Author Topic: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis (Read 7453 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** November 04, 2022, 04:45:58 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 04, 2022, 01:33:31 PM

No, I don't think you read my longer answer to this question. This is a bit of a straw man position. It isn't one crazy old lady that is saying Bergoglio is not the pope. It's every Catholic in the world that is saying he at least isn't the rule of faith, even if not all of them say he's not the pope. What one crazy person does proves nothing and isn't relevant to the situation today, so this objection doesn't really need to be answered and can't really be answered anyway. Just like with your crazy friend who doesn't think Pius IX was the pope. He's just one nut case, and it doesn't make sense to formulate any real objection on the strength of the actions of one nut job.

I did read the longer answer, and, yes, this guy was a nutcase (along with Ibranyi et al.) ... but WHY is he a nutcase? What IN PRINCIPLE, based on Totalism, should stop him from doing this? There's nothing there, no backstop. This is where Father Cekada stated that we can't question HISTORICAL popes, but only present ones, except the one theologian I cited stated that someone at his time (during the reing of Pius XII) would be a heretic if he decided Pius XII wasn't the pope. Father C butchered the meaning of the term "historical" to mean "past" to get out of this problem, but it was not accurate. Could those Old Catholics have been right and Pius IX was a heretic (after all, there were serious claims out there that he had been a Freemason)? If they couldn't have been right, why? Then based on that answer, why is it OK now for us to do the same thing with VII. VII taugth heresy, so the V2 papal claimants are heretics.

In general, when there's universal peaceful acceptance, no one declare the See empty. Now, one can at some point begin raising questions, but that's as far as they could go until a braoder consensus were reached on the matter.

But that's really the problem here. This isn't a question of ... V2 never happened, NOM never happened, bad papal Magisterium never happened, but Bergolgio was giving sermons in Rome spouting heresy.

Why this is different and where reason does factor in is in determining whether the Conciliar Church has the Marks of the Catholic Church. It does not. So we therefore do not give its teaching, its Sacraments, its discipline/laws any mind. As to what the legal status of the pope is, no pope, partial pope, drugged pope, blackmailed pope, kidnapped pope, insane pope, imposter/double pope (with real one tied up in a dungeon), none of that actually matters as far as we're concerned and it not a problem we're required to solve. I actually think the issue comes from the fact that Siri was the Pope and he impeded the See from being occupied. But that's a theory among a dozen other theories. It's like the old (albeit vulgar) saying, "opinions [theories] are like [rectal orifices] -- everybody has one".

Bottom line. Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church? If it is, we are bound to submit. If it is not, then we cannot submit but must reject it.

But, no, an Aunt Helen can't wake up one morning on, say, October 30, 1951, and decide that based on Pius XII's "Allocution to Midwives" the day before, Pius XII is a heretic and a non-pope, so that when a few years later he defines te dogma of the Assumption, it's not certain de fide because Pius XII's papacy is now in doubt.

2Vermont · « **Reply #61 on:** November 04, 2022, 04:49:18 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 04, 2022, 04:21:12 PM

Finally, I saw you mentioned cuм Ex Apostolatus. I don't understand how that could support the C Thesis. The pope specified that if a man is found to be a manifest heretic, his election to the papacy is null and void. That would remove the basis for the claim to pope materialiter.

Good point.

In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]

that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

....
[iv] to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

Ladislaus · « **Reply #62 on:** November 04, 2022, 04:52:04 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 04, 2022, 01:44:09 PM

The objection is so far out of the boundaries of the claim it's objecting to, not to mention so far out of the boundaries of rational thought, that it can't be taken all that seriously. That's my answer to people who object to sedevacantism by pointing to people like Richard Ibryani or your anti-Pius IX friend.

Your dismisaal of it for emotional reason, that it's "crazy" is entirely inadequate, and it impugns the principles behind Totalism until you can come up with a rational disctinction to prevent taking Totalism to this absurdum.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #63 on:** November 04, 2022, 04:53:54 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 04, 2022, 04:34:43 PM

But since 2013, I would say that most "totalists" are not claiming that Conciliar "popes" fell into heresy. Most are now claiming that these men were never validly elected in the first place. Pius IX is only talking about the hierarchy falling into heresy. It appears that he is taking St Robert Bellarmine's position that it is not possible for a pope (once elected) to fall into heresy. But it definitely is possible for villains to infiltrate the hierarchy and defraud the faithful of a truly Catholic pope. This situation has been prophesied by multiple sources.

