Caminus said:

What do you do with the rest of the hierarchy? You're not constrained to even point to a specific heresy and a specific man any longer, it's become a general blanket that casts itself upon all the novus ordo hierarchy, has it not? Where is your moral responsibility in all of this?

For the sede, that is easy to answer, read cuм Ex Apostolatus again.  We have the right to separate from all those who are in league  with a false pontiff.

But where is your moral responsibility in SSPX when you reject the authority of local ordinaries chosen by a Pope you claim is the true one, with a general blanket?   Do you go and interview each one to make sure that he is a heretic before tossing him to the wolves?  

As to why we concentrate on heresy rather than lesser notes of censure, it's because, obviously, that cuts to the chase more quickly.  If you're fighting a dragon you don't spend your time tickling his armpits, you strike at his heart.  Every time Benedict opens his mouth he says something that is at least "ill-sounding" but who is going to waste their time tabulating all of those occasions when we know he's a huge honking heretic already?

 

What causes certain catholics to fixate on the notion 'heresy' and not some lesser censure?  Afterall, if you concede that the Pope can fall into heresy and expel himself from the Church, a fortiori can he fall into lesser errors.  So how do you know any given proposition is heretical and not something else?  All of your certainty is reduced to this question (in addition to pertinacity, but that's another topic).  

Is it just easier and cleaner to fixate on heresy, get rid of the problem and start fresh?  

What do you do with the rest of the hierarchy?  You're not constrained to even point to a specific heresy and a specific man any longer, it's become a general blanket that casts itself upon all the novus ordo hierarchy, has it not?  Where is your moral responsibility in all of this?  

The argument "only an heretic could do that" doesn't hold an ounce of water either.  

I hope I have understood your question correctly.

We are not to judge people, lest we are judged ourselves, but when someone holds a public position such as a bishop or priest, we have the duty to make decisions of whom we follow and whom we avoid. Heresy is the one thing that can be used as a yardstick to objectively assess someone with regards to their orthodoxy. Heteropraxis naturally comes from infidelity with the truth, and so this can also be used as a yardstick, although less reliably.

The Church is made up of the Communion of Saints, which includes the living and the dead - all those people who are on the path of redemption, etc, who are free of heresy (defined as obstinacy in error), and are baptised. Therefore the Church at any moment may not have a valid Pope, even though years go by and nobody notices, but it doesn't really matter because of the economy of Grace. What matters is that we are united with the saints, present and past, and that we do our best to attain sainthood ourselves.

Quote from: Raoul76

Caminus said:

Quote

What do you do with the rest of the hierarchy? You're not constrained to even point to a specific heresy and a specific man any longer, it's become a general blanket that casts itself upon all the novus ordo hierarchy, has it not? Where is your moral responsibility in all of this?

For the sede, that is easy to answer, read cuм Ex Apostolatus again.  We have the right to separate from all those who are in league  with a false pontiff.

But where is your moral responsibility in SSPX when you reject the authority of local ordinaries chosen by a Pope you claim is the true one, with a general blanket?   Do you go and interview each one to make sure that he is a heretic before tossing him to the wolves?  

As to why we concentrate on heresy rather than lesser notes of censure, it's because, obviously, that cuts to the chase more quickly.  If you're fighting a dragon you don't spend your time tickling his armpits, you strike at his heart.  Every time Benedict opens his mouth he says something that is at least "ill-sounding" but who is going to waste their time tabulating all of those occasions when we know he's a huge honking heretic already?

I would agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by Raoul. I do not pretend to be a Theologian, but to me the Sedevacantist position is much more consistent than that of the SSPX.

 The SSPX rejects Vatican II, they will not say the Novus Ordo Mass, and they will not use the new Sacraments, yet they claim that Benedict XVI and his Vatican II predecessors are true Popes.

As one writer put it, Benedict XVI is nothing more than a cardboard Pope to them; something to look at, but whom they substantially ignore.

