll keep saying it, despite our age of technology and the information superhighway, we are more superstitious and less able to think clearly than illiterate medieval peasants with common sense.
My point Raoul was simply that sedevacantism is a temporal movement in a unique and particular moment of history. The THEOLOGY of it is founded on Dogma, don't get me wrong. But it cannot be APPLIED dogmatically in this sense: To assert That Benedict is the Pope is more an error of fact than dogma. Such an assertion contradicts no teaching of the church: For those who make the assertion simultaneously believe him to not be heretical, unless of course you are SSPX and then it gets complicated.
My main point was that there is no person who can say the denial of sedevacantism constitutes a denial of Catholic doctrine: Because the denial is not based on the denial of theology, but on disagreement as to the FACT of its application here and now.
It's a purely temporal and historical dispute, unless you actually believe in the FACE of the vast majority of theologians that a public and manifest heretic can be Pope. Then you would have problem, because the faithful are obliged to hold to the unanimous teaching (which can be a morall unanimity, and not univocal) of approved theologians.
Nevertheless, roscoe has a point that this teaching, while based on dogma, does not constitute "sedevacantism." That is the name of a movement that applies this theology to real-world applicable situations.
-
Sedevacantism is a theological possibility, but there is a difference in saying, "Everyone is bound to reject the Papal claimant who appears to have fallen into heresy" from "Anyone may reject a Papal claimant who appears to have done so". I think the first can be called "dogmatic sedevacantism" because sometimes it is treated as if it were a dogma, as if it were, properly so called, an object of divine and Catholic faith necessary for salvation, and concepts like culpability and invincible ignorance are likewise applied to it as well.
-
My point Raoul was simply that sedevacantism is a temporal movement in a unique and particular moment of history. The THEOLOGY of it is founded on Dogma, don't get me wrong. But it cannot be APPLIED dogmatically in this sense: To assert That Benedict is the Pope is more an error of fact than dogma. Such an assertion contradicts no teaching of the church: For those who make the assertion simultaneously believe him to not be heretical, unless of course you are SSPX and then it gets complicated.
My main point was that there is no person who can say the denial of sedevacantism constitutes a denial of Catholic doctrine: Because the denial is not based on the denial of theology, but on disagreement as to the FACT of its application here and now.
It's a purely temporal and historical dispute, unless you actually believe in the FACE of the vast majority of theologians that a public and manifest heretic can be Pope. Then you would have problem, because the faithful are obliged to hold to the unanimous teaching (which can be a morall unanimity, and not univocal) of approved theologians.
Nevertheless, roscoe has a point that this teaching, while based on dogma, does not constitute "sedevacantism." That is the name of a movement that applies this theology to real-world applicable situations.
This and what Nishant2011 wrote is exactly the reason why I am disturbed by sedevacantists who treat their theological position as if it were a political party.
No one sedevacantist can oblige individual consciences to his position, when even the sedevacantist clergy cannot do that since they have no jurisdiction at all. All they have is supplied jurisdiction in the very acts in which the Church supplies such jurisdiction, but it is not habitual.
I think the sedevacantists should stop behaving like they have what their clergy can never claim without either embarrassing themselves or committing gross aberrations and even errors proximate to heresy (at least in the practical order, because positing Ordinary Jurisdiction without the Roman Pontiff seems to me too much like an error against the Vatican Council's definition of Papal primacy).
Anyways, these are my points of view. I have no jurisdiction, so you can dismiss them at will :laugh1:
-
Sedevacantism is a theological possibility, but there is a difference in saying, "Everyone is bound to reject the Papal claimant who appears to have fallen into heresy" from "Anyone may reject a Papal claimant who appears to have done so". I think the first can be called "dogmatic sedevacantism" because sometimes it is treated as if it were a dogma, as if it were, properly so called, an object of divine and Catholic faith necessary for salvation, and concepts like culpability and invincible ignorance are likewise applied to it as well.
Well, I would have to say that no one lay individual is an authentic interpreter of either canon law or the unanimous teaching othe Church approved theologians. We are private interpreters. But that does not mean we cannot CERTAINLY KNOW that the theological position espoused by the majority of church theologians applies to such and such a situation. Perhaps my view is unique: But I would not oblige other people to hold to sedevacantism on the basis of the THEOLOGY being a part of revelation declared by the church as such (Ecclesiastical dogma). Rather, my incentive for and motive for desiring to convince other people as to the truth of the sedevacantist theological position is that, simply put, it can be historically demonstrated. For example, there is historical precedent for clerics wanting to call a council to depose a Pope for private Heresy (Savonorola and Alexander VI). In the past, the clerics of Rome have stripped a pontiff of his Pontifical title on the basis of suspected heresy (Pope Liberius) and elected another (Anti/Pope Felix). When Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople first preached heresy, the Council of Ephesus declared that from the moment of his preaching, he ceased to have a ministry in the church.
There are various historical precedents that indicate the Church's attitude toward heretical leaders: They have no ministry from the instant the publically and notoriously manifest heresy. The theologians of the Church teach this almost unanimously. So on this basis, I strive to demonstrate the historical FACT of Precedent, and the Historical FACT of its current application to those who can be shown to be Public manifest and notorious heretics: Either through private teaching that is widely disseminated, or through acts that give witness to heresy.
We cannot deny that these actions fall within the parameters envisioned by the theologians of the church, and that other prelates in the past, including Popes, have been deposed for far less (Liberius and the Arians and the Creed, etc.).
-
There are sedes out there who believe sedevacantism is a dogma of some sort, like David Landry. Thus why I will not drop the dogmatic sedevacantist label because there are some of them out there. You aren't a dogmatic sede, nor is anyone else here for that matter except roscoe (even though he says there's no such thing as a sede LOL). But to clarify, when I address someone as a "dogmatic sedevacantist" it's only when that person says that everyone must be a sede to be part of the Church and blah blah blah.
