Author Topic: For all sedevacantists and conclavists (Read 6953 times)

DeMaistre · « **Reply #30 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:09:33 PM »

I was actually a "feenyite" before Catholic Martyr came. I also reject Benedict XV as a heretic.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #31 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:20:19 PM »

Caminus says: "It is theologically impossible that the 'Church of the Sede Vacante' is the "true Church" because it has no authority; it possesses no jurisdiction, ergo, it can lay no claim to Apostolic Succession, a necessary mark of the true Church of Jesus Christ. You are, sir, a modern day schismatic."

Surely you are aware that Bishop Thuc was given special permission by Pius XI to make bishops without always having papal consent ( I assume due to his work in Vietnam where access to the Pope was not always possible ).

During the Vatican II crisis, Bishop Thuc used this permission to make more bishops, who in turn made more priests. This is the apostolic succession. The bishops and priests of SSPX, the Lefebvreists, also have apostolic succession -- at least those who weren't invalidly ordained or consecrated in the Novus Ordo rite and then just allowed into SSPX -- and many of them have left SSPX and become sedevacantists.

If the time ever comes to elect a new Pope, without this Pope coming off like a home-brewed eccentric -- meaning sedes need more power and numbers before they can take that step -- the electors will come out of these two lines, the Thuc and Lefebvre lines. Unless there really are hidden Siri cardinals out there -- but how would we know that isn't a hoax?

As far as jurisdiction goes, the Church of the Sede Vacante as you put it has supplied jurisdiction, just like the bishops and priests at the Council of Constance during the Great Western Schism when no one knew who the true Pope was. Because some of these bishops and priests were serving men who would later be known as anti-Popes, not all of them could have had ACTUAL jurisdiction until it was granted to them afterwards by Pope Martin V, who they put on the Throne of Peter to end the confusion.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #32 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:27:20 PM »

It doesn't matter if the church doesn't have bishops. If having no bishops caused the Church to cease than the valid baptism of infants would be to no avail.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:34:43 PM »

DeMaistre, how are you going to confess and clear yourself of your sins if you think there are no priests?

Do you mean you would rather pile up unconfessed mortal sin after unconfessed mortal sin rather than commune with those who say that God MAY, in his mercy, save a catechumen who dies before the actual water of baptism touches his forehead, an opinion stated not only in Canon Law and the Council of Trent, but in Aquinas and Bellarmine, as well as by most traditional Catholics today with the exception of the non-monk self-appointed experts, the Dimond Brothers?

This is a bad, BAD road you are on. Take a step back and see the briars and thistles for what they are.

Catholics HAVE ALWAYS DISAGREED as to whether it is possible to get to heaven without actual water baptism. In other words, there is still some question as to whether it is de fide to believe either way, that you need the water or in special cases known only to God, don't need the water. Only a future Pope can resolve this once and for all. Pius XII almost did but obviously there is some confusion.

Gladius_veritatis, help me out here. Is BoD de fide yet?

Either way, Catholics who were BoD and Catholics who weren't used to exist side by side with no problem. I personally have no idea where a catechumen who dies before baptism goes. I simply don't know. I just say it's POSSIBLE that God will save them.

It's only the Feeneyites who have made this issue into a bone of contention and an occasion for schism.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #34 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:53:38 PM »

