Author Topic: John Salza on Sedevacantism (Read 10137 times)

SJB · « **Reply #60 on:** April 09, 2011, 07:25:27 PM »

Quote

"Acknowledging" he isn't the Pope is a judgment. I don't see how it cannot be.

Of course it's a judgment. It's not a legal judgment, however. Are you really confused by this?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #61 on:** April 09, 2011, 07:37:37 PM »

He knows the difference. I do not think I would be unfair to say that, in the recent past, his argument has been that the difference, at least in our case, is really just one of semantics, smoke-and-mirrors, etc.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #62 on:** April 09, 2011, 07:51:32 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
"Acknowledging" he isn't the Pope is a judgment. I don't see how it cannot be.

Of course it's a judgment. It's not a legal judgment, however. Are you really confused by this?

Raoul did not distinguish, he simply said "In our case, no judgment is involved". That is what I was responding to.

As for "legal judgment" is it not a distinction without a difference? Are you not still deciding for yourself whether the Pope is a manifest heretic? Are you not then placing trust in your own ability to properly discern heresy?

Is this what the "Cassicuм (sp?)" thesis rests on? Or do rigorist sedes claim to make non-legal judgments as well? Please, if you would, explain this distinction to me and how it comprises a true and meaningful and not just legalistic difference.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #63 on:** April 09, 2011, 08:01:43 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

As for "legal judgment" is it not a distinction without a difference? Are you not still deciding for yourself whether the Pope is a manifest heretic? Are you not then placing trust in your own ability to properly discern heresy?

No distinction is without a difference, when all is said and done -- or else, what do words mean?

FWIW, if we cannot discern heresy without the help of an authoritative statement, we will all be in trouble in this world. What is the point of having or learning the Faith if we cannot tell what is in radical opposition thereto? [As an aside, Bp Williamson has stated, unequivocally, that the V2 popes have uttered heresies. He just believes differently than I about the proper response to them.]

We have to decide MANY things each day, sans officialdom's rubber stamp.

SJB · « **Reply #64 on:** April 09, 2011, 09:07:21 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: SJB
Quote
"Acknowledging" he isn't the Pope is a judgment. I don't see how it cannot be.

Of course it's a judgment. It's not a legal judgment, however. Are you really confused by this?

Raoul did not distinguish, he simply said "In our case, no judgment is involved". That is what I was responding to.

Stevus, it's not like Raoul76 just posted for the first time. You know darn well what he means a private judgement.

Quote

As for "legal judgment" is it not a distinction without a difference? Are you not still deciding for yourself whether the Pope is a manifest heretic? Are you not then placing trust in your own ability to properly discern heresy?

Why do you think we cannot discern heresy?

Quote

Is this what the "Cassicuм (sp?)" thesis rests on? Or do rigorist sedes claim to make non-legal judgments as well? Please, if you would, explain this distinction to me and how it comprises a true and meaningful and not just legalistic difference.

You and I and everybody else make judgments every day. None are juridical. If you can't see that distinction on your own, you're just not willing to see it.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #65 on:** April 09, 2011, 09:34:06 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: stevusmagnus
As for "legal judgment" is it not a distinction without a difference? Are you not still deciding for yourself whether the Pope is a manifest heretic? Are you not then placing trust in your own ability to properly discern heresy?

No distinction is without a difference, when all is said and done -- or else, what do words mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference

Quote

FWIW, if we cannot discern heresy without the help of an authoritative statement, we will all be in trouble in this world. What is the point of having or learning the Faith if we cannot tell what is in radical opposition thereto? [As an aside, Bp Williamson has stated, unequivocally, that the V2 popes have uttered heresies. He just believes differently than I about the proper response to them.

Has sede-ism provne or demonstrated one heresy officially taught by post-VCII Popes? Has it not instead assignedheretical interpretations to Papal statements as the only possible interpretation and then condemned said heretical interpretation? Doesn't fact that only sedes and not even all Trads admit of these supposed publicly taught heresies evidence that said minority either cannot judge heresy or else is not being intellectually honest?

Quote

We have to decide MANY things each day, sans officialdom's rubber stamp.

Judging the pope is no different than making every day decisions?

Does sede-ism admit that the Pope cannot officially be deposed unless he is a formal heretic?

If the Pope were suspected of being a formal heretic, who would judge this to be the case and who would depose him?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #66 on:** April 09, 2011, 09:39:50 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Stevus, it's not like Raoul76 just posted for the first time. You know darn well what he means a private judgement.

I know what I read and that's what I responded to. If he wants to clarify he is welcome.

Quote

Why do you think we cannot discern heresy?

See my response to GV. Also please define exactly what type of judgment you are making and then desscribe how this differs from a "legal judgment" and why it matters. Are you a rigorist sede or do you subscribe to GV's argument? Thanks.

