100%
Though I would be remiss to not acknowledge my fear for him is that he will end up creating some kind of pseudo-traditional novus ordo schism of the schism cult - like the "underground" Chinese "church". So, hopefully he does put those missing pieces together sooner rather than later. Prayers and sacrifices!
BREAKING: Bishop Strickland Rebukes Pope and US Bishops (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXH0XyvuavA) (@38:00 mm)
I struggled a bit with Lofton, because he is so personally distasteful to me as a person. But then it finally dawned on me that he actually understands the situation 100% and has chosen to plant his feet firmly in the Modernist camp. It really only comes down to 2 positions, you are either with the man claiming to be pope - who 99% of the worlds self-professed Catholics also acknowledge to be so - no matter what Satanic filth pours out of his mouth or evil acts he commits or endorses, or you will come by degrees (some quicker than others, no two people are exactly the same and everyone has different gifts/resources) to see that he is not really a true pope. Even though I think someone with Lofton's "schooling" is most likely bad-willed, I think his take on what happens next with Strickland is spot on.
Agreed. Though his prediction about Vigano turned out true, and similarly what he said in the above clip from the 38:00 mm to the 38:08 mm (8 seconds), I think will equally prove true. I never listened to him for his commentary (which is beyond terrible), but he started dropping into my feed when his channel first started because I was watching a lot of SSPX stuff. At that time, I was still defending the ecclesiology of the SSPX, so he angered me as I saw his criticisms as unjust. But like I said above, after studying the SV position long and hard I had a moment of revelation that He actually does understand that R&R is a dead-end and principally not Catholic. The only logical choice is to either be for the Conciliar Church and its popes or completely against it (no middle ground), therefore I was able to see that he is most likely a bad-willed actor trying to keep sheep in the wolves' den rather than the conservative Novus Ordo that he pretends to be. So, from time-to-time I still give him a quick listen to get a feel on how his camp is thinking. I was especially grateful to see the Dimond's put him in his place as an, "useful idiot of Satan" and even 80-lbs-soaking-wet-90-year-old Zen jump on his back calling him out as a, "large man with a tiny beard". Sometimes we can learn from our enemies too. Lofton needs prayers for his conversion.
Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us and our erring brethren - 300 days.
Fair enough! I often think these days that maybe there is no one left who is truly Catholic at least in the sense that we would all like to be. But some of us desire to be so, and the true test of our faith is summed up well in Mueller's Catechism:
Lesson X.—Qualities of Faith.
Q. When is our faith quite pleasing to God?
A. When it is strong, lively, entire, and sound.
Q. When is our faith strong?
A. When we believe without the least doubt, and choose to lose all, even our life, rather than fall away from it.
Q. When is our faith lively?
A. When we practise what our faith teaches.
Q. When is our faith entire?
A. When we believe all the truths which the Catholic Church teaches, as contained in the Holy Scripture or tradition.
Q. When is our faith sound?
A. When we avoid not only open heresy, but also diligently shun, and in our hearts dissent from, those errors which approach it more of less closely, and religiously observe those constitutions and decrees whereby such evil opinions, either directly or indirectly, have been proscribed and prohibited by the Holy See.
Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine by Rev (http://catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm#P1Lx)
So, for our faith to be pleasing to God it must be all these things (no error). For me, I see error in the ecclesiology of R&R, though I know it is not based on bad-will, but as you say, it is a reaction trying to make sense of an unprecedented situation. So, I had to spend a lot of time reading up on Infallibility (which Mueller's work above is actually quite good on). The continued study and prayer have aided me to conclude that the R&R undermines the dogma of Infallibility in a way that at least I cannot personally reconcile with the faith. But, from the opposing side I know that R&R argue the SV position undermines the dogma of Indefectibility. The doctrines on Infallibility are more explicit in what one must believe, while Indefectibility is a little less clear and there is also historical precedent for a remnant Church, but not for popes teaching heresy for the universal Church. I just asked myself which dogma was clearer in its definitions, and I have internally adopted the SV position so as to carry out my duties/function, because no two dogmas of the faith can coexist in a state of tension/opposition within a soul that must embrace the entirety of the faith.