Quote

+ A Catholic Survival Plan +

In 1801, during the spiritual chaos following the French Revolution, many Catholics refused to avail themselves of the ministry of apostate priests who had taken the oath to the revolutionary regime. Finding themselves bereft of Mass and the Sacraments, a group of them wrote for spiritual direction to a Father Demaris, a Missionary of St. Joseph and a professor of theology in Lyon who had remained faithful to his Ordination. His reply has come down to us and is even more pertinent today than when it was first written. He tells his correspondents: "The Holy Eucharist had for you many joys and advantages when you were able to participate in this Sacrament of love, but now you are deprived of it for being defenders of truth and justice." He says they must not despair however, because, "We are obedient in going to Communion, but in holding ourselves from the Sacrifice we are immolating ourselves... We sacrifice our own life as much as it is in us to do" and the sacrifice is continuous, "renewing itself every day, every time that we adore with submission the hand of God that drives us away from His altars... It is to be advantageously deprived of the Eucharist, to raise the standard of the Cross for the cause of Christ and the glory of the Church... Yes, I have no fear in saying it. When the storm of the malice of men roars against truth and justice, it is more advantageous to the faithful to suffer for Christ than to participate in His Body by Communion. I seem to hear the Savior saying to us, 'Repair by this humiliating deprivation that glorifies Me, all the Communions which dishonor Me.'"

Regarding the loss of sacramental Confession Fr. Demaris wrote, "Removed from the resources of the sanctuary and deprived of all exercise of the Priesthood, there remains no mediator for us save Jesus Christ. It is to Him we must go for our needs. Before His supreme Majesty we must bluntly tear the veil off our consciences and in search of the good and bad we have done, thank Him for His graces, confess our sins and ask pardon and to show us the direction of His Holy Will, having in our hearts the sincere desire to confess to His minister whenever we are able to do so. There, my children, is what I call confessing to God! In such a confession well made, God himself will absolve us.... Anything which attaches to God is holy. When we suffer for the truth, our sufferings are those of Jesus Christ, who honors us then with a special character of resemblance to Him with His Cross. This grace is the greatest happiness that could possibly happen to a mortal in this life.

"It is thus in all painful situations that deprive us of the Sacraments. The carrying of the Cross like a Christian is the source of the remission of our sins, just as it was for the sins of the whole human race when it was once carried by Jesus Christ.... What the world does to drive us away from God only brings us closer... We are able now to repair those faults which came from too great a trust in absolution and not examining one's weaknesses thoroughly enough. Obliged to wail now before God, the faithful soul considers all its deformities... Let this confession to God be for you a short daily practice, but fervent... The first fruit that you will draw from it apart from the remission of your sins, will be to learn to know yourself and to know God, and the second will be to be ever ready to present yourself to a priest if you are able, enriched in character by the mercy of the Lord."

As for being deprived of the Last Sacraments at the moment of death, Fr. Demaris wrote, "Console yourselves, my children, in the trust you have in God. This tender Father will pour on you His graces, His blessings and His mercies in these awful moments that you fear, in more abundance than if you were being assisted by His ministers, of whom you have been deprived only because you wouldn't abandon Him. The abandonment and forsakenness that we fear for ourselves resembles that of the Savior on the Cross when He said to His Father, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' ... Your pains and abandonment lead you to your glorious destiny in ending your life like Jesus ended His!"

Bearing all this in mind, there are many Catholic practices left to the laity which cannot be taken away from us:

+ First and foremost there is the daily recitation of the Rosary, the "layman's breviary," which is essentially a compendium of the Divine Office, the official prayer of the Church and on which, together with the Angelus we can structure our day.

+ There is an abundance of sacramentals to be used with faith. Beginning with the Scapular of Mt. Carmel, the holy habit by which the fervent Catholic is universally identified, there are the Miraculous Medal and the Saint Benedict Medal, besides many other scapulars and medals, not to mention relics of the saints.

+ Besides the Bible, in which for centuries God was pre-incarnate and in which He still resides in His Word, there are countless good Catholic books and lives of the saints. Collect them, read them, study them, lend them to others!

+ And let's not forget the dogged, daily practice of virtue, forgiving all offenses real or imagined, trying always to overcome evil with good, loving our enemies and doing good to those who hate us. There are the corporal and spiritual works of mercy to be performed, especially counseling the doubtful and teaching the ignorant of all ages in these dark days, helping one another both materially and spiritually, "teaching and admonishing one another" as St. Paul advised the early Christians (Col. 3:16).

+ We can always make spiritual Communions.