Quote

Quote
Is this what the "Cassicuм (sp?)" thesis rests on? Or do rigorist sedes claim to make non-legal judgments as well? Please, if you would, explain this distinction to me and how it comprises a true and meaningful and not just legalistic difference.

You and I and everybody else make judgments every day. None are juridical. If you can't see that distinction on your own, you're just not willing to see it.

You didn't answer my questions.

SJB · « **Reply #67 on:** April 10, 2011, 04:38:41 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: SJB
Stevus, it's not like Raoul76 just posted for the first time. You know darn well what he means a private judgement.

I know what I read and that's what I responded to. If he wants to clarify he is welcome.

Quote
Why do you think we cannot discern heresy?

See my response to GV. Also please define exactly what type of judgment you are making and then desscribe how this differs from a "legal judgment" and why it matters. Are you a rigorist sede or do you subscribe to GV's argument? Thanks.

Quote
Quote
Is this what the "Cassicuм (sp?)" thesis rests on? Or do rigorist sedes claim to make non-legal judgments as well? Please, if you would, explain this distinction to me and how it comprises a true and meaningful and not just legalistic difference.

You and I and everybody else make judgments every day. None are juridical. If you can't see that distinction on your own, you're just not willing to see it.

You didn't answer my questions.

Stevus, I did answer your question. You appear to be a "turd stirrer" rather than someone making an effort to understand others.

SJB · « **Reply #68 on:** April 10, 2011, 04:51:40 AM »

Quote from: stevus

Does sede-ism admit that the Pope cannot officially be deposed unless he is a formal heretic?

If the Pope were suspected of being a formal heretic, who would judge this to be the case and who would depose him?

The pope-heretic question was answered by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church.

Quote from: Bellarmine

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

Exilenomore · « **Reply #69 on:** April 10, 2011, 09:09:09 AM »

The fact that we separate ourselves from communion with the novus ordo establishment is an explicit manifestation of our extra-juridical judgement that it is not catholic. You (Stevus) do this just like us. Is Vatican II orthodox? If not, it is heterodox and we must reject it. If it is orthodox (which it isn't), then we have to accept it in religious obedience, trusting that any error in it does not go so far as to place our souls in peril. But we know that these official docuмents do put our souls in peril if we accept them. All traditional catholics acknowledge this. Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops as a response to the crisis. This alone should give you an idea of the situation.

The question one could ask oneself is this: Can I honestly profess the communion of faith with Benedict XVI? Can I sincerely pronounce the creed with him? Do we really have the same faith?

The very concept of ecclesiastical communion has been forgotten by many. And, in my opinion, this is part of the reason why so few people care about the state of the papacy today. Most are just happy when they have their Mass (and yes, the Mass is important and the most precious treasure we have), but if the remnant really wants to work towards an end to the present trials, one must analyse the root of the problem and do what catholics have always done; that is, exposing those who pervert the doctrines of the Church and make them harmless.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #70 on:** April 10, 2011, 09:39:31 AM »

Quote from: SJB

The pope-heretic question was answered by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church.

Quote from: Bellarmine
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

Really? St. Bellarmina locuta est, causa finita est?

Please let me know where and when he received the authority and infallibility to decide the matter for the entire Church for all times.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #71 on:** April 10, 2011, 10:03:01 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Stevus, I did answer your question..

1.) I said you didn't answer my "questions" not "question".

2.) I asked you the following questions, which are public record:

a.) Please define exactly what type of judgment you are making and then desscribe how this differs from a "legal judgment" and

b.) why it matters.

c.) Are you a rigorist sede or do you subscribe to GV's argument?

d.) Is this what the "Cassicuм (sp?)" thesis rests on?

e.) Or do rigorist sedes claim to make non-legal judgments as well?

f.) Please, if you would, explain this distinction to me

g.)and how it comprises a true and meaningful and not just legalistic difference.

Please point out when and where you answered these questions.

You only responded once and your response didn't give any meaningful answer to any of the SEVEN questions I asked you.

Therefore it is self-evident that you did not answer a single question I raised.

Quote from: SJB

You appear to be a "turd stirrer" rather than someone making an effort to understand others.

Yes, asking SEVEN sincere questions of you shows I'm making NO effort to "understand others".

Classy language as well for a Traditional Catholic board.

SJB · « **Reply #72 on:** April 10, 2011, 10:28:43 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: SJB
Stevus, I did answer your question..

1.) I said you didn't answer my "questions" not "question".

2.) I asked you the following questions, which are public record:

a.) Please define exactly what type of judgment you are making and then desscribe how this differs from a "legal judgment" and

b.) why it matters.

c.) Are you a rigorist sede or do you subscribe to GV's argument?

d.) Is this what the "Cassicuм (sp?)" thesis rests on?

e.) Or do rigorist sedes claim to make non-legal judgments as well?

f.) Please, if you would, explain this distinction to me

g.)and how it comprises a true and meaningful and not just legalistic difference.

