One day, maybe soon, the See of Rome could become vacant. There have been several false popes, or anti-popes, in Church history. Again, for our own times, or times not far off, Our Lady warned us at La Salette that Rome will become the Seat of the Anti-Christ. It is quite possible that with the death of John Paul II (which may not be far off) there will be a vacant See of Rome or an anti-Pope for a while.So what happened after JP2’s death? Was a real pope elected in his place, and was +W thereafter convinced that the two men succeeding JP2 met the criteria as legitimate successors? Because HE certainly did not declare any vacancy at the time these events occurred.
"Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. It is not just words, it is not just words in the air that I say to you. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy. One cannot have confidence any more in this world. He [the pope] has left the Church; they have left the Church; they are leaving the Church. It is sure, sure, sure!"ABL asserts, albeit elliptically, that it’s OK to think that the pope is not the pope. In fact, why could one not reasonably conclude from ABL’s own remarks that the Chair was vacant? It was ABL himself who said that Rome had lost the Faith, and that Rome was in apostasy? ABL painted himself into a corner, I think.
I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope." --Archbishop Lefebvre, to his American priests, 1979
"The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even with His Mystical Body here below" (Letter Attributed to Archbishop LefebvreCan anyone honestly believe that ABL excluded JP2 from those “posts of authority” occupied by Antichrists? Please!
Feast of St. Augustine, August 29, 1987.)
"The current state of the papacy renders insignificant the difficulties over jurisdiction, disobedience and apostolicity, because these notions suppose the reign of a pope Catholic in his faith and government. Without entering into consideration of the consequences of an heretical, schismatic or non-existent pope, which would lead to interminable theoretical discussions, in conscience could we not and ought we not, after the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Carton Law which clearly affirms the new Church, and after his scandalous declarations concerning Luther, now affirm that Pope John Paul II is not Catholic? We say no more, but we say no less. We had waited for the measure to become full, and it is so henceforth."
The sedevacantist honestly recognizes that his faith is actually not the same asJohn Paul II and his Conciliar Church. He recognizes that he is actually not subject and obedient to John Paul II. As a traditional Catholic, the sedevacantist believes and professes all the teachings of the Catholic Church, and this profession of the true Faith includes a rejection of the false teachings of Vatican II (“all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive” — Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, June 29, 1976).In 1986, ABL was on the cusp of becoming sedevacantist himself. He was very “anxious.” Were he alive presently, I am sure that Bergoglio could help push ABL over the edge. Read the following:
But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.
Bergoglio would have helped the Archbishop deal effectively with his indecisiveness. Of that I am convinced.Or he might have thought Francis' willingness to give ordinary jurisdiction to the SSPX without conditions as proof that, while certainly the crisis isn't over, that it could be possible to fight from within.
On an earlier thread, I was arguing with SeanJohnson, and I pointed out to him the fact that +Lefebvre was quite sympathetic to sedevacantism, but he denied it. After I produced the quotes, he stormed off the thread and then left CI for a time.I don't know how +Lefebvre would reason through this, but I will say, while Francis certainly says more problematic things than his predecessors, he by pure happenstance seems to be better for trads who want to be in communion with him than JPII was. Mostly because he's too progressive to actually really want to force people to agree with him.
If even increasing numbers of people within the Novus Ordo are beginning to question whether or not Francis is a heretic, I think it's very unlikely that +Lefebvre would not have come out an open sedevacantist, with his one reservation being that only the Church can definitively settle the issue.
If ABL might have suspended his SV tendencies had Bergoglion simply formally opened the door of return, then shame on him.I mean if it was purely pragmatic, sure. But I could also see the reasoning going something like.
Or he might have thought Francis' willingness to give ordinary jurisdiction to the SSPX without conditions as proof that, while certainly the crisis isn't over, that it could be possible to fight from within.
I don't know how +Lefebvre would reason through this, but I will say, while Francis certainly says more problematic things than his predecessors, he by pure happenstance seems to be better for trads who want to be in communion with him than JPII was. Mostly because he's too progressive to actually really want to force people to agree with him.
At this point the SSPX is PRACTICALLY regularized and Francis isn't seriously trying to persecute them.
To be clear this isn't a defense of the man, actually listening to his teaching would be dangerous, but he's not attempting to excommunicate anyone for not doing so.
Whereas John Paul II was actively suppressing the Latin Mass and actively only allowing it to people who were also OK with the Novus Ordo.
So I don't know how +Lefebvre would reason through that issue. For all I know he might be like "it actually doesn't matter anymore" or something (Sedevacantism, not Traditionalism.)
That said, I seriously doubt he'd bind sedevacantism on people, even if he did personally conclude that it seemed more likely.
Right, but while Francis would have been more lenient on the SSPX, +Lefebvre wasn't primarily about convenience. When John Paul II got elected, the Archbishop was at first optimistic. But when Assissi happened, that's when +Lefebvre came within a hair's breadth of becoming an open sedevacantist. Bergoglio makes Wojtyla look like St. Pius X by comparison.And with Francis' stacked deck, the next "pope" will make Francis look like Pius V.
And with Francis' stacked deck, the next "pope" will make Francis look like Pius V.
Right, but while Francis would have been more lenient on the SSPX, +Lefebvre wasn't primarily about convenience. When John Paul II got elected, the Archbishop was at first optimistic. But when Assissi happened, that's when +Lefebvre came within a hair's breadth of becoming an open sedevacantist. Bergoglio makes Wojtyla look like St. Pius X by comparison.I can see how you could come to that conclusion from certain principles though, and not merely from convenience. But again, all I'm saying is its impossible to be sure.
But when Assissi happened, that's when +Lefebvre came within a hair's breadth of becoming an open sedevacantist. Bergoglio makes Wojtyla look like St. Pius X by comparison.
What kinda bothers me is why +Williamson doesn't refer to this fact more often.
How about because it was not a fact, and wasn’t true?How do you explain the quotes?
Perhaps the man who had expelled “the 9” only 3 years prior was a little more stable in his position that you were?
How do you explain the quotes?
“We May be obliged to believe some day...” does not mean he believed it in the present (and his recent past would suggest the opposite).
He called the pope an antichrist, yes. But not an antipope.
So it's possible for an antichrist to legitimately be the Vicar of Christ?Antichrist is whatever opposes Christ (sin, scandal, etc).
+Lefebvre was clearly open to sedevacantism, did not condemn it, and felt that it indeed might be the case that the V2 papal claimants are/were not legitimate popes.
He was indignant and scandalized by Assisi, and became convinced of the need for bishops, yes.I more mean the one where he said "I do not say you cannot say this Pope is not Pope..."
He called the pope an antichrist, yes. But not an antipope.
“We May be obliged to believe some day...” does not mean he believed it in the present (and his recent past would suggest the opposite).
I more mean the one where he said "I do not say you cannot say this Pope is not Pope..."I have no explanation for that one.
No.
He was closed to it until such time as the Church might possibly declare it.
Until then, it was not possible.
This is the classic reponse. This is the "Resistance" line. This is vintage Williamsonism. We wait interminably until another future pope, or some kind of specially appointed conclave, or whatever, makes the call. Meanwhile, we poor saps in the Catholic laity, (and priesthood) simply tolerate the enormities of the reigning pope. We either like it or lump it.
I think it's all baloney. We know exactly what and who these "popes" are. They've behaved intolerably in our faces for almost fifty years. I, for one, have had enough. Let the sedevacantist banners fly. I'm not waiting for a phony church to declare anything about anything.
Antichrist is whatever opposes Christ (sin, scandal, etc).
No.
He was closed to it, but open to the possibility that the Church might some day declare it.
Until then, it was not possible.