Whatever means we make use of, we must pray without ceasing, whether saying the approved prayers of the Church, making the Stations of the Cross or meditating on the Gospels. Above all other practices we should cultivate the awareness of the divine Indwelling in our own souls as we would in church before a sanctuary lamp. St. Paul asks, "Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwells in you? ... For the temple of God is holy, which you are" (1 Cor. 3;16-17). Only unrepented mortal sin can remove God's presence from the souls of the baptized.

Fr. Edward Leen pointed out that, "The material temple of God does not worship the God in whose honor it is built," but "the spiritual temple can and does. It is its prerogative to do so.... It is to be noted that there is no question here of a merely metaphorical or figurative presence. It is one which is real and substantial." And then he goes on to say something which many of us may find surprising: "The Holy Ghost is present in the soul in grace in a manner which bears an analogy to, but is much superior to, that in which the Incarnate God is present under the sacred species.... It was to make this wonder possible for us that Jesus lived, labored, suffered and died... If the soul in grace cultivates a close attention to God within it and labors to draw ever closer to Him by perfecting its worship of love and service, it gradually undergoes a transforming process. It becomes more and more like to the God it loves, and becoming like Him, begins to have a foretaste of that bliss enjoyed by God himself and those to whom He stands revealed in the Beatific Vision." In other words, loss of the sacraments need not stand in the way of our becoming saints.

Nothing happens without the will of God, whose divine Son told us, "The very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt. 10:30), but Fr. Demaris nevertheless warned his charges, "Don't be surprised at the great number who quit! Truth wins, no matter how small the number of those who love and remain attached to God."

So I'll close with the same words with which he ended his long letter: "God watches over us, our hope is justified. It tells us that either the persecution stops or the persecution will be our crown. In the alternative of one or the other, I see the accomplishment of our destiny. Let God's will be done, since in whatever manner He delivers us, His eternal mercies pour into us."

Caminus · « **Reply #35 on:** June 29, 2009, 09:39:09 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Caminus says: "It is theologically impossible that the 'Church of the Sede Vacante' is the "true Church" because it has no authority; it possesses no jurisdiction, ergo, it can lay no claim to Apostolic Succession, a necessary mark of the true Church of Jesus Christ. You are, sir, a modern day schismatic."

Surely you are aware that Bishop Thuc was given special permission by Pius XI to make bishops without always having papal consent ( I assume due to his work in Vietnam where access to the Pope was not always possible ).

During the Vatican II crisis, Bishop Thuc used this permission to make more bishops, who in turn made more priests. This is the apostolic succession. The bishops and priests of SSPX, the Lefebvreists, also have apostolic succession -- at least those who weren't invalidly ordained or consecrated in the Novus Ordo rite and then just allowed into SSPX -- and many of them have left SSPX and become sedevacantists.

If the time ever comes to elect a new Pope, without this Pope coming off like a home-brewed eccentric -- meaning sedes need more power and numbers before they can take that step -- the electors will come out of these two lines, the Thuc and Lefebvre lines. Unless there really are hidden Siri cardinals out there -- but how would we know that isn't a hoax?

As far as jurisdiction goes, the Church of the Sede Vacante as you put it has supplied jurisdiction, just like the bishops and priests at the Council of Constance during the Great Western Schism when no one knew who the true Pope was. Because some of these bishops and priests were serving men who would later be known as anti-Popes, not all of them could have had ACTUAL jurisdiction until it was granted to them afterwards by Pope Martin V, who they put on the Throne of Peter to end the confusion.