Please point out when and where you answered these questions.

You only responded once and your response didn't give any meaningful answer to any of the SEVEN questions I asked you.

Therefore it is self-evident that you did not answer a single question I raised.

Quote from: SJB
You appear to be a "turd stirrer" rather than someone making an effort to understand others.

Yes, asking SEVEN sincere questions of you shows I'm making NO effort to "understand others".

Classy language as well for a Traditional Catholic board.

Your dislike of the sede position (you embrace a dogmatic sedeplentist position) is causing you to be emotional and inaccurate.

You've been wildly posting everything anti-sede you can find and expect us to analyze every article in detail. If you were paying attention you'd know some of the things that have been answered and repeated over and over and over.

Quote from: stevus

and how it comprises a true and meaningful and not just legalistic difference.

Are all things pertaining to law legalistic when you want to dismiss them? The difference is an extra-juridicial judgement and a judidicial judgement are judgements made without and with authority. You're not going to find a lengthy answer in a big thick book because it is too obvious for such a thing.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #73 on:** April 10, 2011, 10:37:26 AM »

Thank you, Exile, for a sincere and serious response!

Quote from: Exilenomore

The fact that we separate ourselves from communion with the novus ordo establishment is an explicit manifestation of our extra-juridical judgement that it is not catholic. You (Stevus) do this just like us.

Sedes "separate" themselves from communion with the NO Church and Pope due to their extra-juridical judgment that it is not only not "catholic" but a false counter-church. It would then be a sin to enter communion with this false church and pope.

The Society did not separate itself from communion with the NO Church. The NO Church "separated" the Society from "full communion" (whatever that means) with it. The NO Church considers the Society to be inside the Church but in an irregular canonical position. The Society prays for the Pope at every Mass, is not excommunicated, and is in constant dialogue with Rome. Thus the Society does not separate themselves from communion with the NO Church and Pope.

Quote

Is Vatican II orthodox? If not, it is heterodox and we must reject it. If it is orthodox (which it isn't), then we have to accept it in religious obedience, trusting that any error in it does not go so far as to place our souls in peril. But we know that these official docuмents do put our souls in peril if we accept them. All traditional catholics acknowledge this. Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops as a response to the crisis. This alone should give you an idea of the situation.

Vatican II, interpreted in the light of Tradition is orthodox. The problem is in its ambiguity. I'm praying one of the fruits of the discussions is a Papal clarification of these ambiguities once and for all. In any case, we do accept the proper interpretation of VCII in religious obedience as ABL did when he signed the docuмents and later offered to Rome that he was willing to accept the VCII docuмents interpreted in light of Tradition. VCII, interpreted correctly, does not place our souls in peril.

Vatican II, interpreted in conflict with Tradition is heterodox and we must reject that interpretation. What CAN place our souls in peril are the heterodox teachings, atmosphere, and practices of many liberal NO parishes and dioceses and these, we must avoid for the sake of our souls. These places often could care less about the texts of VCII and do what they want with little discipline from the Bishops. THIS is the key problem in my opinion.

Quote

The question one could ask oneself is this: Can I honestly profess the communion of faith with Benedict XVI? Can I sincerely pronounce the creed with him? Do we really have the same faith?

Yes, we do. Pope Benedict professes the Nicene Creed he says at Mass every day, he denies no Catholic dogma. We do have the same Faith. This does not mean I must agree with his every action or word, but it does mean we share the same faith.

Quote

The very concept of ecclesiastical communion has been forgotten by many. And, in my opinion, this is part of the reason why so few people care about the state of the papacy today. Most are just happy when they have their Mass (and yes, the Mass is important and the most precious treasure we have), but if the remnant really wants to work towards an end to the present trials, one must analyse the root of the problem and do what catholics have always done; that is, exposing those who pervert the doctrines of the Church and make them harmless.

But how can sedes expose those who pervert the doctrine of the Church and make them harmless, when they take themselves out of the NO debate altogether by their belief they are a conterfeit anti-church? It seems to me that sede-ism doesn't much concern itself with the NO, but with attempting to persuade other Traditionalists to their view. How does this approach get to the root of the problem.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #74 on:** April 10, 2011, 10:43:41 AM »

SJB,

My last post still stands. I appreciate you attempted to answer one of my seven questions in your last post.

However, do you admit you answered zero of my questions previously, but claimed to have answered them? Then you called me a name and said I do not care to understand others?

If I didn't care to understand your position, BELIEVE ME I would not be asking you seven questions. I would have called you a name and moved on by now.

I take each thread and post separately as I'm talking to different posters with different positions.