It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
I more mean the one where he said "I do not say you cannot say this Pope is not Pope..."
Right. Even Johnson could not find a way to explain this one away. This means that, oops, +Lefebvre considered it a tenable opinion. Unlike you, he did not consider someone who held the position to be schismatic and/or heretical.
Unlike you, he did not consider someone who held the position to be schismatic and/or heretical.To be clear, you mean Sean here. I didn't actually say this. (Grammatically it looks like you're saying I said it.)
An out of character remark does not suffice to overturn an entire string of comments and actions to the contrary.
Did he consider sedevacantists to be upright members of the Church?
Undoubtedly. He rebuked certain over-zealous Society priests who refused the sacraments to sedevacantists. He collaborated with Bishop de Castro-Mayer after the Brazilian prelate had made his sedevacantism quite clear. He accepted numerous seminarians from sedevacantist families, parishes or groups. He patronised the Le Trévoux “Ordo” with its guide to traditional places of worship throughout the world, which has always included (and still does) certain known sedevacantist Mass centres. He was at all times well aware of the presence of sedevacantists among the Society’s priests.
“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.”
This is an interesting one, and I don't think that anyone has caught the significance of it.Don't you think if that was the case, someone would have produced evidence of it by now?
+Lefebvre:
This statement was made in 1986. Now, unless he's just exaggerating the timeline, 20 years puts it as 1966. Did +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer being privately questioning the legitimacy of Paul VI in 1966 already, in the immediate wake of Vatican II?
ABL:On the left, Fellay, Athanasius Schneider, Mattei et al want to say "Oh, if Lefebvre were alive today, he would surely have changed to support my position."
That's 1986. It is now 2019, fast forwarding 33 years, (maybe 53 years, if you include the twenty years prior to 1986) Obviously, ABL couldn't make up his mind. +W, as leader of the "Resistance," still can not make up his mind. SJ advises patience as a necessary suffering we must endure, which is risible. The neo-SSPX, of course, has not made up its mind. But for the neo-SSPX it would not be good for business to make any kind of SV declaration. So we know that won't happen. It has all become a very bad joke played on the faithful.
Let SVism, I say, become the new fall back 'Ordinary' traditional position; and let the-pope-is-pope-until-formally-condemned become the new 'Extraordinary' position for those who still love the old ways.
Don't you think if that was the case, someone would have produced evidence of it by now?
What are you talking about? This is +Lefebvre himself saying it. What better evidence is there for what +Lefebvre thought than what +Lefebvre said? Now, I conceded that he may have been exaggerating the timeframe ... or somehow including the entire post-Vatican II period in the timeline, but it he's accurate, this is indeed interesting.I’m saying if your reading is correct, and Lefebvre was already contemplating sedevacantism in 1966, there should be some evidence of such from that time period.
This was not by any means out of character --Yes, "the Nine" merely saw the handwriting on the wall. They saw how the SSPX was already compromising with Rome back when it wasn't en vogue.
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/ (http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/)
At the time of the split, not all of The Nine were actually sedevacantists. They were more upset about the toleration of Novus-Ordo-annulled couples at their chapels and one particular priest who was serving with the SSPX who had not been conditionally ordained ... because he refused ... and about being required to offer the John XXIII 1962 revised Tridentine Missal.
Yes, "the Nine" merely saw the handwriting on the wall. They saw how the SSPX was already compromising with Rome back when it wasn't en vogue.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=48
It just so happens that today would have been Fr Joseph Collins' birthday.
Then your narrative works directly against Ladislaus:It seems to me that there is quite a bit of support out there to suggest that Archbishop Lefebrve was never sure one way or another...a very conflicted man.
He imagines a Lefebvre who was becoming open to sedevacantism, while you imagine one on a relentless trajectory for the conciliar church (for which objective openness or tolerance of sedevacantism would have been counterproductive).
It seems to me that there is quite a bit of support out there to suggest that Archbishop Lefebrve was never sure one way or another...a very conflicted man.
The church make it clear? They are not even Catholic anymore, so don’t think that is going to happen any time soon!1: I asked a question about whether Lefebvre could've believed X. Whether the belief would be correct is a separate question.
I’m saying if your reading is correct, and Lefebvre was already contemplating sedevacantism in 1966, there should be some evidence of such from that time period.
Where is it?
Then your narrative works directly against Ladislaus:
He imagines a Lefebvre who was becoming open to sedevacantism, while you imagine one on a relentless trajectory for the conciliar church (for which objective openness or tolerance of sedevacantism would have been counterproductive).
Is it possible, just POSSIBLE, that Lefebvre believed something like this?
The see might be vacant, it might be. We can't know for sure. But until the Church makes that clear, we risk being schismatic if we take that view. So we've got to assume he's Pope, obey his lawful commands, and pray for him in the mass. And any priest who won't do that isn't welcome in the society.
A view like that would reconcile both of your arguments, so I wonder.
Is it possible, just POSSIBLE, that Lefebvre believed something like this?This is a fair description of what was going on back then. But this was nowhere near good enough for the leader of the pack, bishop (then father) Sanborn. Not even anywhere near to being even remotely close. Hence, +ABL tried to get them to accept this but alas, they would have no part of it.
The see might be vacant, it might be. We can't know for sure. But until the Church makes that clear, we risk being schismatic if we take that view. So we've got to assume he's Pope, obey his lawful commands, and pray for him in the mass. And any priest who won't do that isn't welcome in the society.
A view like that would reconcile both of your arguments, so I wonder.
I don't think that he believed any one thing. At times he was more optimistic; at times he was more pessimistic. He never once condemned sedevacantism as schismatic. He nearly always spoke sympathetically about it. More than anything, I believe that he simply did not like the attitudes of many of the sedevacantists themselves. But he was confused. Who would not be? We'are all confused to one degree or another. Sometimes R&R become sedevacantists, and, more rarely, sedevacantists go full-blown Novus Ordo. People change, and people change their minds.ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE
+ABL didn't seem to be allergic to Sedevacantism. That's why I'm careful to not condemn them outright during this CONFUSION and MYSTERY phase of the Crisis in the Church.I pretty much agree with this, except for two caveats.
They could be right. And if they turn out to be right, I want to have (as usual) nothing to apologize for.
I'll be happy to criticize their position, however, as it does have many flaws and holes in it. Most notably, it doesn't seem to solve anything, there is no "end game" for a valid pope ever getting elected, and there's the whole issue of a 61 year Interregnum or papal vacancy. That alone is a show-stopper for me. Sedes also tend to write off the entire Conciliar church, as if it were 100% equivalent to the Lutheran sect, with no grace to be found, which also flies in the face of reality. I've seen too many Novus Ordo Catholics of good will (though they are rare) to believe this. In short, it's too simple. It's the path for those who must have everything cut-and-dried simple, enough for a 3 year old to understand. But the truth is rarely that simple.
But you see, if God were to reveal to the world in 2020, for example, that the Sedes were right, I would still be right today (in 2019) for expressing all those doubts in the paragraph above. Because as of today, no one with any authority has given an adequate defense of the issues and doubts I listed. I (and countless others of good will) reject Sedevacantism for a host of good reasons. God, and anyone else, couldn't blame us for our present rejection of it.
I condemn dogmatic sedevacantists ("you can't save your soul as a non-sedevacantist"), and dogmatic home-aloners ("you can't participate in the Conciliar Church OR the Trad movement without grave sin"), but for other reasons: lack of charity, pride, rejecting various truths, etc.