Ordinary Jurisidiction is a requirement of Apostolic Succession. Even your example "Thuc" if it's accurate supposes delegated jurisdiction to one bishop. It is IMPOSSIBLE that your "church" has ordinary jurisdiction, ergo, it lacks an essential mark of the true Church. John Lane recognized this very grave problem. Everyone who has a clue about catholic theology recognizes this problem. They try to offer solutions (that at least one bishop out there in some diocese appointed by Pius XII still retains his ordinary jurisdiction), but to no avail. No traditional bishop has ordinary jurisdiction. Ergo, your picture story is skewed and needs reworked. We don't succuмb to the exigencies of your imagination. Don't worry, you're not the first person in history to get something wrong. It is a most liberating experience to admit it and adjust accordingly.

roscoe · « **Reply #36 on:** June 29, 2009, 10:34:43 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

"However he comes up a winner with the idea that Ben 15 most likely is. Without even considering his doctrinal deficiencies and strange actions, the very election(???) of Della Chiesa is just about the most improbable thing I have ever heard of, moreso even than the abdication(?) of Celestine and the election(?) of the anti-pope Boniface."

Actually Boniface is not an anti-Pope because only the Church determines who is an anti-Pope ( not counting our time where the Church is in eclipse ).

I don't know what kind of sin it is to keep saying that an accepted Pope is an anti-Pope but it is a strange one. Especially since Boniface VIII was behind the drafting of Unam Sanctam and was a very strong Pope. Are you related to King Philip or something?

Here are the two prev posts on Ben and Boniface

http://www.cathinfo.com/bb/index.php?a=topic&t=4589

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=4268&f=4&min=75&num=15

Raoul is the one committing the strange sin of calling Popes anti-popes as he insists on perpetrating the myth that the French Popes of the GWS are such. The reasons for this have been explained numerous times and need no repititon here.

The one sentence of Unam Sanctam that is dogmatic was nothing new in 1303. The idea that one must remain loyal to the Roman Pope had been proclaimed already for about 1200 yrs. If a Pope is in actuality an anti-- pope, then no allegience is due as Caraffa is well aware.

roscoe · « **Reply #37 on:** June 29, 2009, 10:58:43 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

That's right Caraffa. Benedict XV is by no means an anti-Pope but Catholic Martyr is desperate to eliminate him because of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, compiled under Benny XV's watch, which says that catechumens must be given a Catholic burial. As a neo-Feeneyite, he cannot accept reality and so he has to throw out Popes and Doctors left and right ( he says that Bellarmine is a heretic too ).

Don't get drawn into this nonsense.

Welcome by the way -- whatever you are! Here is a rundown.

Catholic Martyr is the resident Feeneyite and sedevacantist. He has made a Feeneyite convert of the young DeMaistre. I am the converted pagan turned sedevacantist. Dawn and gladius_veritatis and trent13 and Uriel I believe are also sedevacantists. Parentsfortruth and Roscoe are sedevacantists in all but name, but they're afraid to say there's no Pope and so they go off into their imaginations and say that Siri was elected in 1958 ( or 1963 ) and that he has a successor out there even though they have no clue how this successor could have been elected or where he is ( so you see, they also are without a Pope. ) Prodinoscopus, Caminus and I believe elizabeth are SSPX, as is the board operator Matthew ( ChantCD ).

People like CM, DM or the Dimonds are hardly Feenyites.

I keep asking for someone to show me evidence that Fr Feeney was ex-communicated by or disobedient to Pius XII and it never shows up-- I guess this is not enough for Raoul.

I also keep asking for some proof that there even is such a thing as a sede vacantist. We have all heard of the Zelanti or the Politicos, Geulphs and Ghibbelines but where is this party mentioned before in Church History? After all there have been about 40 anti-popes and numerous schism.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #38 on:** June 29, 2009, 11:03:20 PM »

You cannot assume the history of Abp. Thuc. His history was very complicated and controversial. Even Fr. Cekada says that only some of his ordinations and consecrations are valid.

Take a moment and look at the "Thuc Line" full of 12-year-old bishops and hundreds of dubious priests.

Abp. Thuc went back and forth with Rome. His history is a huge subject of debate and very difficult to learn about if one doesn't read Vietnamese. It is a huge mystery to me so I have not recieved sacraments from the Thuc line. But I am not qualified to judge whatsoever.