Isn’t one of the prime attributes of a Catholic their union with and obedience to the Pope? If Benedict XVI and his Vatican II predecessors are true Popes, doesn’t the SSPX owe them their obedience and acceptance of all the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical changes promulgated by Vatican II?

No it is the obedience to God not Man when Man contradicts God.

The Sedevacantist position is reactionary, contradicts Canon Law(We Don't) and makes up it's own theology to back up it's position which contradicts the Catholic Theology that has always been handed down.

For instance what you and Raoul have stated. You believe that he loses Office ipso facto, but that is not possible under the Code of Canon Law(Either the 1917 or 1917) you basically believe the Papolatry of the Concillar Church which is itself a violation of the First Commandment. You worship the Pope by virtue of your belief that he can do no wrong.

Sedevacantists do not understand the difference between Ordinary Law and Extraordinary Law.

They do no understand that the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that no Priest loses his Jurisdiction even if he is ipso facto excommunicated unless he has been Declared to have incurred said penalty by a superior. Nor do they bother to read the sections on the rights and privledges of the Cardinals which put them above Canon Law and Jurisdiction since they are directly underneath the Pope.

They state "An Excommunicated Person cannot be Pope that is dogma!" Yet Boniface VI was Pope for 15 days, before he was Deposed. He was Excommincated before he was Pope, they then deposed him and threw him out of the See and elected a New Pope. That is the course you would have to take. You cannot just say there is no Pope, you would have to go and depose him.

They state that "Juridictional Acts of a Pope are defide and must be obeyed on pain of schism!"

Well that is not true, that falls under the penalty of disobedience not schism. Schism is when you deny that your superior is your superior not when you disobey him. And if you disobey him to obey God then it is you who is justified and not he. A Person who is a Pope is not guarenteed Salvation, nor do they lose the power of free will. The only time a Pope is infallibe is when he Defines a Dogma(Which has always been believed and originated from the Apostles because he cannot create new ones) to be held by the whole church on pain of not being Catholic in the virtue of his Apostolic Office(Not his private opinions). That is a defined Dogma.

Now an example of a Pope's Jurisdictional acts not being binding, would be Pope John IX's burning of acts of the sickening Synod of Pope Stephan VII who dug up Pope Formosas his rival and denounced him, falsely charged and convicted him and then threw his body into the Tiber. All the Acts of that Synod which were held by a Pope and none of them were infallible all were disciplinary were burnt to a crisp by Pope John IX and all the Priests who were declared by Pope Stephan VII to have lost their offices had their offices restored. All declared Penalties against them were declared unjust and null and void.

But the Sede's will deny this, or make up some kind of dogma that exists in their own minds to try and refute it. But it is of no avail. The Church can have problems, Christ is the head of the Church, the Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God. When he acts against the primary Law of the Church which is the Salvation of Souls he must be disobeyed. So long as you obey when you ought and disobey when you ought and don't fall into the trap of False Obedience which Raoul seems to be advocating, then you will be justified at Judgement.

As the Summa states, to Obey an illegal order is a mortal sin. The Spirit of the Law supercedes the written Law and as the Code itself declares Laws are null when they contradict the Law of God.

I used to be an SSPXer, but left the position for several reasons. I left primarily because of Bishop Fellay, but also I found their theological position to be contradictive. How can you say Benedict is a Pope and yet continually disobey him? Also, a Pope cannot, to my knowledge, promulgate a sacreligious liturgy. I'll post more later.

 :applause:

No it is the obedience to God not Man when Man contradicts God.

The Sedevacantist position is reactionary, contradicts Canon Law(We Don't) and makes up it's own theology to back up it's position which contradicts the Catholic Theology that has always been handed down.

For instance what you and Raoul have stated. You believe that he loses Office ipso facto, but that is not possible under the Code of Canon Law(Either the 1917 or 1917) you basically believe the Papolatry of the Concillar Church which is itself a violation of the First Commandment. You worship the Pope by virtue of your belief that he can do no wrong.