I am not willfully rejecting any truth, so I am not sinning at all. It doesn't matter if I turned out to be wrong in the end. To commit a sin, you have to know it's a sin. I am looking at the situation in the Church, staying informed, and making a prudent decision about how to proceed with keeping the Faith and raising my family Catholic. I look at many factors, many potential pitfalls, and I pick the path that seems safest, best, and most Catholic. That is all any of us can do, unless we've been having locutions with Our Lord and/or Our Lady.
And I'm not letting human concerns (distance to Mass, availability of Mass, chapel equipment quality, friends, family, popularity, comfort, wealth, fame, fortune) influence me in any way.
God knows if I'm telling the truth or not. I can't lie to Him. It doesn't matter how many thousands of men I can "convince" I'm a great guy, if God knows it's all a farce. No one else will be at my Judgment; only Jesus Christ, the Just Judge, and my own soul. And I also know that life is short. I'm already over-the-hill. I'm not going to live forever. I'd be foolish to sell my birthright for a mess of pottage.
How do the proponents of an ambivalent Archbishop Lefebvre explain the 1981 Pledge of Fidelity) which by its terms precluded the ordination of sedevacantists?
I pretty much agree with this, except for two caveats.
1: sedeprivationism is a logically possible response to the “how can we get a new pope” question, I’m not an adherent to it but I may turn out to be wrong.
+ABL wasn't sedevacantist. His wisdom and prudence decided against the Sede position.
The SSPX was HIS organization. He wasn't just an active member or the co-founder, he was the SOLE founder. It was 100% his baby.
There has to be a certain unity and rules in an organization. You can't have sedes and non-sedes in the same organization, even if you believe both positions are tenable.
Those who see things differently are welcome to leave and adhere to another organization.
It's that simple.
+ABL rejected Sedevacantism and prohibited Sedes in his seminary, etc. but did he ever condemn them as going to Hell? I'm not talking about criticizing the position; I do that all the time on CI. What I'm asking is: did he ever claim they were all objectively wrong and going to Hell?
Did he ever decisively put his salvation on the line, as he condemned Sedevacantism? Or was he just against them for practical and prudential reasons?
Sean, every last one of those quotes supports my assertion, namely:
+ABL rejected and expelled sedevacantists for purely practical reasons.
Sean, every last one of those quotes supports my assertion, namely:
+ABL rejected and expelled sedevacantists for purely practical reasons.
That is, he couldn't have the within his organization, since it went against the official SSPX stance on the Pope question. He never said they are his lost children, lost sheep, on the road to perdition, etc. He only criticized their prudence, and preached against the SSPX position.
Just like I do here on CI.
For example, "we cannot have relations with them anymore. It is not possible."
That is a practical matter, not a dogmatic one. It's common knowledge that you can't have 2 opposing views inside your organization. Even something as innocuous as Green Bay Packers vs the Chicago Bears. If there were a Green Bay Packers fan club, they would expel any Bears fans, because it's incompatible with the views and goals of the organization. Not saying all the Bears fans are "bad people" necessarily. So in this case, we need to look no further.
(Logically, you have to assume the innocuous and simpler explanation. For example, if a person walks away empty handed from a store, one has to assume he didn't want to buy anything, or he doesn't have the money -- not that he intends to rob the place later, unless you have clear evidence for such a conclusion)
To assert he was dogmatic against them, you'd need to have something more clear, less ambiguous.
Obviously, all that has been said thus far demonstrates that Archbishop Lefebvre had no tolerance for sedevacantism.1. Yes, he opposed the position, but I don't see that he was ever dogmatic against it. He never expressed any authority or finality in his arguments against it. One must interpret it as practical opposition only. Especially when you factor in his own "internal musing" at times, playing with adopting the position himself. There is no way he thought "Sedevacantism = mortal sin" or he wouldn't have even considered it. Not even for a short time. :)
Ps: I tried to attribute the previous post/link.
I understand your argument (ie., Lefebvre only opposed sedevacantism for practical reasons).
Presuming that were true, then those practical considerations would still be in effect today, and he would be no closer to allowing it today than when he died.
But I am pretty sure that if I did a search, I would also find plenty of doctrinal objections to sedevacantism by Lefebvre (visibility of the Church; indefectibility; impossibility of recovery; etc.).
I didn't mention sedeprivationism one way or another. I completely passed it over on purpose. The discussion is about sedevacantism, which has a precise meaning. I can only properly address one topic at a time.I've always thought of Sedeprivationism as a type or "flavor" of Sedevacantism, but maybe not everyone thinks of it that way. That's where I was coming from there.
I didn't mention object-oriented programming, astrophysics, multimeter burden voltage, or gestational diabetes either. I'm trying to keep this thread on topic :)
Obviously, all that has been said thus far demonstrates that Archbishop Lefebvre had no tolerance for sedevacantism.
then I have to wonder why he shoved aside a growing awareness that these popes were not genuine, simply in the interests of practicality. Practical considerations must give way to conviction, and I am convinced that ABL knew exactly what these (anti)popes were.Hollingsworth, you are missing the point that sedevacantism is a THEORY. So is R&R. So is sedeprivationism, etc, etc. None of these theories can be proven, with a certainty of faith. None of these views HAVE to be accepted by any catholic. The only authority that can force any catholic to accept a view on our current crisis is THE CHURCH, who, by Divine Providence and through God's Almighty wisdom, has allowed Her to be currently in eclipse...until such time as She will resurrect and return to glory and give us all guidance.
Hollingsworth, you are missing the point that sedevacantism is a THEORY. So is R&R. So is sedeprivationism, etc, etc. None of these theories can be proven, with a certainty of faith.
You can perhaps observe what he does, but knowing his heart is a different issue
I disagree. Facts on the ground prove to me that Francis is a heretic, an anti-Christ, and an apostate from the faith. ABL said as much about JP2 and Paul VI. Francis passes the eye test and the ear test. His own utterances, both written and spoken prove to my satisfaction that Peter’s Chair is empty. The man occupying it today is an impostor- an anti-Pope.Black holes are a theory. Evolution is a theory. Dark matter is a theory. Reasons posited for climate change are all theories. General Relativity is a theory. That Francis’ behavior is contrary to Catholic dogma and teaching is not a theory. It hangs out there for all to see and observe, and to make definite conclusions about.
You can perhaps observe what he does, but knowing his heart is a different issueWe aren’t judging the internal forum, we are making a judgement solely from external words and deeds.
We aren’t judging the internal forum, we are making a judgement solely from external words and deeds.OK, but that's the debate.
We aren’t judging the internal forum, we are making a judgement solely from external words and deeds.And that is exactly what I and many others have done. We've made just such a judgment.
QVD: And that is exactly what I and many others have done. We've made just such a judgment.I'm not interested in judging *you* for making such a judgment, but it seems like you guys are judging that he's *definitely* a formal heretic, and thus can't be a valid pope.
Lefebvre saying his reason for not tolerating sedevacantism is dogmatic (not practical):I think what Matthew means is not that the reasoning was pragmatic in a purely utilitarian sense, but rather that he saw it as his opinion, one that was backed by reasons, yes, but still as his opinion not as de fide.
“Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of age, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an extricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.
[…]
Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.
Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse-to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/archbishop-lefebvre-on-sedevacantism/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/archbishop-lefebvre-on-sedevacantism/amp/)
We aren’t judging the internal forum, we are making a judgement solely from external words and deeds.Quo Vadis,
Quo Vadis,
The fact that you are missing (or probably ignoring, since you dodged this fact on the other thread), is that one cannot be considered a manifest/pernicious heretic based on the external forum alone. Pertinacity is stubbornness of the will (internal forum), which must be determined by St Paul’s twice-rebuke process. Unless you can prove that a person has been formally rebuked and yet still clings to error, then you cannot label them a manifest heretic. Ergo, they have not ipso-facto lost office.