Yes, this is my position as well.
Gregory I, you're not a dogmatic sedevacantist, which is why you're welcome here. Likewise all the other sedevacantists on here (of which there is no shortage!)
But you haven't been on CathInfo very long. Long-time members have seen several so-called "dogmatic sedevacantists". They do exist, sorry to say. Sad but true.
They literally consider it to be a dogma, and that anyone who denies that dogma does not possess sanctifying grace (being a heretic), and is matter for conversion.
-
Gregory, I think Liberius actually remained Pope and Felix was the Anti-Pope, according to most theologians who studied the issue and even perhaps official Church lists. That being said, I think St.Robert Bellarmine's comments on it are illumininating, for he says the opposite also applies.
He says what Raoul said, that men are not bound to read hearts, and even if they are wrong, in being sedevacantists, as it would seem those who attempted to declare Pope Liberius deposed were, God would not hold that alone against them.
Of course, even as someone who does believe there is a Pope, I grant the common teaching of theologians on this point, that a Pope cannot be a manifest heretic. However, I still think a future ecclesiastical court will have to decide the question, for all faithful Catholic Christians to have the necessary certainty we need in such a matter.
Obviously, even if the good God, in His mercy, will choose to forgive us, we must still act in accordance with known truth. But I think, frankly, it is hard, to be sure about this, either way or the other. I've tried. Now, I prefer to leave it to God, and devote myself to prayer and the spiritual life. If at all I'm wrong, and it is God's will for me to know the truth in this matter, I trust that in any case prayer will help me in coming to that knowledge more than theology alone.
-
This is a great topic.
I could never go to a mass that is una cuм Benedict XVI, because of the fact that the reason I am sedevacantist is because I believe he is a public, obstinate and stubborn heretic who is promoting Anti-Christ ideas and dogmas such as ecuмenism, modernism, indifferentism. I believe that with these ideas, he is trying to make a mockery of Christ's incarnation and passion.
No, sedevacantism is not a dogma, but anti-sedevacantism in these times is against all dogma.
This is a schismatic act.
-
You don't think it's something akin to a dogma that a public, manifest heretic can't be Pope? While it may not have been explicitly defined, isn't it Pharisacal to brush it aside on that basis? It's more like common sense than like a dogma, I'll grant you. So maybe the SSPX is not so much heretical as just irrational; and it really is.
Because if a manifest heretic who teaches soul-damning error to the universal Church can be Pope, the Church makes no sense; it's like saying that God can lie. How would we ever know the truth in those circuмstances? The only way would be to appoint a de facto Pope to sift the sayings of the nominal Pope. That is what SSPX has done, the head of the SSPX is in reality, for those who are in SSPX, a de facto Pope, who is looked to the way that Catholics should only look to the Pope. Because if he can tell us when to listen to the Pope and when not to, if he has veto power over the Pope, what does that make him? That's right, kids -- bigger than the Pope, more powerful than the Pope, ergo, the de facto Pope.
Then there are others in SSPX who just deny that they are heretics, as you go on to say ( excellent post by the way ). That is even more irrational.
A priori, I think most of us accept the theological possiblity of the thing itself: But there are some who contend the "popes" have not done such and such, but they actually make the point; for their argument hinges on the same proposition as ours: That he did NOT DO what we accuse him of doing.
And to try to prove their point, they have to deny the evidence of their own eyes. It reminds me of that line from A Day at the Races with Groucho Marx. He is dressed up as a doctor, pretending to be a doctor, but with bare hairy legs sticking out of his lab coat, looking like a madman, etc. Someone comes in and isn't quite sure they trust him, for obvious reasons. Groucho keeps telling him he's a doctor, and when it's still not working, he says "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Genius line that so accurately describes the superstitious, hoaxed, scared-of-their-own-shadow masses: "Oooh, we might go to hell if we say the obvious non-Catholic who they show on TV is not a Pope." Even if you were WRONG, God does not work like that; if you are sincerely wrong, you wouldn't go to hell for being a sede. I said it before and I'll keep saying it, despite our age of technology and the information superhighway, we are more superstitious and less able to think clearly than illiterate medieval peasants with common sense.
This post is also schismatic, it is also akin to heresy. Lots of rhetoric, of course Luther was good with Rhetoric too.
-
Gregory, I think Liberius actually remained Pope and Felix was the Anti-Pope, according to most theologians who studied the issue and even perhaps official Church lists. That being said, I think St.Robert Bellarmine's comments on it are illumininating, for he says the opposite also applies.
He says what Raoul said, that men are not bound to read hearts, and even if they are wrong, in being sedevacantists, as it would seem those who attempted to declare Pope Liberius deposed were, God would not hold that alone against them.
Of course, even as someone who does believe there is a Pope, I grant the common teaching of theologians on this point, that a Pope cannot be a manifest heretic. However, I still think a future ecclesiastical court will have to decide the question, for all faithful Catholic Christians to have the necessary certainty we need in such a matter.
Obviously, even if the good God, in His mercy, will choose to forgive us, we must still act in accordance with known truth. But I think, frankly, it is hard, to be sure about this, either way or the other. I've tried. Now, I prefer to leave it to God, and devote myself to prayer and the spiritual life. If at all I'm wrong, and it is God's will for me to know the truth in this matter, I trust that in any case prayer will help me in coming to that knowledge more than theology alone.
Liberius was always the True Pope. Felix II was an Anti-Pope. Liberius was pressured and compromised himself, eventually however he stood up to the Arian Emperor and the Arian Bishops in the concillar circles. They deposed him, and set up Felix II to be their puppet. Eventually Liberius repenting for his past sins joined up with St. Athanasius they deposed Felix II and restored Liberius to the Papal Chair. They then condemned the enemies of the church who were inside the church.