One thing that helps me (hopefully) not go mad worrying about stuff is a certain prayer against heresy and schism, and the fact that God made me and my family exactly for these times. He made me so that I can work out my salvation in these times, during this crisis.

roscoe · « **Reply #39 on:** June 29, 2009, 11:14:45 PM »

After reading CG Clarke's Book, Loyola's and Cabots one is unfortunately left with the impression that Pius XII was not responding to Fr Feeney's request for help re: the heretics who were teaching salvation outside of the Church.

After reading Mr Potter's book it is apparent that this is not correct and the Pope did issue Humanum Generis, with it's emphasis on Extra......

So there are no grounds coming from any direction that point to discord between the Pope and Fr Feeney. I believe the Dimonds and CM both regard Pius XII as an anti-pope.
Ciao

Caraffa · « **Reply #40 on:** June 29, 2009, 11:37:08 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Raoul76
"However he comes up a winner with the idea that Ben 15 most likely is. Without even considering his doctrinal deficiencies and strange actions, the very election(???) of Della Chiesa is just about the most improbable thing I have ever heard of, moreso even than the abdication(?) of Celestine and the election(?) of the anti-pope Boniface."

Actually Boniface is not an anti-Pope because only the Church determines who is an anti-Pope ( not counting our time where the Church is in eclipse ).

I don't know what kind of sin it is to keep saying that an accepted Pope is an anti-Pope but it is a strange one. Especially since Boniface VIII was behind the drafting of Unam Sanctam and was a very strong Pope. Are you related to King Philip or something?

Here are the two prev posts on Ben and Boniface

http://www.cathinfo.com/bb/index.php?a=topic&t=4589

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=4268&f=4&min=75&num=15

Raoul is the one committing the strange sin of calling Popes anti-popes as he insists on perpetrating the myth that the French Popes of the GWS are such. The reasons for this have been explained numerous times and need no repititon here.

The one sentence of Unam Sanctam that is dogmatic was nothing new in 1303. The idea that one must remain loyal to the Roman Pope had been proclaimed already for about 1200 yrs. If a Pope is in actuality an anti-- pope, then no allegience is due as Caraffa is well aware.

Roscoe, it is not true that Benedict XV was a Zionist. From World Affairs, September 22, 1995:

Quote

The Zionist movement tried again to get papal support when Zionist envoy Nahum Sokolow met with Pope Benedict XV in 1917. Pope Benedict XV was not as negative as Pope Pius X had been, but he, too, refused to support the idea of a Jєωιѕн homeland...

Just because he, Leo XIII, and Pius XII worked with or for Rampolla doesn't make them "anti-popes," even though Rampolla's influence on all three was negative.

On Boniface VIII:
Roscoe, you do realize that Philip IV as well as Edward II of England had begun to tax the clergy which upset Boniface VIII. Philip IV was trying to increase his own Monarchial power over the Church.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #41 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:37:46 AM »

Roscoe, nothing that you're saying makes sense. Many, many Popes and bishops and doctors lived after Boniface VIII and none of them said he was an anti-Pope. YOU do not get to decide that he is one.

Whereas it HAS been established by history that the true line of Popes at the time of the Great Western Schism was the line supported by St. Catherine, the Roman line, starting with Urban VI.

The others were indeed anti-Popes because they did not have valid elections, but they were still Catholics -- so that Vincent Ferrer's soul was not harmed ( hopefully ) by his mistakenly following the French line. But St. Catherine was correct.

These anti-Popes were not like the VII Popes of today who are a new breed. See my thread "Non-popes vs. anti-Popes." These VII "Popes" are not even Catholics.

Either you are on your own with this one, or it is another crackbrained new theory of the Feeneyites who specalize in crackbrained theories. Please continue discrediting your cause. Every day the Feeney group gets more and more radical, more and more like self-appointed judge, jury and executioner, to prop up their position. Although I didn't know until just now that you had these, shall we say, "tendencies."

Caminus would help me out with this except that he is against me on other matters. But Caraffa did an excellent job in his stead.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #42 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:39:57 AM »

Do you have links of writings by or on him in Vietnamese? I can translate them for you.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #43 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:52:32 AM »

Caminus -- Don't get me started on John Lane.