I started this topic, but can honestly report that I had never heard the terms “internal forum” and “external forum.” If this is some kind of ecclesial legalese, then I confess a total ignorance of it. Yes, the terms “formal heretic” and “material heretic” were somewhat familiar. But in finally coming to closure about Francis, I swept all that stuff aside. Francis, in my mind, became an intolerable papal fraud, a supposed pontiff whom no sane or fair minded person, of whatever Catholic stripe, can possibly recognize. I don’t care what ABL, on balance, said or didn’t say in the past. I don’t care what Bp. Williamson and the R&R say in the present. Francis is an anti-pope.
“Even our life can become like that [ie Pharisaic], even our life. And sometimes, I confess something to you, when I have seen a Christian, a Christian of that kind, with a weak heart, not firm, not fixed on the rock—Jesus – and with such rigidness on the outside, I ask the Lord: ‘But Lord, throw a banana peel in front of them, so that they will take a good fall, and feel shame that they are sinners, and so encounter You, [and realize] that You are the Saviour. Many times a sin will make us feel shame, and make us encounter the Lord, Who pardons us, as the sick who were there and went to the Lord for healing.”
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/12/15/pope_francis_rigidity_is_a_sign_of_a_weak_heart/1114830 (http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/12/15/pope_francis_rigidity_is_a_sign_of_a_weak_heart/1114830)
That's not quite right. Pertinacity can in fact be determined in the external forum. If it cannot, then the Church can never make a judgment about it. Only God can judge something in the internal forum.The way I look at it, the Church uses the 2 rebuke process in the external forum, to determine the internal forum. To put it canonically, She would twice-rebuke a material heretic, and if they were obstinate in their material heresy (externally), then She would presume they were a manifest heretic (internally). Much like the Church says that a sacrament which is (externally) performed according to the proper prayers, is assumed to be valid (internally).
But in finally coming to closure about Francis, I swept all that stuff aside. Francis, in my mind, became an intolerable papal fraud, a supposed pontiff whom no sane or fair minded person, of whatever Catholic stripe, can possibly recognize.Practically speaking, there's no difference between a bad pope (you ignore him) or no pope (there's no one to ignore). Either way, the Church is without leadership.
Quo Vadis,I didn’t dodge you in the other thread, I was just finished arguing with someone who spreads error and thinks they know more than any preconciliar theologian.
The fact that you are missing (or probably ignoring, since you dodged this fact on the other thread), is that one cannot be considered a manifest/pernicious heretic based on the external forum alone. Pertinacity is stubbornness of the will (internal forum), which must be determined by St Paul’s twice-rebuke process. Unless you can prove that a person has been formally rebuked and yet still clings to error, then you cannot label them a manifest heretic. Ergo, they have not ipso-facto lost office.
The way I look at it, the Church uses the 2 rebuke process in the external forum, to determine the internal forum. To put it canonically, She would twice-rebuke a material heretic, and if they were obstinate in their material heresy (externally), then She would presume they were a manifest heretic (internally). Much like the Church says that a sacrament which is (externally) performed according to the proper prayers, is assumed to be valid (internally).“The way I look at it” ......yes I know. Sorry, but no reputable theologian sees things the way you look at them.
.
What all sedes ignore, is St Paul's teaching on the 2 rebuke process (which is now part of canon law), which is carried out by the Church. If this process is not used, then you cannot judge someone to be manifest. No layperson, priest or non-jurisdictional bishop has any canonical authority to rebuke any other catholic, so they can never call anyone manifest, and so they cannot consider anyone to have "ipso facto" lost their office. The fact that most all of them presume to do so is against canon law and against catholic thinking.
“The way I look at it” ......yes I know. Sorry, but no reputable theologian sees things the way you look at them.To add to this, I’m sure your argument will be that you wrote “canonical authority”, but no serious sedevacantist claims canonical authority.
This is precious: “ No layperson, priest or non-jurisdictional bishop has any canonical authority to rebuke any other catholic.....” Really? Have you ever heard of the spiritual work of mercy in which we are to admonish the sinner?
What all sedes ignore, is St Paul's teaching on the 2 rebuke process (which is now part of canon law), which is carried out by the Church. If this process is not used, then you cannot judge someone to be manifest. No layperson, priest or non-jurisdictional bishop has any canonical authority to rebuke any other catholic, so they can never call anyone manifest, and so they cannot consider anyone to have "ipso facto" lost their office. The fact that most all of them presume to do so is against canon law and against catholic thinking.Speaking personally, and certainly not on behalf of all Catholics, who feel that Francis is, or may be, an anti-pope, I can not begin to express how sick I am of hearing this kind of crap.
The pope is ABOVE canon law period! We are talking about Divine Law which is reflected in canon 188.
The question is: Show me ONE (just one) theologian who ever said that a laymen can interpret/apply canon law against another catholic. And you presume to apply canon law against a cleric and a pope, who is your superior.
Speaking personally, and certainly not on behalf of all Catholics, who feel that Francis is, or may be, an anti-pope, I can not begin to express how sick I am of hearing this kind of crap.
St Alphonsus:--Comment: You are not the Church. You have no authority to declare a pope has fallen from his pontificate. You have no authority in any ecclesiastical way, to do ANYTHING related to canon law, or Divine Law.
...In this case, the Church would not depose him, because no one his authority above the Pope. It (the Church) would simply declare that he had fallen from his pontificate.
.
St. Robert Bellarmine:
.
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
St Alphonsus--Comment: Who decides if such heresy is manifest or mental? Answer: The Church.
....must be a question of manifest and external heresy, not of an occult or mental heresy.
St. Alphonsus Liguori:--Comment: St Alphonsus uses the word "contumacious" which means "obstinate" or stubborn. Who determines if such heresy is obstinate? THE CHURCH.
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
Let's make this real simple:I’ve never claimed to be the Church, nor do I claim to have any authority. I’m simply a layman who is making a logical judgement using the brain God has given me. I’m not imposing my judgement on you.
--Comment: You are not the Church. You have no authority to declare a pope has fallen from his pontificate. You have no authority in any ecclesiastical way, to do ANYTHING related to canon law, or Divine Law.
--Comment: Who decides if such heresy is manifest or mental? Answer: The Church.
.
--Comment: St Alphonsus uses the word "contumacious" which means "obstinate" or stubborn. Who determines if such heresy is obstinate? THE CHURCH.
All these other opinions speak of heresy, of which we can presume they mean obstinate/pernicious. As St Paul teaches:
A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. (Titus 3, 10-11)
.
-- St Paul was writing to Titus and other CLERICS on how to deal with heretics. He was not writing to tell laymen to form a heretic militia and practice wild west justice.
.
.
Xavier da Silveira explains,
“The Apostolic See being vacant, an ecclesiastical organ such as the College of Cardinals or the imperfect Council can legally declare the loss of office by the heretic who was Pope, to render the fact official and make it unequivocally known by all, proceeding to elect a new Pontiff.”
.
-- Again, some "ecclesiastical organ" must make a decision or a declaratory act. Laymen have no authority to do anything.
.
.
Xavier da Silveira explains,
All other opinions on how a heretic loses the pontificate presuppose at least one jurisdictional act by the imperfect Council (that is, the Council without the pope), the College of Cardinals, or some other ecclesiastical organ. The only opinion of the classical doctors that does not resort to a jurisdictional pronouncement against the still reigning pope is the fifth opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, also adopted, complemented and enriched on some points by Ballerini, Wernz-Vidal, Billot and others.
.
--If we compare St Bellarmine's views against ALL OTHER CLASSICAL DOCTORS, then St Bellarmine is the ONLY ONE with such an opinion. Meaning, the CONSENSUS is that there MUST be an act/decision by the ecclesiastical authorities on the matter.
