Author Topic: Is Sedevacantism Pope-Sifting? (Read 4584 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** June 12, 2015, 11:42:04 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Ladislaus
This despite the fact that I cited a theologian writing at the time of Pius XII who said that considering (making the "determination") Pius XII to be illegitimate would constitute HERESY.

I would still be interested in knowing who was questioning the validity of Pope Pius XII during his reign, who this cardinal was (you only provided who you "thought" it might have been), and where the condemnation was actually published in the 1950s.

I don't have my original paper, but I'm pretty sure it was Cardinal Zubizaretta. And he was speaking hypothetically in order to illustrate the topic of "dogmatic fact". He didn't imply that there was anyone who actually did so. He used the name Pius XII in his example to make it concrete, and he was writing during the reign of Pius XII.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2015, 11:44:14 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Clemens Maria
The down thumbs might be due to the calumny of a Catholic priest.

Very true. Well said...

You guys don't even know what the term "calumny" means, do you? Insulting language, yes. Calumny? Give me a break. You guys throw that term around like it's going out of style without having any clue about what it means ... just like you throw the term "heresy" around without any idea about that either. Hey, if Father Cekada is allowed to dish out insults, then he should be able to take some back.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** June 12, 2015, 11:46:18 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Some advice though - don't lump all sedevacantists together Ladislaus. In your experience you may have encountered some "rabid SV's" - but I have not noticed that type of behavior since I've joined CI.

There are a number of such here on CI. But, yes, you're right, it doesn't apply to all SVs.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** June 12, 2015, 11:54:45 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

C. A Misapplied Mistranslation ...

Here Father Cekada spends 12 paragraphs explaining why a quote from a single theologian doesn't support the thesis. I'm not even interested in going into that because the thesis HARDLY relies upon one quote from one theologian. Even if you want to cross this one off, there were many other citations saying the same thing. Perhaps if I feel like it I can come back to address this.

So, where do we stand (about halfway through Father's rebuttal).

1) a handful of insults

2) claim that I used the term "determination" equivocally for his cases #1 and #2 whereas I used to term specifically for #1 and the entire thesis is nothing other than an attempt to demonstrate that you cannot do #1 ("determination") without #2 ("declaration").

3) claim that I was making gratuitous unproven assertions in what was merely a summary paragraph to introduce the body of the paper

4) 12 paragraphs refuting the applicability of just ONE of many citations from theologians which were brought in support of the thesis.

Cantarella · « **Reply #19 on:** June 12, 2015, 01:07:38 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Honestly, who does he think he is? An authority higher than Holy Mother the Church? I am asking a serious question here.

Part of the liberal brainwashing of our times is to think that as an individual Catholic one has the right to judge and depose popes, or is entitled to either "accept" them or "reject" them. This phenomenon has no precedence in the history of the Catholic Church.

Fr. Cekada, as all liberals do, is attributing to himself a power that just does not belong to him. Surely, to avoid such arrogance, most sedes, as himself, are content to say that the Pope automatically ceases to be Pope "on his very own" due to heresy and therefore that the Holy See is vacant, a logic conclusion it seems, until one looks further into it. Many words are wasted in trying to defend what is indefensible, just to arrive to such an over-simplistic conclusion: that a heretic cannot be pope. That is as a far as layman could safely go. We, as Catholics in the pew, do not have the right to proceed and conclude that "therefore, the seat is vacant" and then reject a validly elected Pope, because we would be violating already defined dogma:

Dogmatic papal bull Unam Sanctam clearly teaches that "The spiritual man judges all things and he himself is judged by no man" (1 Cor 2:15), is applicable to the Roman Pontiff. When Pope Boniface VIII concludes that no one can "judge" the Pope he is not saying that the Pope is extent from human criticism or even active resistance but he is referring to the actual juridical act of deposing him, as sedevacantists play they can do in their minds all the time.

The problem does not reside on whether or not the See is vacant as sedes pretend, as if the whole Catholic religion depended on being a "true Pope" or not. The crisis is one of dogma, where the most important of all: the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation is compromised and therefore, no other dogma is safe.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #20 on:** June 12, 2015, 02:38:03 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Bellator Dei
Quote from: Clemens Maria
The down thumbs might be due to the calumny of a Catholic priest.

Very true. Well said...

You guys don't even know what the term "calumny" means, do you? Insulting language, yes. Calumny? Give me a break. You guys throw that term around like it's going out of style without having any clue about what it means ... just like you throw the term "heresy" around without any idea about that either. Hey, if Father Cekada is allowed to dish out insults, then he should be able to take some back.

Calumny (cf. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03190c.htm)

Quote

(Latin calvor, to use artifice, to deceive)

Etymologically any form of ruse or fraud employed to deceive another, particularly in judicial proceedings. In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction. It is hardly necessary, however, to observe that as in other breaches of the law the sin may be venial, either because of the trivial character of the subject-matter involved or because of insufficient deliberation in the making of the accusation. Objectively, a calumny is a mortal sin when it is calculated to do serious harm to the person so traduced. Just as in the instance of wrongful damage to person or estate, so the calumniator is bound to adequate reparation for the injury perpetrated by the blackening of another's good name. He is obliged (1) to retract his false statements, and that even though his own reputation may necessarily as a consequence suffer. (2) He must also make good whatever other losses have been sustained by the innocent party as a result of his libellous utterances, provided these same have been in some measure (in confuso) foreseen by him. In canon law the phrase juramentum calumniae is employed to indicate the oath taken by the parties to a litigation, by which they averred that the action was brought and the defence offered in good faith.

insult (cf. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insult)

Quote

verb in·sult in-ˈsəlt

: to do or say something that is offensive to (someone) : to do or say something that shows a lack of respect for (someone)

intransitive verb
archaic
: to behave with pride or arrogance : vaunt
transitive verb
: to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : affront; also : to affect offensively or damagingly <doggerel that insults the reader's intelligence>

St. Alphonsus says this: (cf. https://archive.org/details/alphonsusworks12liguuoft, see p. 24)

Quote

St. Denis calls the priest a Divine man.(2) Hence he has called the priesthood a divine dignity.(3) In fine, St. Ephrem says that the gift of the sacerdotal dignity surpasses all understanding.(4) For us it is enough to know, that Jesus Christ has said that we should treat his priests as we would his own person: He that heareth you, heareth me; he that despiseth you, despiseth me.(5) Hence St. John Chrysostom says, that "he who honors a priest, honors Christ, and he who insults a priest, insults Christ."(6) Through respect for the sacerdotal dignity, St. Mary of Oignies used to kiss the ground on which a priest had walked.

(2) "Qui Sacerdotem dixit, prorsus divinum insinuat virum." -- De Eccl. Hier. C. I.

(3) "Angelica, imo divina est dignitas." -- Ibid.

(4) "Excedit omnem cogitationem donum dignitatis sacerdotalis." -- De Sacerd.

(5) "Qui vos audit, me audit; et qui vos spernit, me spernit." -- Luke, X. 16.

(6) "Qui honorat Sacerdotem Christi, honorat Christum; et qui injuriat Sacerdotem Christi, injuriat Christum." -- Hom. 17.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #21 on:** June 12, 2015, 02:44:46 PM »

The words "buffoon", "idiotic", "moronic", and "lack of basic intelligence" would possibly be merely insults but "(or complete dishonesty)" is a calumny. Also, St. Alphonsus doesn't make any distinction between insults and calumny. When you do that to a priest you are doing it to Christ. I wouldn't even do that to a NO priest on the off chance that he is a validly ordained priest. But to do it to a traditional priest is flirting with disaster. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess we'll find out in the next life. Meanwhile, I'm not taking any chances.

Cantarella · « **Reply #22 on:** June 12, 2015, 04:01:23 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Cantarella
Part of the liberal brainwashing of our times is to think that as an individual Catholic one has the right to judge and depose popes, or is entitled to either "accept" them or "reject" them. This phenomenon has no precedence in the history of the Catholic Church.

Cantarella, this is just nonsense. Who believes that a pope can be deposed? No authority on Earth can depose a pope, so what are you talking about?

Yes, I am familiar with the sede argument: We just have to convince ourselves and say that the Pope is not really the Pope so that we would no be really deposing the Pope per say because the man occupying the Seat of Peter (who would be judged) has already deposed himself long time ago. Frankly that is just another Modernist semantic game with no connection to reality. The same type they play with EENS.

Contrary to sede pet theory, the objective reality of the existence of a Roman Pontiff currently occupying the Seat of Peter with jurisdiction over the universal Church, does NOT depend on the individual Catholic believing in that he is true or not.

Cantarella · « **Reply #23 on:** June 12, 2015, 04:16:46 PM »

Bellator Dei,

According to sede logic, tell me exactly what prevents me from thinking and asserting that Pope Pius XII, for example, was a heretic who favored the progressivists within the Church, and therefore not a "true Pope", (which would make all his juridical and ecclesiastical actions invalid)?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** June 12, 2015, 04:59:22 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

The words "buffoon", "idiotic", "moronic", and "lack of basic intelligence" would possibly be merely insults but "(or complete dishonesty)" is a calumny.

Uhm, no, it's not. But even if you claim it is, I stated that only either lack of intelligence or complete dishonesty could account for various claims made by Father Cekada. As to which it is, I make no judgment.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #25 on:** June 12, 2015, 05:02:12 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Bellator Dei,

According to sede logic, tell me exactly what prevents me from thinking and asserting that Pope Pius XII, for example, was a heretic who favored the progressivists within the Church, and therefore not a "true Pope", (which would make all his juridical and ecclesiastical actions invalid)?

According to Father Cekada it's because Pius XII is a past pope. Of course, that doesn't really help matters, since that then would mean that the Assumption is not dogma ... even in the present.

TKGS · « **Reply #26 on:** June 12, 2015, 06:14:13 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Ladislaus
This despite the fact that I cited a theologian writing at the time of Pius XII who said that considering (making the "determination") Pius XII to be illegitimate would constitute HERESY.

I would still be interested in knowing who was questioning the validity of Pope Pius XII during his reign, who this cardinal was (you only provided who you "thought" it might have been), and where the condemnation was actually published in the 1950s.

It's just that I would think such a docuмent would have been highly publicized by now as it seems to be devastating to the sedevacantist thesis, and it just seems strange that the only person, seemingly, in the world that has ever read the docuмent is our very own Ladislaus.

By the way, you have never cited this theologian's writings. You have made a vague reference to this theological treatise that you say you remember reading which no other anti-sedevacantist apologist has read. I don't doubt your sincerity that you truly believe what you are saying, but I do doubt that such a docuмent, written in the 1950s, actually exists or, if it does exist, actually says, in context, exactly what you read into it.

Please do not claim to have "cited" something unless you actually provide a citation.

Excuse me for quoting myself, but I didn't want this item lost in all the gunk that has since been posted. I really would like to have this theological treatise identified.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #27 on:** June 12, 2015, 07:59:13 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Ladislaus
This despite the fact that I cited a theologian writing at the time of Pius XII who said that considering (making the "determination") Pius XII to be illegitimate would constitute HERESY.

I would still be interested in knowing who was questioning the validity of Pope Pius XII during his reign, who this cardinal was (you only provided who you "thought" it might have been), and where the condemnation was actually published in the 1950s.

It's just that I would think such a docuмent would have been highly publicized by now as it seems to be devastating to the sedevacantist thesis, and it just seems strange that the only person, seemingly, in the world that has ever read the docuмent is our very own Ladislaus.

By the way, you have never cited this theologian's writings. You have made a vague reference to this theological treatise that you say you remember reading which no other anti-sedevacantist apologist has read. I don't doubt your sincerity that you truly believe what you are saying, but I do doubt that such a docuмent, written in the 1950s, actually exists or, if it does exist, actually says, in context, exactly what you read into it.

Please do not claim to have "cited" something unless you actually provide a citation.

Excuse me for quoting myself, but I didn't want this item lost in all the gunk that has since been posted. I really would like to have this theological treatise identified.

I will have to dig up a copy of my original paper; might be a few days before I can get around to it. I will be very busy this weekend.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** June 15, 2015, 03:29:33 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Cantarella
Bellator Dei,

According to sede logic, tell me exactly what prevents me from thinking and asserting that Pope Pius XII, for example, was a heretic who favored the progressivists within the Church, and therefore not a "true Pope", (which would make all his juridical and ecclesiastical actions invalid)?

Well, Cantarella, was Pope Pius XII a heretic?

Some SVs, albeit a small minority, certainly think so.

Prayerful · « **Reply #29 on:** June 15, 2015, 04:20:07 PM »

Pope Pius XII did appoint Fr Bugini as Secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform. The hatcheting to Holy Week and the Mass itself commenced at that point. The Missal of 1962 was more a culmination of the Bugini wrecking job on the Mass, than a great departure. Paul VI's progressivism found outlet under Pius XII. Maybe that might be grounds for those of that opinion. No idea beyond that.