Sedevacantists do not understand the difference between Ordinary Law and Extraordinary Law.

They do no understand that the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that no Priest loses his Jurisdiction even if he is ipso facto excommunicated unless he has been Declared to have incurred said penalty by a superior. Nor do they bother to read the sections on the rights and privledges of the Cardinals which put them above Canon Law and Jurisdiction since they are directly underneath the Pope.

They state "An Excommunicated Person cannot be Pope that is dogma!" Yet Boniface VI was Pope for 15 days, before he was Deposed. He was Excommincated before he was Pope, they then deposed him and threw him out of the See and elected a New Pope. That is the course you would have to take. You cannot just say there is no Pope, you would have to go and depose him.

They state that "Juridictional Acts of a Pope are defide and must be obeyed on pain of schism!"

Well that is not true, that falls under the penalty of disobedience not schism. Schism is when you deny that your superior is your superior not when you disobey him. And if you disobey him to obey God then it is you who is justified and not he. A Person who is a Pope is not guarenteed Salvation, nor do they lose the power of free will. The only time a Pope is infallibe is when he Defines a Dogma(Which has always been believed and originated from the Apostles because he cannot create new ones) to be held by the whole church on pain of not being Catholic in the virtue of his Apostolic Office(Not his private opinions). That is a defined Dogma.

Now an example of a Pope's Jurisdictional acts not being binding, would be Pope John IX's burning of acts of the sickening Synod of Pope Stephan VII who dug up Pope Formosas his rival and denounced him, falsely charged and convicted him and then threw his body into the Tiber. All the Acts of that Synod which were held by a Pope and none of them were infallible all were disciplinary were burnt to a crisp by Pope John IX and all the Priests who were declared by Pope Stephan VII to have lost their offices had their offices restored. All declared Penalties against them were declared unjust and null and void.

But the Sede's will deny this, or make up some kind of dogma that exists in their own minds to try and refute it. But it is of no avail. The Church can have problems, Christ is the head of the Church, the Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God. When he acts against the primary Law of the Church which is the Salvation of Souls he must be disobeyed. So long as you obey when you ought and disobey when you ought and don't fall into the trap of False Obedience which Raoul seems to be advocating, then you will be justified at Judgement.

As the Summa states, to Obey an illegal order is a mortal sin. The Spirit of the Law supercedes the written Law and as the Code itself declares Laws are null when they contradict the Law of God.[/quote]

This is an excellent discussion! I hope it will continue without much more off topic remarks or bratiness...

Lets stick to the topic and discuss, yet realize at a certain point we may just disagree to disagree.

I'm personally very tired of these threads, tired of the bitterness they provoke and the pride they engender.  As I am enjoined to presume good intention from my brethren until there is evidence to the contrary, I believe sincerely that both the SSPX members and those of the independent/sedevacantist persuasion are doing their very best to stay true to the Holy Church established by Jesus Christ.  There are diverging beliefs and, though one or the other is fundamentally correct, we will have no resolution until the end of the Apostasy.  We are walking in an undiscovered country, a peril unequaled in all the history of the Church, and nothing is served by castigating one another.

And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (I. Cor. ch. xiii, 2)

Quote from: Mysterium Fidei

Quote from: Raoul76

Caminus said:

Quote

What do you do with the rest of the hierarchy? You're not constrained to even point to a specific heresy and a specific man any longer, it's become a general blanket that casts itself upon all the novus ordo hierarchy, has it not? Where is your moral responsibility in all of this?

For the sede, that is easy to answer, read cuм Ex Apostolatus again.  We have the right to separate from all those who are in league  with a false pontiff.

But where is your moral responsibility in SSPX when you reject the authority of local ordinaries chosen by a Pope you claim is the true one, with a general blanket?   Do you go and interview each one to make sure that he is a heretic before tossing him to the wolves?  