.
St Bellarmine was correct, in theory, that an obstinate heretic loses office. What he was incorrect on, and WAY outnumbered in, is his lack of a practical way to make this happen. Life is not a theoretical vacuum. We must have rules, and practical signs from the Church to tell us all what to do. This is part of the Church's UNITY, so that we all act, agree and believe the same. Laymen running around screaming that the pope is a heretic is ANYTHING BUT unifying. It is the definition of chaos and disorder. Christ created the papacy and the Bishops for order. If the pope falls, then the Bishops/Cardinals step in and decide on matters. Not the laity. There's no Scriptural, canon law or theological basis for a laymen to judge the pope's status or ANY cleric's status.
That's not quite right. Pertinacity can in fact be determined in the external forum. If it cannot, then the Church can never make a judgment about it. Only God can judge something in the internal forum.Are talking about Catholic canon law? Because the internal forum is defined as those things shared with a priest in the confessional. So the internal forum can be judged by a valid priest having jurisdiction to hear confessions. Maybe you guys are thinking of conscience? In any case courts of law routinely judge intentions and that’s all we need to come to the conclusion that a pope or rather a claimant of the papacy has objectively become a manifest heretic.
Even before any declaratory judgment by the Church” , “ipso facto”, ”very fact”, ”automatically”, ”immediately lose all jurisdiction.” Do words have any meaning?There are 2 steps which all classical doctors (except +Bellarmine) explain would happen for a pope who speaks heresy.
Who decides if such heresy is manifest or mental? Answer: The Church.
There's no Scriptural, canon law or theological basis for a laymen to judge the pope's status or ANY cleric'sIf a barefoot, half naked pope, clad only in animal skins, wearing a berreta festooned with goat horns, were to grab a chalice of human blood, then offer it up to the image of a demon god or goddess encircled with fire, PV would warn us solemnly not “to judge (that) pope’s status.” Only a future pope can do that. Only a future conclave can do that. Only a certified board of cardinals can do that.
Xavier da Silveira explains,
“The Apostolic See being vacant, an ecclesiastical organ such as the College of Cardinals or the imperfect Council can legally declare the loss of office by the heretic who was Pope, to render the fact official and make it unequivocally known by all, proceeding to elect a new Pontiff.”
.
-- Again, some "ecclesiastical organ" must make a decision or a declaratory act. Laymen have no authority to do anything.
There are 2 steps which all classical doctors (except +Bellarmine) explain would happen for a pope who speaks heresy.LOL! Ok, give me all of the “classical doctors” names and verbatim quotes.
From Pax Let’s-make-this-real-simple Vobis:Is this the latest from the Amazon? ;)
If a barefoot, half naked pope, clad only in animal skins, wearing a berreta festooned with goat horns, were to grab a chalice of human blood, then offer it up to the image of a demon god or goddess encircled with fire, PV would warn us solemnly not “to judge (that) pope’s status.” Only a future pope can do that. Only a future conclave can do that. Only a certified board of cardinals can do that.You know, PV, it’s Catholics like you who have helped catapult me into sedevacantism
From Pax Let’s-make-this-real-simple Vobis:👍👍👍
If a barefoot, half naked pope, clad only in animal skins, wearing a berreta festooned with goat horns, were to grab a chalice of human blood, then offer it up to the image of a demon god or goddess encircled with fire, PV would warn us solemnly not “to judge (that) pope’s status.” Only a future pope can do that. Only a future conclave can do that. Only a certified board of cardinals can do that.You know, PV, it’s Catholics like you who have helped catapult me into sedevacantism
He did not want to develop a schismatic mentality, and that's one of the main reasons, IMO, that he remained attached to the Pope. +ABL understood Modernism. He understood that the post-conciliar Popes were infused with Modernism. But still, he did not want to detach himself from the Popes, no matter how crazy they got. And JP2 did a lot of crazy things that upset +ABL. But +ABL still did not adopt any view that the sedevacantists or sedeprivationists have adopted. He would never have cut himself off from the Popes, no matter what. He just did not think in those terms at all. He was French, not American (thank goodness).:applause:
You know, PV, it’s Catholics like you who have helped catapult me into sedevacantism
And he did not constantly accuse the popes of heresy. Error, yes; heresy; no.
That's just a lie. You have made yourself known for lying. He called them apostate and not merely heretical, regularly calling them non-Catholic, schismatic, and outside the Church.
“No layperson, priest or non-jurisdictional bishop has any canonical authority to rebuke any other catholic.....” Really? Have you ever heard of the spiritual work of mercy in which we are to admonish the sinner?
Your erroneous idea of pertinacity being determined solely in the internal forum is certainly quite bizarre.I don't think you have the capacity to understand the idea of pertinacity in regards to heresy. You continually fail to make any sense when talking about it.
You know, PV, it’s Catholics like you who have helped catapult me into sedevacantism.The fact that you are making emotional decisions about sedevacantism based on the actions of others, shows your views aren't grounded on facts or theological principles.
This kind of toxic malice should earn one a perma-Ban.
Why can’t she simply have made a mistake?
Why do you have to cast a moral judgment, and impute to her an intention to deceive?
The rest of her post was pretty good.
These types of rash judgments are habitual and continuous in you.
You frequently make a fool of yourself with erroneous scattergun accusations of posts on the anonymous forum being your (many) enemies coming back post-Ban to argue with you like some kind of paranoid.
To all who oppose Ladislaus, anathema sit!!
This kind of toxic malice should earn one a perma-Ban.
Why can’t she simply have made a mistake?
Johnson claimed earlier on this thread that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is indeed dogmatic fact.
+Lefebvre and +Williamson have both publicly stated that it's possible that they were not legitimate popes.
It is heresy to doubt dogma.
Consequently, Johnson accuses +Lefebvre and +Williamson of heresy.
The reason Ladislaus considers his opinion as de fide is that he believes that he is, in his heart, a priest (or bishop?) who has ordinary jurisdiction over everyone here. Never mind that he couldn't finish the seminary.
I'm just bumping this post until you address it. I know you were just dodging the problem with your "perma-ban" post. Every time you get argued into a corner, you start calling for people to be banned. You too have a history here.Ha-ha:
Basically, either you need to retract your statement that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact or else you need to stand by your statement and admit that +Lefebvre and +Williamson were/are heretics.
You frequently make a fool of yourself with erroneous scattergun accusations of posts on the anonymous forum being your (many) enemies coming back post-Ban to argue with you like some kind of paranoid.
Don't be an idiot, Mr. X. You were caught red-handed sneaking back onto the forum. Similarly with Croix. He's had a half dozen accounts by now. In fact, only an idiot would fail to detect him with his usual "Croix was right all along" posts and even a statement about the Croix he's named after in his signature line.Oh no: my alter-ego was not one of your many paranoid delusions!
Ha-ha:
More malice, as if to imply I feared to answer!
In fact, it is you who was stupid in posting it, since in one of the recent threads on the subject, Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed his belief in the theology of Billot who said that the universal acceptance of the world’s bishops (dogmatic fact).
And it is also you who attributes meaning to the words of others which in fact they do not actually mean (I am thinking here is Chazal, Williamson, and Lefebvre).
It is as though is someone considers something aloud, despite not forming an opinion on it yet, you take it and run with it (like you did with Chazal), and erroneously declare to the world what they mean, even in the face of their explicit denial!
Same thing here.
Ps: Congratulations on making 8 posts in an hour on the last page alone! Wow!
Don't be an idiot, Mr. X. You were caught red-handed sneaking back onto the forum. Similarly with Croix. He's had a half dozen accounts by now. In fact, only an idiot would fail to detect him with his usual "Croix was right all along" posts and even a statement about the Croix he's named after in his signature line.Idiot-
I know you would try to lie your way out of it. Dogmatic fact means dogmatic fact.Idiot
If you were to "consider aloud" a dogma, you are a heretic. If +Lefebvre had gone about saying that "I wonder if Mary was truly immaculately conceived." ... he would in fact be a straight-out heretic. Apparently you're too stupid to understand the meaning of the term "dogma", Johnson. And if you can't understand basic Catholic concepts like that, then you have absolutely no business taking a position on the crisis.
Either it's a dogma that Bergoglio is a legitimate pope, or it is not. You can't have it both ways, Johnson. If it's dogma, it's heresy to openly question it.
Obviously, my position is that it's most certainly not dogma, and that there is not Universal Acceptance. And part of the argument is that Traditional Catholics themselves do not uphold it as dogma. Just because 99% of the 99%-heretical Conciliar establishment consider them to be popes does not establish dogmatic fact.
In other words, you dishonest jackass, you were accusing sedevacantists of heresy based on the "dogmatic fact" argument, but were too stupid to realize that you thereby implicated +Lefebvre and +Williamson of heresy, because it is heretical not only to openly reject but even to openly DOUBT a dogma (go back and re-read your basic catechism before posting again on this subject). You argued yourself into a corner but were too stupid to see it.
I know you would try to lie your way out of it. Dogmatic fact means dogmatic fact.
If you were to "consider aloud" a dogma, you are a heretic. If +Lefebvre had gone about saying that "I wonder if Mary was truly immaculately conceived." ... he would in fact be a straight-out heretic. Apparently you're too stupid to understand the meaning of the term "dogma", Johnson. And if you can't understand basic Catholic concepts like that, then you have absolutely no business taking a position on the crisis.
Either it's a dogma that Bergoglio is a legitimate pope, or it is not. You can't have it both ways, Johnson. If it's dogma, it's heresy to openly question it.
Obviously, my position is that it's most certainly not dogma, and that there is not Universal Acceptance. And part of the argument is that Traditional Catholics themselves do not uphold it as dogma. Just because 99% of the 99%-heretical Conciliar establishment consider them to be popes does not establish dogmatic fact.
In other words, you dishonest jackass, you were accusing sedevacantists of heresy based on the "dogmatic fact" argument, but were too stupid to realize that you thereby implicated +Lefebvre and +Williamson of heresy, because it is heretical not only to openly reject but even to openly DOUBT a dogma (go back and re-read your basic catechism before posting again on this subject). You argued yourself into a corner but were too stupid to see it.
Legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants = dogma.Refuted in previous post.
Doubting a dogma makes someone a heretic.
+Lefebvre and +Williamson have doubted the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.
Conclusion (of SeanJohnson): +Lefebvre and +Williamson were/are heretics.
Please explain why this isn't the case. Your last equivocation made it sound like you think it's not heresy to doubt a dogma, but that is patently and demonstrably false. Simply look up any catechism definition of heresy, they include not only the denial but also the doubt of a dogma. "I'm not sure that Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament." = heresy, not just "consider[ing] aloud" (as you tried to water it down).
Too funny:
In order to try and win an argument, Ladislaus wants to confound dogmatic fact with dogma (as though they are one and the same).
One becomes a heretic by rejecting dogma, but not by rejecting s dogmatic fact (to which the theologians ascribe the theological note of “theologically certain” but not infallible, and a concept which the Church itself has never defined, and did not even exist 150 years ago).
Have fun rolling in the mud with someone else.
Just had to get that in there😊
It seems to me that there is quite a bit of support out there to suggest that Archbishop Lefebrve was never sure one way or another...a very conflicted man.Yup. In the end,I will not be judged based on what Lefevbre believed, neither will anyone else. Same with whether Bergoglio is the "Pope" don't see how he could be. I'm not the Pope, NEITHER was Lefevbre. To many in the SSPX orbit seem concerned with whether or Not ABL was SV or not, and THAT reeks of a Cult of Personality, not the faith. What does the Church teach and has always done so? SVism is certainly a legitimate opinion to be held, and frankly it makes the most sense as opposed to calling someone Pope and rejecting everything he says and does. I go to an SSPX church ONLY because it is all I have (for now?) in Kansas City and have for 30 years. For now their sacraments are valid, but the philosophical inconsistencies of this practical SV group, tho not formally so (dishonest?) remain and have always been there. I Notice that most of the concerns (resistance?) arise as they shake off more and more of this "practical SVism" and become a more consistent high church conciliarist organization WITHIN a false church. Now if that is not true, I need to pack my bags and head over to the local banner strewn peace and love Community" that is up front novus ordo.
Quote from: Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=53593.msg670714#msg670714)
Unbelievable. So now your answer is that dogmatic facts are only "theologically certain". Theological certainties and dogmas are mutually-exclusive theological notes. One theologian writing during the reign of Pius XII wrote that to reject the legitimacy of Pius XII would be heresy. This concept is implicit in the very notion of dogma itself. If you cannot have dogmatic certainty regarding legitimacy, then you cannot have dogmatic certainty about any dogmas the popes define. If there's room for doubt about Pius XII, then there's room for doubt about The Assumption.
Be that as it may, you need to retract your statement that papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact. In fact, you just did ... even though you'll never admit that you did. And sedevacantists, therefore, are no more hereticaler than +Lefebvre and +Williamson.
The only dispute among theologians about dogmatic fact is whether they are of Divine Faith or merely Ecclesiastical Faith. But they all agree that they are de fide.
In other words, the theological note of dogmatic facts (as opposed to dogma proper) is disputed, and the Church has not ruled on the matter.I can agree, I'km not Pope after all, as I said. If i where heads would literally roll. If I where God, even for a day, everyone ever, alive or dead, gets a smack in the teeth. The Only thing I know for absolute certainty is that the Misanthrope's path is the path for me.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia under “dogmatic fact:”
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Other [/color]theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] hold that the definitions of dogmatic facts, in the wider and stricter acceptation, are received, not by Divine [/color]faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], but by [/color]ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], which some call mediate Divine [/color]faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]. They hold that in such syllogisms as this: "Every duly elected pontiff is Peter's successor; but [/color]Pius X (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12137a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], for example, is a duly elected pontiff; therefore he is a successor of Peter", the conclusion is not formally revealed by [/color]God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], but is inferred from a revealed and an unrevealed proposition, and that consequently it is believed, not by Divine, but by [/color]ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)].[/color]
In other words, the theological note of dogmatic facts (as opposed to dogma proper) is disputed, and the Church has not ruled on the matter.
In other words, the theological note of dogmatic facts (as opposed to dogma proper) is disputed, and the Church has not ruled on the matter.Sure, that is a valid distinction but your conclusion is wrong. Just because a dogmatic fact is believed due to ecclesiastical faith (as opposed to Divine) does not mean it's disputed. It just means that we must obey the Church's human authority, as opposed to Divine authority. A dogmatic fact still must be accepted or the person is a heretic. One can be a heretic for denying dogma or for denying the Church's jurisdiction. Protestants deny both.
2. Doctrines of Ecclesiastical Faith
These are truths which have not been directly revealed by God, but which are closely linked to Divine revelation and have been infallibly proposed by the teaching authority of the Church ex cathedra: for example, the lawfulness of Communion under one kind. These doctrines are to be accepted on the sole authority of the Church, de fide ecclesiastica. Since the infallibility of the Church is a dogma, one who denies a doctrine of ecclesiastical faith is implicitly denying a dogma.