-
You don't think it's something akin to a dogma that a public, manifest heretic can't be Pope? While it may not have been explicitly defined, isn't it Pharisacal to brush it aside on that basis? It's more like common sense than like a dogma, I'll grant you. So maybe the SSPX is not so much heretical as just irrational; and it really is.
Because if a manifest heretic who teaches soul-damning error to the universal Church can be Pope, the Church makes no sense; it's like saying that God can lie. How would we ever know the truth in those circuмstances? The only way would be to appoint a de facto Pope to sift the sayings of the nominal Pope. That is what SSPX has done, the head of the SSPX is in reality, for those who are in SSPX, a de facto Pope, who is looked to the way that Catholics should only look to the Pope. Because if he can tell us when to listen to the Pope and when not to, if he has veto power over the Pope, what does that make him? That's right, kids -- bigger than the Pope, more powerful than the Pope, ergo, the de facto Pope.
Then there are others in SSPX who just deny that they are heretics, as you go on to say ( excellent post by the way ). That is even more irrational.
A priori, I think most of us accept the theological possiblity of the thing itself: But there are some who contend the "popes" have not done such and such, but they actually make the point; for their argument hinges on the same proposition as ours: That he did NOT DO what we accuse him of doing.
And to try to prove their point, they have to deny the evidence of their own eyes. It reminds me of that line from A Day at the Races with Groucho Marx. He is dressed up as a doctor, pretending to be a doctor, but with bare hairy legs sticking out of his lab coat, looking like a madman, etc. Someone comes in and isn't quite sure they trust him, for obvious reasons. Groucho keeps telling him he's a doctor, and when it's still not working, he says "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Genius line that so accurately describes the superstitious, hoaxed, scared-of-their-own-shadow masses: "Oooh, we might go to hell if we say the obvious non-Catholic who they show on TV is not a Pope." Even if you were WRONG, God does not work like that; if you are sincerely wrong, you wouldn't go to hell for being a sede. I said it before and I'll keep saying it, despite our age of technology and the information superhighway, we are more superstitious and less able to think clearly than illiterate medieval peasants with common sense.
This post is also schismatic, it is also akin to heresy. Lots of rhetoric, of course Luther was good with Rhetoric too.
I love it. LordPhan with the 'hit-and-run', as usual.
Where's your evidence? Cite some sources. Gime something concrete. Want some more words to accuse Raoul of ? Here , let me help.
Liar
Heretic
Prideful
Calumny
Sophist
Strawman builder
Illogical
Repugnant
Bitter
Faithless
Young
Ignorant
Unexperienced
Immature
Hateful
Protestant
Schismatic...oh you already used that one
Apostate
Reprobate
Arrogant
Evil
Blind following the blind
"Throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
"You can't judge the Pope"
"Why can't we be friends"
"Where are my dentures, Mildred?"
OK, so I got off point at the end... but seriously LordPhan, come up with something new at the sedevacantists because we've heard it all and I'm getting tired of seeing these same lame accusations in the Crisis section. If you want to beat up the Sede Pinata, go to General or Catholics in the Modern section, maybe even Resistance... but not in the very section where we strive to seek for truth. It's growing weary.
This note goes for all you of like him too.
-
Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.
Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.
-
Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.
Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.
Do you not understand that those who DOUBT the Popes election cannot be considered schismatic for their refusal to adhere to him?
This is the general consensus of theologians: Even if it were an objectively wrong FACT that the Pope is NOT the Pope, you can't call us schismatics to not adhere to him. The BASIS for our refusal to submit to him is because we perceive him to have no office within the Church. How is that schismatic?
Gimme Dogma.
Gimme a Council
Gimme a THeologian.
Gimme a Cardinal, or saint or Bishop or SOMETHING.
If we are Schismatics, then so was St. Vincent Ferrer.
That's right, he supported Anti-Pope Benedict XIII- but guess what, he is a saint and was never censured or condemned as a schismatic!
Why could that be...?
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Here the theologian Vidal EXCUSES those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff on account of RUMORS of his invalid election! RUMORS! Sedevacantists have ALOT more to go on than rumors, seriously.
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
Wow, so here we have a DOCTOR of CANON LAW, a qualified EXPERT saying that if one merely SUSPECTS the Pope to be invalid, his refusal to submit does not constitute an act of schism. I think it is right to suspect the validity of any "Pope" who allows such things as Assisi III, praying with Muslims in THEIR Mosques in THEIR prayer postures, and TAKES OF HIS BLOODY SHOES when entering, who venerates the "Altars" of Lutheran Heretics, who denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Tabernacle according to its proper mode of subsistence, etc.
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
The Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, Juan de Lugo, on eof the Church's greatest theologians is also on the sede side.
Here's a fact concerning the Legitimacy of Benedict's Power: He can only exercise the office of Pope if he IS Pope. But a Pope is the Supreme and Universal Head of the Visible Members of the Church of Christ, with Jurisdiction over all of them. This is what Vatican I defined. But now Benny is saying that schismatics and heretics make up the Church of Christ too! That means that they are ALSO visible member sof the Church of Christ. But guess what? He has no Jurisdiction over them! Nor do they acknowledge him as their head. Therefore, by Definition of Vatican I, he CANNOT be the Pope, for the Pope has full, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the visible members of the church of Christ which he can freely exercise at any time. You won't see Benny do that to the Archbishop of Canterburry will you? Nope. But according to him, he is a visible member of the church of Christ.
How can he then be the Pope if he has not the POWER of the Papacy? He cannot be.
Therefore, LP, we are not now, nor can we ever be considered Schismatics. That is something the semi-trads have to deal with, not us.