This shift doesn't really address the core issue above. Regardless of why Pope X is not the Pope, why can't Aunt Helen make this conclusion?

Hardicanute · « **Reply #64 on:** November 04, 2022, 04:55:07 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 04, 2022, 04:34:43 PM

You might have a valid point with the Pope Pius IX quote. But since 2013, I would say that most "totalists" are not claiming that Conciliar "popes" fell into heresy. Most are now claiming that these men were never validly elected in the first place. Pius IX is only talking about the hierarchy falling into heresy. It appears that he is taking St Robert Bellarmine's position that it is not possible for a pope (once elected) to fall into heresy. But it definitely is possible for villains to infiltrate the hierarchy and defraud the faithful of a truly Catholic pope. This situation has been prophesied by multiple sources.

The problem with visibility and apostolicity would still remain for the Totalist position, I think, even if the contestation of the election is proven. However, it is not proven. John XXIII was universally and peacefully accepted during his entire pontificate and Paul VI the same up until after Vatican II. So the question of an invalid election is highly problematic in this context. Moreover, let’s not overlook the fact that virtually all of the Bishops and Priests in communion also approved their magisterial commitments to the reforms which would be very important to consider in the context of Etsi Multa above and what Fr. Berry stated:

MAJORITY INFALLIBLE. Since the bishops are infallible in their corporate capacity only, individual bishops may err at any time in regard to faith and morals, but all cannot fall into the same error at the same time. The further question now arises: Can a majority of the bishops fall into error at one and the same time regarding a matter of faith or morals? Or, to state the opposite side of the question: Is the agreement of a majority of the bishops of the world sufficient to establish the infallible truth of a doctrine, or must there be a practically unanimous agreement? It seems most probable that the agreement of a majority is sufficient to insure the truth of any doctrine, for it would certainly be a great evil for the Church if the greater part of her teaching body could fall into error at any time. It is true that in such a crisis the in- fallible authority of the Roman Pontiff would be sufficient to preserve the faith, but the Catholicity of the Church would be seriously affected, if not destroyed. Besides, it can scarcely be admitted that Christ, in His wisdom would allow such a calamity to befall His Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #65 on:** November 04, 2022, 05:00:15 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 04, 2022, 01:02:23 PM

#2 is answered by the case of Nestorius. The people of Constantinople immediately rejected him as bishop before he was condemned by the Church. They walked right out of the cathedral in the middle of his heretical sermon, in protest.

No, it really isn't. Pope St. Celestine simply stated that he had no authority, not that he had no office.

So you're saying that Cushing was a non-bishop and that the priests in his diocese also lacked jurisdiction?

See, I think that's nonsensical. While the Pope did not depose him, he continued to serve as a passive conduit for jurisdiction (if you hold the position that jurisdiction flows to bishops through the Pope and not immediately from Christ). it's similar to the "Color of Title" argument made that saves Totalism, where the Bishop continues to have a certain amout of office, jurisdiction, etc. that he can pass on ... even if he's bereft of authority to do things like, oh, teach heresy or excommunicate those who hold him to be a heretic. But if Cushing appointed Father Bob to be Pastor of St. Mary's, that priest would then be the legitimate Pastor of St. Mary's even if Cushing was a heretic. Cushing could continue to appoint, and act as a conduit for jurisdiction, even though he couldn't do other things with it, such as teach error or excommunicate those who reject his errors. But then saying that this same thing could apply to a Pope leads us back to Sedeprivationism.

SPism is the only thing that makes sense.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #66 on:** November 04, 2022, 05:02:27 PM »

Quote from: Hardicanute on November 04, 2022, 04:55:07 PM

The problem with visibility and apostolicity would still remain for the Totalist position ...

I disagree; this is one of the weakest arguments against Totalism.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #67 on:** November 04, 2022, 05:03:17 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 04, 2022, 01:02:23 PM

.

To #1, the answer is yes. St. Paul said to the Ephesians that "If I or an angel from heaven preach to you a different gospel from the one I have preached to you, let him be anathema." St. Paul was not only a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, but the greatest of the Apostles! So if the laypeople he told to do this could hear a gospel from him and conclude that it is different and that St. Paul is therefore anathema, then so can anyone. The problem with your friend who thought Pius IX is not the pope is that apparently he is the one who lost his faith, not (obviously) Pope Pius 9.