He has a genius for making matters seem more complicated than they are. Though indeed they are complicated, God reveals the truth to those He chooses. You don't have to be a scholar reading Bellarmine in Latin to see the SSPX holds a contradictory position. Mr. Lane would often attempt to cow and intimidate those on his website into submission to his supposed authority and learning. But the reality is that he is a layman just like us. I much prefer his earlier writings to those of his "SSPX period."

And I didn't say that the Thuc line had ordinary jurisdiction. Thuc had ordinary jurisdiction, but the bishops consecrated by him do not. I said they had supplied jurisdiction, just as did most of the bishops and priests who participated in the Council of Constance. Their supplied jurisdiction BECAME ordinary jurisdiction once they installed Pope Martin V. Just as our supplied jurisdiction will become ordinary jurisdiction when ( a ) A true Pope is elected or ( b ) Christ returns.

But I have researched the Thuc line as far as I was able and I overcame any fear that their priests are not able to provide the sacraments -- INCLUDING confession.

Whatever faults Thuc had, which I hate to even say -- I think the man was a great saint, perhaps the greatest of the 20th century -- can be chalked up to the turmoil in which he lived. Consecrating those like Palmar de Troya is a mistake, but are we to blame any bishop who consecrates or ordains a cleric who goes wacky? Does this mean he is no longer a bishop?

Elisabeth, what is this you're saying about "12-year old bishops"? That one I've never heard. Were these "bishops" made by Palmar de Troya? I've already explained that. Plus, the rumor is that it was Lefebvre who recommended that Thuc consecrate Palmar. Thuc knew nothing about the man and probably in a moment of weariness agreed to make him bishop. At that point, he probably felt he had nothing to lose. Put yourself in his shoes -- the Church was practically dead. It was a free-for-all. Thuc probably thought "It can't get any worse!"

CM · « **Reply #44 on:** June 30, 2009, 01:15:18 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

I don't know what kind of sin it is to keep saying that an accepted Pope is an anti-Pope but it is a strange one.

It's schism.

Quote from: Raoul76

Especially since Boniface VIII was behind the drafting of Unam Sanctam and was a very strong Pope. Are you related to King Philip or something?

If he's related to King Philip he's related to Rampolla too. :whistleblower:

Why are you calling Roscoe a 'feeneyite'? Roscoe do you uphold the salvation dogma and the dogma of the necessity of water baptism, that all the heretic Raoul76 thinks can somehow be heresy in the early Church but then become not heresy later?

Roscoe, you can't denounce Boniface VIII if people you hold as true popes recognized him as a true pope. Your position is illogical because if you denounce him, then you have to denounce every single pope after him who accepted him as a true pope, since they would all be in schism and antipopes themselves by the very fact.

Raoul76 once again misrepresents my reason for denouncing Benedict XV. Stop it man! I told you he taught universal salvation and denied Geocentrism, and further I add that in Inter Sodalicia in 1918, he taught that Mary together with Christ redeemed mankind- not played a part in the redemption of Jesus Christ, which is correct, but REDEEMED mankind together with Christ, which is a contradiction of Trent:

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Session 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: "...God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer..."

He never taught BoD in any capacity where it could be attributed to him. The invalid 'Code of Canon Law of 1917' was promulgated in forma communi, and thus the individual authors who put it together retain their authorship of the work, unlike if it had been approved in forma specifica.

Furthermore, a Catechism, originally called "A Compendium of Christian Doctrine" and written by a man named Respighi, was later approved in forma communi by Pope Pius X who is a valid pope. It was later renamed "Catechism of Pius X" and contains multiple heresies. You don't see me rejecting Pius X. Why? Because he never publicly taught these heresies. In forma communi approbavit means that Respighi retains authorship of the work, so he is the one who publicly taught the heresies and fell out of office and out of the Church for doing so.