Show me a canonist or a theologian who teaches otherwise. Just ONE.
-
I did not call them schismatic for doubting the validity of the Popes, I called them Schismatics for their denying communion with Catholics who hold the true faith. That is an act of schism.
You may rest assured, that I did not find your post in this thread schismatic.
-
I did not call them schismatic for doubting the validity of the Popes, I called them Schismatics for their denying communion with Catholics who hold the true faith. That is an act of schism.
You may rest assured, that I did not find your post in this thread schismatic.
Rejecting a mass una cuм Benedict XVI is not denying communion with Catholics who hold the true faith. It is refusal to offer mass at "one with" a known heretic because people who hold the traditional doctrine are not "one with" someone who hold the complete opposite doctrine.
If Catholics who hold the true faith "doubt the validity" of the pope for reasons of manifest obstinate, repeated heresy and actual apostasy, it would be false to offer mass "una cuм". It would be lying. It would be condoning that heresy and apostasy.
I could understand if there was confusion as to whether he were elected validly, but still promoted the acknowledged and traditional Catholic Dogma. We would have no real way of knowing and would easily be justified, but this is not questionable in this case. There is no confusion here because it is a matter of rejecting false doctrine.
That is not to say we stop converting novus ordo church members. But it is ridiculous to offer mass together with a non-believer as if nothing is contradictory. It is demeaning and injurious to the one true faith. It is a source of scandal.
It is the basic fundamental debate of ecuмenism and indifferentism, isn't it?
-
Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.
Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.
Do you not understand that those who DOUBT the Popes election cannot be considered schismatic for their refusal to adhere to him?
This is the general consensus of theologians: Even if it were an objectively wrong FACT that the Pope is NOT the Pope, you can't call us schismatics to not adhere to him. The BASIS for our refusal to submit to him is because we perceive him to have no office within the Church. How is that schismatic?
Gimme Dogma.
Gimme a Council
Gimme a THeologian.
Gimme a Cardinal, or saint or Bishop or SOMETHING.
If we are Schismatics, then so was St. Vincent Ferrer.
That's right, he supported Anti-Pope Benedict XIII- but guess what, he is a saint and was never censured or condemned as a schismatic!
Why could that be...?
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Here the theologian Vidal EXCUSES those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff on account of RUMORS of his invalid election! RUMORS! Sedevacantists have ALOT more to go on than rumors, seriously.
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
Wow, so here we have a DOCTOR of CANON LAW, a qualified EXPERT saying that if one merely SUSPECTS the Pope to be invalid, his refusal to submit does not constitute an act of schism. I think it is right to suspect the validity of any "Pope" who allows such things as Assisi III, praying with Muslims in THEIR Mosques in THEIR prayer postures, and TAKES OF HIS BLOODY SHOES when entering, who venerates the "Altars" of Lutheran Heretics, who denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Tabernacle according to its proper mode of subsistence, etc.
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
The Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, Juan de Lugo, on eof the Church's greatest theologians is also on the sede side.
Here's a fact concerning the Legitimacy of Benedict's Power: He can only exercise the office of Pope if he IS Pope. But a Pope is the Supreme and Universal Head of the Visible Members of the Church of Christ, with Jurisdiction over all of them. This is what Vatican I defined. But now Benny is saying that schismatics and heretics make up the Church of Christ too! That means that they are ALSO visible member sof the Church of Christ. But guess what? He has no Jurisdiction over them! Nor do they acknowledge him as their head. Therefore, by Definition of Vatican I, he CANNOT be the Pope, for the Pope has full, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the visible members of the church of Christ which he can freely exercise at any time. You won't see Benny do that to the Archbishop of Canterburry will you? Nope. But according to him, he is a visible member of the church of Christ.
How can he then be the Pope if he has not the POWER of the Papacy? He cannot be.
Therefore, LP, we are not now, nor can we ever be considered Schismatics. That is something the semi-trads have to deal with, not us.
Show me a canonist or a theologian who teaches otherwise. Just ONE.
None of the Fr Popes of GWS have ever been defined as anti-popes.
-
Another problem with the una cuм declaration is that it is a sin against the profession of the Faith.
As much as it is necessary for the Catholic priest to mention the name of the reigning pontiff as a sign of his communion with him and the Catholic Church as a whole, it is equally necessary for him to avoid mentioning the name of anyone who is not in communion with the Catholic Church. When schismatics were reconciled to the Catholic Church, they had to omit, as part of their sign of adherence, the names of their schismatic Patriarchs from the canon of the Mass. In his Bibliotheca, Fr. Ferraris cites the case of a schismatic bishop who was reconciled to Rome. The papal legates reassure the pope that, during the course of the Mass, no name was mentioned which was odious to the Catholic Faith:
“Finally the legates of [Pope] Hormisda recount to the Pope with these words what happened to them during the reconciliation of the bishop of the city of Troili Scampina: We confess, they said, that it would be hard to find in another people so much devotion to you Holiness, so much praise to God, so many tears and so much joy. Nearly all the people received us into the city , both the men and the women with candles, and the soldiers with crosses. Masses were celebrated, and no name which is loathsome to religion was mentioned but only that of Your Holiness.”
He also mentions that it is licit to pray for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics in the Memento of the living, since it is a private and not a public prayer, thereby implying that it would not be licit to mention them publicly:
“The priest should be warned however [with Azor. lib X, cap. 22, quæst. 3,] that he can correctly pray in the Memento for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics, since this is a private and not public prayer.”[4]
Benedict XIV (14) himself ordered the Italo-Greeks to mention the name of the Pope and local bishop, lest there be any suspicion of schism among them, and furthermore forbade from mentioning the name of a schismatic Patriarch:
“The second part of the same warning follows in which, as was noted above, the Greek priest is enjoined, during the Mass, after he has prayed for the Roman Pontiff, to pray also for his own bishop, and for his Patriarch, provided that they be Catholic; for if one or the other or both were a schismatic or a heretic, he would not be permitted to make a mention of them.”[5]
Pope Benedict, in fact, makes frequent warning of the necessity not to mention the name of anyone who is a schismatic or a heretic:
“...but let him carefully avoid making mention of the names of schismatics or heretics.”
“Nor is he [the Greek priest] generally prohibited, in the often cited Monitum, from making mention of the Patriarch, but only in the case where the Metropolitans or Patriarchs should be schismatics or heretics...”[6]
He then cites three cases in which priests were specifically forbidden by the Holy Office to mention the name of schismatic prelates, in 1673, 1674 and 1732 respectively. The one in 1673 is of special interest, since the priest’s motive in mentioning the name of the schismatic was to attract the schismatics to the Catholic Church. The answer was it is absolutely forbidden. Put that in your ecuмenical pipe and smoke it.
Pope Benedict states that the reason for this prohibition is that heretics and schismatics are excommunicates, and it is not licit to pray publicly for excommunicates: “The Sacred Canons of the Church prohibit praying for excommunicates...And although there is nothing wrong with praying for their conversion, this must not be done by pronouncing their names in the solemn prayer of the Sacrifice. This observance is in accordance with the traditional discipline...”[7]He furthermore quotes St. Thomas: “One can pray for excommunicates, although not in those prayers which are offered for the members of the Church.”
- taken from Sanborn
-
Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.
Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.
Do you not understand that those who DOUBT the Popes election cannot be considered schismatic for their refusal to adhere to him?
This is the general consensus of theologians: Even if it were an objectively wrong FACT that the Pope is NOT the Pope, you can't call us schismatics to not adhere to him. The BASIS for our refusal to submit to him is because we perceive him to have no office within the Church. How is that schismatic?
Gimme Dogma.
Gimme a Council
Gimme a THeologian.
Gimme a Cardinal, or saint or Bishop or SOMETHING.
If we are Schismatics, then so was St. Vincent Ferrer.
That's right, he supported Anti-Pope Benedict XIII- but guess what, he is a saint and was never censured or condemned as a schismatic!
Why could that be...?
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Here the theologian Vidal EXCUSES those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff on account of RUMORS of his invalid election! RUMORS! Sedevacantists have ALOT more to go on than rumors, seriously.
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
Wow, so here we have a DOCTOR of CANON LAW, a qualified EXPERT saying that if one merely SUSPECTS the Pope to be invalid, his refusal to submit does not constitute an act of schism. I think it is right to suspect the validity of any "Pope" who allows such things as Assisi III, praying with Muslims in THEIR Mosques in THEIR prayer postures, and TAKES OF HIS BLOODY SHOES when entering, who venerates the "Altars" of Lutheran Heretics, who denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Tabernacle according to its proper mode of subsistence, etc.
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
The Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, Juan de Lugo, on eof the Church's greatest theologians is also on the sede side.
Here's a fact concerning the Legitimacy of Benedict's Power: He can only exercise the office of Pope if he IS Pope. But a Pope is the Supreme and Universal Head of the Visible Members of the Church of Christ, with Jurisdiction over all of them. This is what Vatican I defined. But now Benny is saying that schismatics and heretics make up the Church of Christ too! That means that they are ALSO visible member sof the Church of Christ. But guess what? He has no Jurisdiction over them! Nor do they acknowledge him as their head. Therefore, by Definition of Vatican I, he CANNOT be the Pope, for the Pope has full, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the visible members of the church of Christ which he can freely exercise at any time. You won't see Benny do that to the Archbishop of Canterburry will you? Nope. But according to him, he is a visible member of the church of Christ.
How can he then be the Pope if he has not the POWER of the Papacy? He cannot be.
Therefore, LP, we are not now, nor can we ever be considered Schismatics. That is something the semi-trads have to deal with, not us.
Show me a canonist or a theologian who teaches otherwise. Just ONE.
None of the Fr Popes of GWS have ever been defined as anti-popes.
IOW-- St Vincent Ferrer did not support an anti-pope.
-
Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.
Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.
Do you not understand that those who DOUBT the Popes election cannot be considered schismatic for their refusal to adhere to him?
This is the general consensus of theologians: Even if it were an objectively wrong FACT that the Pope is NOT the Pope, you can't call us schismatics to not adhere to him. The BASIS for our refusal to submit to him is because we perceive him to have no office within the Church. How is that schismatic?
Gimme Dogma.
Gimme a Council
Gimme a THeologian.
Gimme a Cardinal, or saint or Bishop or SOMETHING.
If we are Schismatics, then so was St. Vincent Ferrer.
That's right, he supported Anti-Pope Benedict XIII- but guess what, he is a saint and was never censured or condemned as a schismatic!
Why could that be...?
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Here the theologian Vidal EXCUSES those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff on account of RUMORS of his invalid election! RUMORS! Sedevacantists have ALOT more to go on than rumors, seriously.
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
Wow, so here we have a DOCTOR of CANON LAW, a qualified EXPERT saying that if one merely SUSPECTS the Pope to be invalid, his refusal to submit does not constitute an act of schism. I think it is right to suspect the validity of any "Pope" who allows such things as Assisi III, praying with Muslims in THEIR Mosques in THEIR prayer postures, and TAKES OF HIS BLOODY SHOES when entering, who venerates the "Altars" of Lutheran Heretics, who denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Tabernacle according to its proper mode of subsistence, etc.
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
The Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, Juan de Lugo, on eof the Church's greatest theologians is also on the sede side.
Here's a fact concerning the Legitimacy of Benedict's Power: He can only exercise the office of Pope if he IS Pope. But a Pope is the Supreme and Universal Head of the Visible Members of the Church of Christ, with Jurisdiction over all of them. This is what Vatican I defined. But now Benny is saying that schismatics and heretics make up the Church of Christ too! That means that they are ALSO visible member sof the Church of Christ. But guess what? He has no Jurisdiction over them! Nor do they acknowledge him as their head. Therefore, by Definition of Vatican I, he CANNOT be the Pope, for the Pope has full, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the visible members of the church of Christ which he can freely exercise at any time. You won't see Benny do that to the Archbishop of Canterburry will you? Nope. But according to him, he is a visible member of the church of Christ.
How can he then be the Pope if he has not the POWER of the Papacy? He cannot be.
Therefore, LP, we are not now, nor can we ever be considered Schismatics. That is something the semi-trads have to deal with, not us.
Show me a canonist or a theologian who teaches otherwise. Just ONE.
None of the Fr Popes of GWS have ever been defined as anti-popes.
IOW-- St Vincent Ferrer did not support an anti-pope.
So, you are telling me that Benedict XIII was the true papal claimant?
-
My understanding from von Pastor is that a compromise was reached as the Council dragged on. It was then decided that because the schism was only political in nature, one was left free to recognise either the Fr or It faction as Pope. John repented and he was the only one accused of heretical views so I do not believe even he is an antipope.
I am not aware of any Church docuмent declaring the Fr faction as anti-popes. The only thing I have ever seen claiming them as anti-popes is the Catholic Almanac list reprinted in Fr Radecki's book and that is not official. To my knowledge, no one has ever posted a Catholic Dictionary or Encyclopedia reference claiming this.
BTW-- my apologies to Fr Radecki as it was the Catholic Almanac list published in his book and not him specifically that accuses the Fr Popes are anti-popes.
-
So there has never been a definitive decision as to who was the Pope and who was Anti-pope?
But the Point I was making Still stands: Between Boniface IX and Benedict XIII ONE of them was schismatic and an anti-pope. There were saints on both sides of the issues. In other words, you had saints supporting people who were objectively NOT the Pope; and yet they were not considered schismatic.
So, if a sedevacantist, in a similar manner, refuses to recognize Benedict because of his manifest heresy, it cannot be an act of schism. It is an act of prudence and taking the safer course.
The Vatican II God forgives all, so surely he will accept us if we err.
That was my point, and I think it is still a valid one.
-
So there has never been a definitive decision as to who was the Pope and who was Anti-pope?
But the Point I was making Still stands: Between Boniface IX and Benedict XIII ONE of them was schismatic and an anti-pope. There were saints on both sides of the issues. In other words, you had saints supporting people who were objectively NOT the Pope; and yet they were not considered schismatic.
So, if a sedevacantist, in a similar manner, refuses to recognize Benedict because of his manifest heresy, it cannot be an act of schism. It is an act of prudence and taking the safer course.
The Vatican II God forgives all, so surely he will accept us if we err.
That was my point, and I think it is still a valid one.
U are missing the point. Just because one of either Boniface or Benedict was a political schismatic does not make him an anti-pope. Atwater agrees he says---' The Clementine popes of GWS are not called anti-popes owing to the historical uncertainty of their status,'
-
"Political Schismatic?"
That's a Euphemism.
The term is Anti-pope.
The defintion: When there is a valid living pope, and another man claims, in opposition to the living pope, to be pope.
It is manifest that the Roman Popes were the true Popes. All others must therefore be anti-popes.
Why is that wrong?
-
Gregory,
The term is Anti-pope.
The defintion: When there is a valid living pope, and another man claims, in opposition to the living pope, to be pope.
If this is so, shouldn't there be at least two visible, credible claimants to the Papal throne in order for you to postulate, as you do, the possibility of an Antipope? Just curious as to how that would apply to the last 50 years, unless you happen to believe the Siri thesis, that is. But even in that case, it is difficult to see, in more than one way, how your own definition would apply.
-
Gregory,
The term is Anti-pope.
The defintion: When there is a valid living pope, and another man claims, in opposition to the living pope, to be pope.
If this is so, shouldn't there be at least two visible, credible claimants to the Papal throne in order for you to postulate, as you do, the possibility of an Antipope? Just curious as to how that would apply to the last 50 years, unless you happen to believe the Siri thesis, that is. But even in that case, it is difficult to see, in more than one way, how your own definition would apply.
Yes, I see no anti-pope(s) today, just a man who appears to be sitting on the throne of Peter.
-
Gregory,
The term is Anti-pope.
The defintion: When there is a valid living pope, and another man claims, in opposition to the living pope, to be pope.
If this is so, shouldn't there be at least two visible, credible claimants to the Papal throne in order for you to postulate, as you do, the possibility of an Antipope? Just curious as to how that would apply to the last 50 years, unless you happen to believe the Siri thesis, that is. But even in that case, it is difficult to see, in more than one way, how your own definition would apply.
No, no, my point wasn't that the "Popes" today are anti-popes per se, (although it may be plausible) Simply that a person can find themselves on the wrong side of Rome without being a schismatic, like St. Vincent Ferrer, who supported an anti-pope, Benedict XIII, yet he raised scores of people from the dead (I think 30 or more) and had hundreds of nearly unbelievable miracles take place during his life.
Why wasn't St. Vincent suspended? What happened to his faculties? Was he a schismatic?
There are clear exceptions to certain canonical rules when a person sincerely believes that the Person who claims to be Pope is not the Pope. St. Vincent Exemplifies that.
-
Show some evidence from some Catholic Encyclopedia or other reference that Benedict XIII is an anti-pope. The Catholic Almanac has already been cited.
I have used von Pastor and Atwater. If U don't like it take it up with them.