As to why we concentrate on heresy rather than lesser notes of censure, it's because, obviously, that cuts to the chase more quickly.  If you're fighting a dragon you don't spend your time tickling his armpits, you strike at his heart.  Every time Benedict opens his mouth he says something that is at least "ill-sounding" but who is going to waste their time tabulating all of those occasions when we know he's a huge honking heretic already?

I would agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by Raoul. I do not pretend to be a Theologian, but to me the Sedevacantist position is much more consistent than that of the SSPX.

 The SSPX rejects Vatican II, they will not say the Novus Ordo Mass, and they will not use the new Sacraments, yet they claim that Benedict XVI and his Vatican II predecessors are true Popes.

As one writer put it, Benedict XVI is nothing more than a cardboard Pope to them; something to look at, but whom they substantially ignore.

Isn’t one of the prime attributes of a Catholic their union with and obedience to the Pope? If Benedict XVI and his Vatican II predecessors are true Popes, doesn’t the SSPX owe them their obedience and acceptance of all the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical changes promulgated by Vatican II?

No it is the obedience to God not Man when Man contradicts God.

The Sedevacantist position is reactionary, contradicts Canon Law(We Don't) and makes up it's own theology to back up it's position which contradicts the Catholic Theology that has always been handed down.

For instance what you and Raoul have stated. You believe that he loses Office ipso facto, but that is not possible under the Code of Canon Law(Either the 1917 or 1917) you basically believe the Papolatry of the Concillar Church which is itself a violation of the First Commandment. You worship the Pope by virtue of your belief that he can do no wrong.

Sedevacantists do not understand the difference between Ordinary Law and Extraordinary Law.

They do no understand that the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that no Priest loses his Jurisdiction even if he is ipso facto excommunicated unless he has been Declared to have incurred said penalty by a superior. Nor do they bother to read the sections on the rights and privledges of the Cardinals which put them above Canon Law and Jurisdiction since they are directly underneath the Pope.

They state "An Excommunicated Person cannot be Pope that is dogma!" Yet Boniface VI was Pope for 15 days, before he was Deposed. He was Excommincated before he was Pope, they then deposed him and threw him out of the See and elected a New Pope. That is the course you would have to take. You cannot just say there is no Pope, you would have to go and depose him.

They state that "Juridictional Acts of a Pope are defide and must be obeyed on pain of schism!"

Well that is not true, that falls under the penalty of disobedience not schism. Schism is when you deny that your superior is your superior not when you disobey him. And if you disobey him to obey God then it is you who is justified and not he. A Person who is a Pope is not guarenteed Salvation, nor do they lose the power of free will. The only time a Pope is infallibe is when he Defines a Dogma(Which has always been believed and originated from the Apostles because he cannot create new ones) to be held by the whole church on pain of not being Catholic in the virtue of his Apostolic Office(Not his private opinions). That is a defined Dogma.

Now an example of a Pope's Jurisdictional acts not being binding, would be Pope John IX's burning of acts of the sickening Synod of Pope Stephan VII who dug up Pope Formosas his rival and denounced him, falsely charged and convicted him and then threw his body into the Tiber. All the Acts of that Synod which were held by a Pope and none of them were infallible all were disciplinary were burnt to a crisp by Pope John IX and all the Priests who were declared by Pope Stephan VII to have lost their offices had their offices restored. All declared Penalties against them were declared unjust and null and void.

But the Sede's will deny this, or make up some kind of dogma that exists in their own minds to try and refute it. But it is of no avail. The Church can have problems, Christ is the head of the Church, the Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God. When he acts against the primary Law of the Church which is the Salvation of Souls he must be disobeyed. So long as you obey when you ought and disobey when you ought and don't fall into the trap of False Obedience which Raoul seems to be advocating, then you will be justified at Judgement.

As the Summa states, to Obey an illegal order is a mortal sin. The Spirit of the Law supercedes the written Law and as the Code itself declares Laws are null when they contradict the Law of God.

Correct me if I am wrong, but was not cuм Ex Apostalatus mostly abrogated by the 1917 CIC?