A proposition that contradicts a doctrine of ecclesiastical faith incurs the theological censure of heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
In order for Ladislaus to wiggle off this hook, he will need to argue that -somehow- Francis’ particular papacy is not a dogmatic fact, despite the Church’s universal acceptance which makes it so.Quote... if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. (Hunter, 1894) (ref1 (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html), ref2 (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html),
Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”
(nts: I appears that the english translation is greater than the latin)
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.[font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Since it was established in the volume, Christ’s Church, that the Church’s infallible teaching power extends to matters connected with revelation and that its infallible authority deserves an absolutely firm assent, the only question which remains is what name to give that assent and how to describe its nature. These points will be discussed in just a moment.
Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matter in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call “ecclesiastical faith,” the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.” For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.
DR, cuм Ex only speaks about the Cardinals; Salza and Siscoe, in their book True or False Pope, endorsed by the SSPX, explain, "In light of the earlier teaching about the “peaceful and universal acceptance” of a Pope, it could never happen that the election of a Pope, who was accepted peacefully and universally by the entire Church (not simply elected by the unanimous consent of the Cardinals), would later be rendered null, since, as we saw, the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope provides infallible certitude of his legitimacy, as well as all of the conditions required for legitimacy. http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/blog-page_19.html (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/blog-page_19.html)
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, 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;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) 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.http://www.dailycatholic.org/cuмexapo.htm
Sean,Hi DR-
What if John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI or Francis were heretics before election? Paul IV in cuм Ex says their universal acceptance (by other heretics no less?) would be meaningless.
Am I to accept your theologians and reject the thinking of Paul IV on this?
DR
Hi DR-
All the theologians cited declared a peacefully and universally accepted pope to be a dogmatic fact AFTER cuм ex was promulgated.
This implies they would have considered it, but that it did not negate their conclusions.
Sean,
Obviously they rejected the opinion of Paul IV here. I asked why I should reject Paul IV’s opinion and accept the opinion of theologians.
For purposes of discussion let’s assume that the position of Paul IV in cuм Ex was purely disciplinary (I would favor the view that in this instance - of a heretic raised to the papacy not being pope - it is divine law, not discipline), so if it were changed that’s not necessarily a big deal. But it’s deeper than that. You are saying that it is now de fide as a dogmatic fact that the acceptance of a pope means he is the pope of the Catholic Church. That would mean Paul IV was making a discipline of the Church that was contrary to something that would later be found to be de fide. We are talking about a pope acting here and a universal Church discipline, not St. Thomas as a theologian speculating about the Immaculate Conception of Mary before it was settled, and before any contrary opinion held by a Catholic would be heretical.
We are talking about a pope imposing a discipline on the Church that in fact would be considered heretical today. Imagine, again, we are talking about the Immaculate Conception. Imagine a pope prior to Ineffabilis Deus writing an encyclical or signing off on a universal catechism that stated Mary was conceived in original sin. Ok, not heresy because not yet defined, but it presents a real problem in terms of the teaching Church and its reliability or indefectabilty, such as the issue with St. Thomas doesn’t involve.
Seems to me that’s a major problem you have with your universal or peaceful acceptance of pope being de fide as a dogmatic fact in light of Paul IV and cuм Ex.
Obviously, if it is divine law that a heretic can’t be pope, as St. Robert Bellarmine seems to believe, we have a HUGER problem. We would have two de fide doctrines being opposed to each other, contradiction woven into the fabric of truth itself - one saying a heretic universally accepted isn’t pope, the other saying he is by virtue of that acceptance.
And (again, but with a twist) . . . why then should I accept your theologians over St. Robert and others theologians?
DR
You just got suckered:
You have been arguing that dogmatic facts are binding.
But the identity of a universally accepted pope is a dogmatic fact, according to the unanimous consent of theologians.
What are you smoking? I've said for years that they are binding. What I deny is that it's a dogmatic fact, that there's Universal Acceptance. There is no Universal Acceptance. That's been my position for years.No, I’m admitting that, by suggesting they were questioning a dogmatic fact, YOU implied they were heretics.
So are you then admitting that you called +Lefebvre and +Williamson heretics. I'll let Bishop Williamson know that you consider him a heretic. And Archbishop Lefebvre was causing grave scandal by stating that he won't say that you should not say he's not the pope.
You're a hopeless disaster.
Hi DR-1) If you think the post VII era is peaceful, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
All the theologians cited declared a peacefully and universally accepted pope to be a dogmatic fact AFTER cuм ex was promulgated.
This implies they would have considered it, but that it did not negate their conclusions.
No, I’m admitting that, by suggesting they were questioning a dogmatic fact, YOU implied they were heretics.
Either it is dogmatic fact or it isn't. If you're claiming that it is, Johnson, then you must say that +Lefebvre and +Williamson are heretics. You are in fact saying exactly that. What a clown.Nope:
Because none of those theologians (some of them saints) were condemned for their opinions, as they should/would have been had they actually been contradicting Paul IV. In other words, there really is no contradiction (either that, of the Church has been asleep at the wheel since the 17th century when these theologians began writing, and nobody until after Vatican II ever noticed the contradiction, which is highly unlikely).
1) If you think the post VII era is peaceful, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.Peaceful mean undisputed, and it is undoubtedly the case that 100% of the hierarchy accept Francis.
2) Universally by whom? By all those “faithful” NO “Catholics” who believe in abortion, BC, ecuмenism, LGBTXYZ rights, and the ability to remarry multiple times? I would hazard to guess that nearly 99.9% of NOites don’t profess the True Faith which is an essential component for membership in the Church.
3) The same theologians that hold the peaceful and universal acceptance position, which I certainly believe too, also hold that one must be a member of the Church in order to hold an office in the Church.
Nope:
I say you are reading a meaning into their words which is not their position (just like you do with Chazal), as is habitual with you.
Peaceful mean undisputed, and it is undoubtedly the case that 100% of the hierarchy accept Francis.
1) If you think the post VII era is peaceful, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
2) Universally by whom? By all those “faithful” NO “Catholics” who believe in abortion, BC, ecuмenism, LGBTXYZ rights, and the ability to remarry multiple times? I would hazard to guess that nearly 99.9% of NOites don’t profess the True Faith which is an essential component for membership in the Church.
3) The same theologians that hold the peaceful and universal acceptance position, which I certainly believe too, also hold that one must be a member of the Church in order to hold an office in the Church.
You've literally gone insane trying to maintain two contradictory propositions at the same time. THIS is what reveals you to be intellectually dishonest ... in the external forum. This is why I have ZERO respect for you and call you a liar.I can’t help your intellectual lack of horsepower, but if you are slyly declaring a Lefebvre to be heretic for denying a dogmatic fact (which you are, if you are saying he admitted the popes might not be popes), and then trying to wiggle off that hook by somehow saying the conciliar papacies are not dogmatic facts (despite being recognized by 100% of the heirarchy, which is what makes them dogmatic facts), then I am ready to hear your explanation.
So you're reasserting your contention that +Lefebvre and +Williamson were/are heretics for questioning the legitimacy of these men.I’m reasserting YOUR contention that they were/are heretics for questioning the legitimacy of these popes ;which are dogmatic facts).
Yes, precisely. Universal Acceptance derives from the fact that the entire Church cannot ever accept a false rule of faith. 90% of Novus Ordo pew sitters don't even have enough faith to believe that either Pope or the Church as a whole is a rule of faith. 95% of Novus Ordo pew sitters are heretics one one point or another ... based on THEIR OWN POLLS. So how does the Novus Ordo establishment represent the sensibilities of the Universal Church as to whether these men are rules of faith. In fact, the entire Traditional movement rejects these men as rules of faith.You obviously don’t (want to) understand “peaceful and universal” which means undisputed.