St Ferrer did not recognise an anti-pope. The Fr. Popes of GWS are NOT anti-popes.
-
Show some evidence from some Catholic Encyclopedia or other reference that Benedict XIII is an anti-pope. The Catholic Almanac has already been cited.
I have used von Pastor and Atwater. If U don't like it take it up with them.
St Ferrer did not recognise an anti-pope. The Fr. Popes of GWS are NOT anti-popes.
SESSION 37 - 26 July 1417
[Definitive sentence whereby Peter de Luna, pope Benedict XIII, is divested of the papacy and deprived of the faith.]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм16.htm
"May this judgment come forth from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from his mouth proceeds a double-edged sword, whose scales are just and weights are true, who will come to judge the living and the dead, our lord Jesus Christ, Amen. The Lord is just and loves just deeds, his face looks on righteousness. But the Lord looks on those who do evil so as to cut off their remembrance from the earth. Let there perish, says the holy prophet, the memory of him who did not remember to show mercy and who persecuted the poor and needy. How much more should there perish the memory of Peter de Luna, called by some Benedict XIII, who persecuted and disturbed all people and the universal church? For, how greatly he has sinned against God's church and the entire christian people, fostering, nourishing and continuing the schism and division of God's church How ardent and frequent have been the devout and humble prayers, exhortations and requests of kings, princes and prelates with which he has been warned in charity, in accordance with the teaching of the gospel, to bring peace to the church, to heal its wounds and to reconstitute its divided parts into one structure and one body, as he had sworn to do, and as for a long time it was within his power to do ! He was unwilling, however, to listen to their charitable admonitions. How many were the persons afterwards sent to attest to him! Because he did not listen at all even to these, it has been necessary, in accordance with the aforesaid evangelical teaching of Christ, to say to the church, since he has not listened even to her, that he should be treated as a heathen and a publican. All these things have been clearly proved by the articles coming from the inquiry into faith and the schism held before this present synod, regarding the above and other matters brought against him, as well as by their truth and notoriety. The proceedings have been correct and canonical, all the acts have been correctly and carefully examined and there has been mature deliberation. Therefore this same holy general synod, representing the universal church and sitting as a tribunal in the aforesaid inquiry, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence written here, that the same Peter de Luna, called Benedict XIII as has been said, has been and is a perjurer, a cause of scandal to the universal church, a promoter and breeder of the ancient schism, that long established fission and division in God's holy church, an obstructer of the peace and unity of the said church, a schismatic disturber and a heretic, a deviator from the faith, a persistent violator of the article of the faith One holy catholic church, incorrigible, notorious and manifest in his scandal to God's church, and that he has rendered himself unworthy of every title, rank, honour and dignity, rejected and cut off by God, deprived by the law itself of every right in any way belonging to him in the papacy or pertaining to the Roman pontiff and the Roman church, and cut off from the catholic church like a withered member. This same holy synod, moreover, as a precautionary measure, since according to himself he actually holds the papacy, deprives, deposes and casts out the said Peter from the papacy and from being the supreme pontiff of the Roman church and from every title, rank, honour, dignity, benefice and office whatsoever. It forbids him to act henceforth as the pope or as the supreme and Roman pontiff. It absolves and declares to be absolved all Christ's faithful from obedience to him, and from every duty of obedience to him and from oaths and obligations in any way made to him. It forbids each and every one of Christ's faithful to obey, respond to or attend to, as if he were pope, the said Peter de Luna, who is a notorious, declared and deposed schismatic and incorrigible heretic, or to sustain or harbour him in any way contrary to the aforesaid, or to offer him help, advice or good will. This is forbidden under pain of the offender being counted as a promoter of schism and heresy and of being deprived of all benefices, dignities and ecclesiastical or secular honours, and under other penalties of the law, even if the dignity is that of a bishop, a patriarch, a cardinal, a king or the emperor. If they act contrary to this prohibition, they are by this very fact deprived of these things, on the authority of this decree and sentence, and they incur the other penalties of the law. This holy synod, moreover, declares and decrees that all and singular prohibitions and all processes, sentences, constitu- tions, censures and any other things whatsoever that were issued by him and might impede the aforesaid, are without effect; and it invalidates, revokes and annuls them; saving always the other penalties which the law decrees for the above cases."
At LEAST after Constance, Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna) continued to behave as Pope and was deposed and declared schismatic and heretical. At this time at LEAST he was an anti-pope against Pope Martin until his death in 1423.
So to say he was not an antipope is ridiculous and a-historical. He rejected the council of constance and was deposed by it and still continued to maintain himself Pope. That is the definition of an antipope.
-
SJB said:
Yes, I see no anti-pope(s) today, just a man who appears to be sitting on the throne of Peter.
Gregory I said:
No, no, my point wasn't that the "Popes" today are anti-popes per se
I guess my question was, How you would answer the objection that no Catholic ought to postulate the possibility of an antipope unless there are at least two visible and credible claimants to the Papal office? Maybe that position is what the virtue of prudence calls for.
Likewise, it can be said that those who attempted to depose Pope Liberius, even if they acted in good faith, were imprudent in doing so, and so far from advancing the cause of the Faith and the Church, actively hindered it, not to mention affronted the dignity of the Vicar of Christ.
As for the Saints, again, well, I think this works against sedevacantists who treat it as an anathematizing issue. For my part, no, I don't think St.Ferrer was schismatic at all. Neither side was in schism.
I guess my real disagreement with sedevacantism as it is espoused today is, Where do you draw the line? If it is right and just to reject upto 5 Papal claimants, then why not 10? Is there any limit to which you can go back, then? And besides, this then becomes a sort of justification for every schismatic sect in the past, whether Syrians, Greeks or others, who will just claim that all Popes and their successors since then have lost their office by being heretics. How would sedevacantists respond to that?