This might seem like a bit of a circular answer, but you have to look at the big picture. We are in a worldwide crisis of faith in which everyone who believes in the Catholic Faith likewise believes they cannot accept the teachings of Bergoglio. While different people have different explanations of how they justify rejecting his teaching, it is universally accepted among all Catholics that his teaching is not Catholic. So it's apples and oranges to compare this universal rejection of Bergolgio and the modernist sect with some nut somewhere who doesn't think Pius IX was pope.

#2 is answered by the case of Nestorius. The people of Constantinople immediately rejected him as bishop before he was condemned by the Church. They walked right out of the cathedral in the middle of his heretical sermon, in protest.

But neighboring Bishop Eulalius, who also recognized Nestorius as a manifest heretic, did not break communion with Nestorius immediately. And he was not thereby implicated in the heresy. So it is possible that some Catholics might be in communion with heretics without incurring the punishment for heresy. But the pope only commended the people who broke communion immediately. So for Cushing, because of common error, it might be that only Cushing lost his office while the other priests who did not likewise fall into heresy were still in good standing and retained their offices, if any. And I think the Cushing situation is the perfect example of supplied jurisdiction. Not everyone knew he was rejecting Catholic dogma.

Hardicanute · « **Reply #68 on:** November 04, 2022, 05:06:45 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 04, 2022, 05:02:27 PM

I disagree; this is one of the weakest arguments against Totalism.

Please elaborate when you can.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #69 on:** November 04, 2022, 05:07:27 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 04, 2022, 01:08:07 PM

Sorry, but this is where you're hopeless. Aunt Helen can get up one morning and decide that the Pope is illegitimate and start her own Traditionalist movement?

Well, you don't think St Paul was wrong, do you? So how do you reconcile it? Obviously, it makes a great deal of difference if the man claiming to be pope is actually a heretic or not. If he is a heretic, then it is right for Aunt Helen to reject him. If he isn't a heretic then she is wrong and depending on her culpability, possibly no longer a member of the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #70 on:** November 04, 2022, 05:10:25 PM »

Quote from: Hardicanute on November 04, 2022, 04:55:07 PM

MAJORITY INFALLIBLE. Since the bishops are infallible in their corporate capacity only, individual bishops may err at any time in regard to faith and morals, but all cannot fall into the same error at the same time. The further question now arises: Can a majority of the bishops fall into error at one and the same time regarding a matter of faith or morals? Or, to state the opposite side of the question: Is the agreement of a majority of the bishops of the world sufficient to establish the infallible truth of a doctrine, or must there be a practically unanimous agreement? It seems most probable that the agreement of a majority is sufficient to insure the truth of any doctrine, for it would certainly be a great evil for the Church if the greater part of her teaching body could fall into error at any time. It is true that in such a crisis the in- fallible authority of the Roman Pontiff would be sufficient to preserve the faith, but the Catholicity of the Church would be seriously affected, if not destroyed. Besides, it can scarcely be admitted that Christ, in His wisdom would allow such a calamity to befall His Church.

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. Only 1-3% of all the episcopal sees remained Catholic during the Arian crisis 97-99% of the bishops went Arian. This is in fact the reason for the famous quote from St. Athanasius that the Church reamins with the true faithful, even if they're reduced to a handful.

And Universal Peaceful Acceptance is also nonsense to the extent that it can effectively convalidate a bogus pope. We've actually had TWO cases in history were a legitimate reigning pope was still alive but went into exile. After he went into exile, a new Pope was elected and Universally Accepted. So now this "Universal Acceptance" principle can depose legitimate popes? Nobody has ever proven this principle. It's just stated as if it were some dogma. I've never seen it proven. In fact, Paul IV's cuм ex apostolatus clearly indicated the opposite. While it was partially disciplinary, there's an assumed theological position there that undercuts univeral acceptance. He stated that even if "all" accepted a heretic pope, he would be no pope. Really? But this Universal Acceptance would make him pope, would it not? There's definitely a role to play for UAP, but it cannot render an illegitimate pope legitimate. If there were truly a "Pope Joan" scenario, where some future tranny got elected pope, and the entire Church accepted the tranny, she would still not be pope. Similarly, if Gregoy XVII (Siri) was the legitimate Pope, he could not be forced out of office under duress, and the subsequent acceptance of Roncalli could not depose Gregory XVII.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #71 on:** November 04, 2022, 05:12:39 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 04, 2022, 05:07:27 PM

Well, you don't think St Paul was wrong, do you? So how do you reconcile it? Obviously, it makes a great deal of difference if the man claiming to be pope is actually a heretic or not. If he is a heretic, then it is right for Aunt Helen to reject him. If he isn't a heretic then she is wrong and depending on her culpability, possibly no longer a member of the Church.