... since the Church has not directly ever addressed about how to deal with this type of situation.Pope Paul IV addressed it in cuм ex where he says:
Pope Paul IV addressed it in cuм ex where he says:
"The Roman Pontiff....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted."
^^This is R&R.
Pope Paul IV addressed it in cuм ex where he says:
"The Roman Pontiff....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted."
^^This is R&R.
I suppose that "having deviated from the faith" could be the same thing as outright heresy. I would have preferred that the word "heresy" be used in the above quote, so as to make it crystal clear. Just my opinion. There's a lack of precise terminology too, when the sedevacantists try to fit Church teaching into a sedevacantist paradigm. It's never direct, and therefore doesn't quite work. But....to each his own.One who is a heretic has deviated from the faith, but, the issue is that the sedes do not see the words: "who may judge all and be judged by none in this world."
Having read it, you must intentionally be concealing the gravamen of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:.....And you must intentionally be disobeying the directive given to us by pope Paul IV.
Well, Pope Paul IV's direction applies when the pope deviates from the faith, all the more when he is a raging heretic - he is to be contradicted - - the greater the danger, the more he is to be contradicted.
Yes, I am familiar - I use to hold the R&R. Most people who are SVs pass through that way. You make a good point that the term "deviate" should be stronger. Because he could have easily been referencing such an episode as John XXII and all that transpired in that case i.e., private opinion, not yet defined as dogma, etc.
You may choose to read it that way - I will not dispute it. I guess we will just have to wait a little bit longer to find out Paul IV's exact sense of that choice of wording. I could counter, to say one has deviated from their course does not imply shipwreck. But heresy is full-on shipwreck. The pope personally may deviate from the faith (occult). But if he were to steer the baroque into the shoals and crash it (public) - then you would have Christ leading us all to damnation.I choose to read it in the same sense that he wrote it. He is quite explicit and clear throughout the entire docuмent, except for this paragraph? No. I quoted the pope describing R&R which is the directive he gave.
But I would only add - at least for myself - that I have no power to judge anyone. I can only judge their actions/beliefs. In the case of the principle I am using, it is not me who has "dethroned" anyone, but rather God and I am merely witness to this fact which has been made known to me by their manifest and public heresy.This is the common sede pillar, i.e. that he was dethroned by God, but the fact is that all the cardinals in the conclave(s) elected and accepts them as popes, and on that account we must also. God did not give us a choice in this matter, that's why there are cardinals. We witness his heresies and obey Pope Paul IV's instructions about what we are to do when the pope is a heretic and we can save our souls, because that is the direction a pope gave us to follow. That is the teaching of the Church telling us the only thing that we can do about heretic popes.
What do you think of Stickland's rebuke anyway and what is next for him?Time will tell, but if the bishop is sincere he will absolutely be expelled from his office the same way as +Vigano and the multitude of priests and bishops before him. Until then, for me, he is not with us yet, still against us.
Having read it, you must intentionally be concealing the gravamen of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:
“In addition, that if ever at any time it shall appear that any… Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church… 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: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless…those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559, §6 (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)
^^This is NOT R&R!
Could you explain a little more about how you view the situation in Strickland's context. I take it you think of him as a legitimate bishop. You mention him being expelled from his office but did that not already happen when he was replaced in Tyler TX.? Vigano was declared in schism and excommunicated but was already retired from any offices he held if I am remembering correctly. So, I think Laughton has it right that the next step for him would be "laicization", because they cannot actually hit him the same as Vigano (excommunication) who has denied both Vatican II as legitimate and Francis as being pope. Strickland has done neither. He seems to think the pope can be an apostate/heretic and many of the bishops can be heretics while still retaining their offices, which is the practical mindset of R&R.
From Strickland's Letter,
"I think that St. Jude had men such as many of you in mind when he described men who feast “together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars…” (Jude 1:12-13)."
From the Haydock Commentary:
Ver. 12-13. These are spots in their banquets; (see 2 Pet. ii. 13.) in which they commit unheard of abominations, twice dead, which signifies no more than quite dead, clouds without water, &c. All these metaphors are to represent the corrupt manners of these heretics. Wi.
Oddly, if he had read the commentary for the preceding verse he would have seen,
Ver. 11. They have imitated, or gone in the way of Cain, who murdered his brother; and they have a mortal hatred against the faithful. They have imitated Balaam[8] and his covetousness, (see 2 Peter ii. 15.) and Core, (Num. xvi.) who with others opposed Moses; and as these sinners perished, so will they. Wi. — Way, &c. Heretics follow the way of Cain, by murdering the souls of their brethren; the way of Balaam by putting a scandal before the people of God, for their own private ends; and the way of Core or Korah, by their opposition to the church governors of divine appointment. Ch.
Well, they did "laicize" Pavone for what seems like a lot less and to my knowledge he wasn't excommunicated. That was pretty high profile too. In their eyes McCarrick is a hero who fell on his sword for the cause and Strickland is the true enemy. Vigano got "excommunicated", for denying VII and Francis as pope - Strickland has done neither of those things explicitly - yet... If you can't excommunicate - "laicize", or vice versa as long as the job gets done. Prayers for Strickland though, I hope he comes over to our side of his own free choice.
Vatican dismisses Father Frank Pavone from priesthood | Catholic News Agency (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253106/vatican-dismisses-father-frank-pavone-from-priesthood)
Pavone wasn't a bishop.
So far as I can see, Strickland hasn't done anything that would rise to the level of excommunication, or laicization for that matter, not even by an ecclesiastical regime that is hostile to him. He seems to be careful not to cross the Rubicon of sedevacantism (or outright Vatican II denial), which would be a horse of an entirely different color.
Could you explain a little more about how you view the situation in Strickland's context. I take it you think of him as a legitimate bishop. You mention him being expelled from his office but did that not already happen when he was replaced in Tyler TX.? Vigano was declared in schism and excommunicated but was already retired from any offices he held if I am remembering correctly. So, I think Laughton has it right that the next step for him would be "laicization", because they cannot actually hit him the same as Vigano (excommunication) who has denied both Vatican II as legitimate and Francis as being pope. Strickland has done neither. He seems to think the pope can be an apostate/heretic and many of the bishops can be heretics while still retaining their offices, which is the practical mindset of R&R.As far as I'm concerned he's a legitimate bishop, but I do have grave doubts about that. My doubts would keep me from getting confirmed by him, and I doubt the validity of NO priests he's ordained - same as all NO hierarchy and clergy, for me there is no difference - I avoid it all, always have. For me, he is no different than all NO clergy/hierarchy. But understand that for me, I do not concern myself with such things because I've never had to and hopefully never will.
Yes, I had thi same debate with him earlier. This is a first for R&R, to claim that cuм ex supports R&R. :laugh1: :laugh2: We used to hear all the time that CEA is a disciplinary rather than doctrinal docuмent, but this is a good one.It's kinda like a BOD where the BODers see only the words: "the desire thereof" and ignore the rest. Sedes read the whole cuм ex docuмent, comprehend it in it's total clarity, all except for the opening paragraph. In fact if they read it at all, to them that opening paragraph is the only part of the whole docuмent that means something other than what it says.
What the "judging" question refers to is a statement by Pope Innocent where he states that a Pope cannot be judged, except that a heretic Pope could be judged, or, rather held to have already been judged by God.
He didn't do anything to warrant getting deposed either. You seem to underestimate the malice of Bergoglio
I am just thinking that to laicize or excommunicate a bishop is a horse of a different color, than doing likewise to a simple priest.
Strickland is walking a fine line right now, between accusing the pope of manifest heresy and declaring the office vacant, and pulling his punches short of that. Either one of those would indeed be Rubicons to cross, and Vigano has crossed both of those Rubicons.
“Pope Francis has abdicated ..."