-
So there has never been a definitive decision as to who was the Pope and who was Anti-pope?
Wrong-- As von Pastor explains. The Council reached a compromise-- Catholic is free to recognise either the Fr or It popes of GWS. This is the 'definitive decision'.
-
Show some evidence from some Catholic Encyclopedia or other reference that Benedict XIII is an anti-pope. The Catholic Almanac has already been cited.
I have used von Pastor and Atwater. If U don't like it take it up with them.
St Ferrer did not recognise an anti-pope. The Fr. Popes of GWS are NOT anti-popes.
SESSION 37 - 26 July 1417
[Definitive sentence whereby Peter de Luna, pope Benedict XIII, is divested of the papacy and deprived of the faith.]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм16.htm
"May this judgment come forth from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from his mouth proceeds a double-edged sword, whose scales are just and weights are true, who will come to judge the living and the dead, our lord Jesus Christ, Amen. The Lord is just and loves just deeds, his face looks on righteousness. But the Lord looks on those who do evil so as to cut off their remembrance from the earth. Let there perish, says the holy prophet, the memory of him who did not remember to show mercy and who persecuted the poor and needy. How much more should there perish the memory of Peter de Luna, called by some Benedict XIII, who persecuted and disturbed all people and the universal church? For, how greatly he has sinned against God's church and the entire christian people, fostering, nourishing and continuing the schism and division of God's church How ardent and frequent have been the devout and humble prayers, exhortations and requests of kings, princes and prelates with which he has been warned in charity, in accordance with the teaching of the gospel, to bring peace to the church, to heal its wounds and to reconstitute its divided parts into one structure and one body, as he had sworn to do, and as for a long time it was within his power to do ! He was unwilling, however, to listen to their charitable admonitions. How many were the persons afterwards sent to attest to him! Because he did not listen at all even to these, it has been necessary, in accordance with the aforesaid evangelical teaching of Christ, to say to the church, since he has not listened even to her, that he should be treated as a heathen and a publican. All these things have been clearly proved by the articles coming from the inquiry into faith and the schism held before this present synod, regarding the above and other matters brought against him, as well as by their truth and notoriety. The proceedings have been correct and canonical, all the acts have been correctly and carefully examined and there has been mature deliberation. Therefore this same holy general synod, representing the universal church and sitting as a tribunal in the aforesaid inquiry, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence written here, that the same Peter de Luna, called Benedict XIII as has been said, has been and is a perjurer, a cause of scandal to the universal church, a promoter and breeder of the ancient schism, that long established fission and division in God's holy church, an obstructer of the peace and unity of the said church, a schismatic disturber and a heretic, a deviator from the faith, a persistent violator of the article of the faith One holy catholic church, incorrigible, notorious and manifest in his scandal to God's church, and that he has rendered himself unworthy of every title, rank, honour and dignity, rejected and cut off by God, deprived by the law itself of every right in any way belonging to him in the papacy or pertaining to the Roman pontiff and the Roman church, and cut off from the catholic church like a withered member. This same holy synod, moreover, as a precautionary measure, since according to himself he actually holds the papacy, deprives, deposes and casts out the said Peter from the papacy and from being the supreme pontiff of the Roman church and from every title, rank, honour, dignity, benefice and office whatsoever. It forbids him to act henceforth as the pope or as the supreme and Roman pontiff. It absolves and declares to be absolved all Christ's faithful from obedience to him, and from every duty of obedience to him and from oaths and obligations in any way made to him. It forbids each and every one of Christ's faithful to obey, respond to or attend to, as if he were pope, the said Peter de Luna, who is a notorious, declared and deposed schismatic and incorrigible heretic, or to sustain or harbour him in any way contrary to the aforesaid, or to offer him help, advice or good will. This is forbidden under pain of the offender being counted as a promoter of schism and heresy and of being deprived of all benefices, dignities and ecclesiastical or secular honours, and under other penalties of the law, even if the dignity is that of a bishop, a patriarch, a cardinal, a king or the emperor. If they act contrary to this prohibition, they are by this very fact deprived of these things, on the authority of this decree and sentence, and they incur the other penalties of the law. This holy synod, moreover, declares and decrees that all and singular prohibitions and all processes, sentences, constitu- tions, censures and any other things whatsoever that were issued by him and might impede the aforesaid, are without effect; and it invalidates, revokes and annuls them; saving always the other penalties which the law decrees for the above cases."
At LEAST after Constance, Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna) continued to behave as Pope and was deposed and declared schismatic and heretical. At this time at LEAST he was an anti-pope against Pope Martin until his death in 1423.
So to say he was not an antipope is ridiculous and a-historical. He rejected the council of constance and was deposed by it and still continued to maintain himself Pope. That is the definition of an antipope.
Thanks for posting this-- I need time to study the docuмent. All I can tell U is that von Pastor and Atwater agree that the Clementine popes are not anti-popes. To me this makes sense as there was no heresy, homos or blasphemers among them. Pope John recanted his heresy and that was the only case.
Can a source from one of the various Catholic Encyclopedia's( on line or otherwise) be cited stating that any of the Fr popes are indeed anti-popes?
Since Greg is such a sleuth, maybe he could find English copies of the tobacco Bulls of Popes Urban, Innocent & Benedict? I for one would very much like to read them.
I was not aware of the post Council behavior of de Luna, so U may be right there but what about a ref from a Catholic Encyclopedia? because I have not seen one.
The docuмent does not actually say that de Luna is an anti-pope. It says he divested of the papacy and deprived of the faith.
?
-
At any rate, wouldn't a Bull rather than an Encyclical be needed for the declaration of an anti-pope? I cannot find a Papal Bulls Online link.