St. Paul is being misapplied. Your Prot reading of that passage to justify Totalism doesn't trump actual Catholic theology. St. Paul did not say that the Pope could teach heresy, just that if someone ELSE came along who preached heresy.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #72 on:** November 04, 2022, 05:12:51 PM »

Quote from: Hardicanute on November 04, 2022, 08:46:39 AM

Totalism necessitates at least one of the six possibilities below:

1. The Papacy has ceased and we are in the end times.
2. A Conclave must occur to elect a new Pope.
3. God Himself will send a new Pope.
4. Roman Catholicism’s ecclesiology is false.
5. The Papacy is not necessary or at least no longer necessary.
6. A state of perpetual agnosticism until a supernatural event manifests.

The Church’s notes and nature preclude the possibility of the above in consideration of the timeline we are in and the facts available to us. There are no good reasons to think any of the above options are reasonable at this time. Therefore another solution would have to be presented or the Church has defected and our religion is necessarily and demonstrably false; Vatican II being the falsifying event.

Vigorously disagree. The only "reasonable" options are 1 or 4. Indefectibility requires that the Church always (until the "end times") have a governing body that teaches authoritatively and truly.

If Francis and his predecessors are the governing body, you have the problem of them and their bishops not teaching truly. You would have the situation of number 4, since the above definition of indefectibility would be false.

If Francis and his predecessors are not a de jure governing body despite being the de facto governing body, then you have number 1.

In my view, you cannot hold to the pre-V2 notion of indefectibility stated above without coming to a necessary conclusion of 1 or 3.

I have harbored both and go back and forth between 1 and 3. I see them as the only reasonable options.

An excellent (excellent!!!) thread advocating for option 1 is here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/

Ladislaus · « **Reply #73 on:** November 04, 2022, 05:17:14 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 04, 2022, 05:12:51 PM

Vigorously disagree. The only "reasonable" options are 1 or 4. Indefectibility requires that the Church always (until the "end times") have a governing body that teaches authoritatively and truly.

If Francis and his predecessors are the governing body, you have the problem of them and their bishops not teaching truly. You would have the situation of number 4, since the above definition of indefectibility would be false.

If Francis and his predecessors are not a de jure governing body despite being the de facto governing body, then you have number 1.

In my view, you cannot hold to the pre-V2 notion of indefectibility stated above without coming to a necessary conclusion of 1 or 3.

I have harbored both and go back and forth between 1 and 3. I see them as the only reasonable options.

An excellent (excellent!!!) thread advocating for option 1 is here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/

There are all kinds of Catholic pseudo-ecclesiological principles bandied about that are nowhere proven ... on all sides ... such as about perpetual succession, the necessity of there always being occupants of the positions of the Catholic hierarchy, Universal Peaceful Acceptace (especially one that would "convalidate" a pope).

Bottom line. Either the Concilia Church is the Catholic Church or it's not. Who the pope is, whether he's a full pope, non-pope, partial-pope ... none of that matters, and none of us is going to solve it here.

If the Conciliar Church is the True Church, we submit to it. If it is not, we rejected it.

This principle of your is nowhere proven: "Indefectibility requires that the Church always (until the "end times") have a [actual, vs. in potentcy] governing body that teaches authoritatively and truly."

DecemRationis · « **Reply #74 on:** November 04, 2022, 05:19:33 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 04, 2022, 05:07:27 PM

Well, you don't think St Paul was wrong, do you? So how do you reconcile it? Obviously, it makes a great deal of difference if the man claiming to be pope is actually a heretic or not. If he is a heretic, then it is right for Aunt Helen to reject him. If he isn't a heretic then she is wrong and depending on her culpability, possibly no longer a member of the Church.

Correct. St. Paul's command is to each of us, individually.

If Aunt Helen is wrong, the Holy Ghost wasn't guiding her. If she's right, He is. That's just the way it is. John 6:43, 1 John 2:20,26.

Author Topic: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis (Read 7453 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

2Vermont

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Ladislaus

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Ladislaus

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Hardicanute

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Ladislaus

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Ladislaus

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Clemens Maria

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Hardicanute

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Clemens Maria

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Ladislaus

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Ladislaus

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

DecemRationis

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

Ladislaus

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis

DecemRationis

Re: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis