Author Topic: Dogmatic Sedevacantists do not exist. (Read 6949 times)

LordPhan · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2011, 12:56:42 AM »

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.

sedesvacans · « **Reply #21 on:** October 24, 2011, 12:02:30 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

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?

roscoe · « **Reply #22 on:** October 24, 2011, 01:54:50 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: LordPhan
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.

sedesvacans · « **Reply #23 on:** October 24, 2011, 09:48:42 AM »

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

roscoe · « **Reply #24 on:** October 24, 2011, 12:03:26 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: LordPhan
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.