Again, we could start an entire thread disputing whether the V2 papal claimants had Universal Acceptance. That is not my point at this time.Sorry, but I’m not letting you walk away from the matter of peaceful universal acceptance making these papacies dogmatic facts.
My point is that if there is Universal Acceptance and that the status of these men as legitimate is dogmatic fact, then +Lefebvre and +Williamson were heretics for openly doubting it and calling it into question. +Lefebvre caused grave scandal by declaring that he won't say that one should not say they are not legitimate popes.
Those are your two choices, Johnson. Either backtrack on whether their legitimacy is dogmatic fact, or else concede that +Lefebvre and +Williamson and +Tissier (he also questioned it) were/are heretics.
More on the identity of the pope being a binding dogmatic fact:
Billot:
St. Alphonsus de Ligouri[font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Update: Van Noort
[/font][/size][/font]
Yes, precisely. Universal Acceptance derives from the fact that the entire Church cannot ever accept a false rule of faith. 90% of Novus Ordo pew sitters don't even have enough faith to believe that either Pope or the Church as a whole is a rule of faith. 95% of Novus Ordo pew sitters are heretics one one point or another ... based on THEIR OWN POLLS. So how does the Novus Ordo establishment represent the sensibilities of the Universal Church as to whether these men are rules of faith. In fact, the entire Traditional movement rejects these men as rules of faith.I believe the theologians quoted by Sean Johnson referred to a “universal acceptance” of the pope by the cardinal electors.
I believe the theologians quoted by Sean Johnson referred to a “universal acceptance” of the pope by the cardinal electors.Wrong.
Can you name a cardinal elector in any of the conclaves electing any of the V2 popes who rejected them as pope?
Again, we could start an entire thread disputing whether the V2 papal claimants had Universal Acceptance. That is not my point at this time.If you look it up, you will discover that "Universal acceptance" is the acceptance of the pope as pope by all the cardinals after his election, not acceptance by the whole world or all the members of the Church.
My point is that if there is Universal Acceptance and that the status of these men as legitimate is dogmatic fact, then +Lefebvre and +Williamson were heretics for openly doubting it and calling it into question. +Lefebvre caused grave scandal by declaring that he won't say that one should not say they are not legitimate popes.
Those are your two choices, Johnson. Either backtrack on whether their legitimacy is dogmatic fact, or else concede that +Lefebvre and +Williamson and +Tissier (he also questioned it) were/are heretics.
If you look it up, you will discover that "Universal acceptance" is the acceptance of the pope as pope by all the cardinals after his election, not acceptance by the whole world or all the members of the Church.Wrong: see previous quote
No one is a heretic for doubting the legitimacy of the conciliar popes - the popes themselves are responsible for whatever doubt people might have, including +ABL and +Williamson. If anyone is a heretic, it would be doubters who are dogmatic about their doubt, but I doubt even they are heretics.
I believe the theologians quoted by Sean Johnson referred to a “universal acceptance” of the pope by the cardinal electors.This.
Can you name a cardinal elector in any of the conclaves electing any of the V2 popes who rejected them as pope?
No Catholic is a heretic, even materially, for reflecting thoughtfully on certain questions, especially when the principles behind them are unclear, yet to be fully elucidated, or even disputed with contrasting opinions on either side. Further studies in the last 50 odd years have shown conclusively and beyond any doubt that dogmatic fact teaching is taught by all theologians. It was mentioned by Fr. Francis Connell as applied to Pope Paul VI in 1966. The only question before us, (we're not in the 80s or 90s today) is, In this Year of Our Lord 2019, is Pope Francis universally accepted by the Catholic Hierarchy? If yes, the OUM of the Church clearly testifies that he is the Pope.Recall earlier in the thread Ladislaus says that to question a dogmatic fact is the same as to question the Immaculate Conception!
This.Gratuitous and contradicted by every approved writer on the subject (including Billot, Hunter, and Alphonsus above).
Wrong.Concentrate on the bolded portion. This is universal acceptance.
Here is Hunter:
if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. (Hunter, 1894) (ref1 (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html), ref2 (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html),
Sorry, but I’m not letting you walk away from the matter of peaceful universal acceptance making these papacies dogmatic facts.
By saying Lefebvre/Williamson question tge conciliar papacies, you are calling them heretics by making them to reject dogmatic facts.
This is unbelievable. It is the exact opposite, and you are completely deranged, Johnson. Seek mental help.I accept your concession of defeat if you can’t mount an argument
Wrong: see previous quoteWho needs to look it up? Pope Pius X and XII said that "the man elected is instantly the true pope", I will take their word for it.
Wrong.
Here is Hunter:
if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. (Hunter, 1894) (ref1 (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html), ref2 (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html),
Who needs to look it up? Pope Pius X and XII said that "the man elected is instantly the true pope", I will take their word for it.Can you think of s single cardinal or bishop who is disputing Francis’ papacy?
I never saw that quote before, but universal acceptance means that the only ones who must be unanimous in accepting the elected pope as pope, are all of the cardinals.
Whenever the Church refers to "Universal anything", it always includes the attribute of time - as in since the time of the Apostles, since the promulgation of the Gospel, as in always and everywhere, or always and by all the faithful. So whoever thinks it is an infallible sign of validity that the pope enjoys universal acceptance by the whole Church, they don't know what the H they're saying.
Have a pleasant evening.
Agreed.
Right, Hunter - I had that one in mind. He says the bishops’ recognition, but its a similar point - the connection of the acceptance by the hierarchy (including bishops and not just cardinals) of the election and papacy.
I don’t believe we have a single cardinal elector doubting the papacy of a V2 pope. What about bishops who were (are) ordinaries? I don’t believe you can name any of them who doubted a V2 pope’s papacy either. Thuc maybe?
And if it’s only one or two, what then?
Agreed.What could change that is if there were a movement among the bishops which challenged him (per Alphonsus), such as Burke’s movement gaining steam.
There is clearly universal consent to the conciliar papacies, and hence they are dogmatic facts which cannot be challenged.
Agreed.:)
There is clearly universal consent to the conciliar papacies, and hence they are dogmatic facts which cannot be challenged.
:)Let’s put it this way:
Well, hold on. I agree that “universal acceptance” as a concept would be bottomed on the cardinals/bishops of the teaching Church accepting the pope, but I haven’t agreed to the “dogmatic fact” thing - going back to my point on Paul IV and cuм Ex.
Let’s put it this way:Sean,
There has been 100.0% acceptance of the popes since V2 by the bishops.
Every approved preconciliar writer on the subject assures us this ratification guarantees the legitimacy of the pope, and makes that recognition obligatory as dogmatic fact.
Where’s the wiggle room?
Can you think of s single cardinal or bishop who is disputing Francis’ papacy?“Or bishop”
Me either.
Then how in the world could his papacy not be a dogmatic fact (Lad’s implicit position), when it is the ratification of cardinals and bishops that makes the papacy a dogmatic fact?
And if a dogmatic fact, where the room to question or reject it??
Sean,
I’m questioning the “dogmatic fact” (de fide you say) part in light of the contrary view of Paul IV in cuм Ex. See my post #155 above.
More precisely, I’m agreeing that the fact would be established by the cardinal/bishop’s recognition. I am questioning the DOGMAtic part.
It’s nonsense to say that Francis is not pope de facto. - he is sitting in the chair, and was elected by the cardinals and is supported by the bishops. I do not say it is nonsense to reject him de jure, as the divine law (St. Robert etc.) indicates a heretic cannot be pope lawfully, but that divine law is not contradicted by a factual matter contrary to it (the materiall possession of the See).
“Or bishop”Hi ByzCath. 61 year SVism's first problem is (1) it first of all leads to the fact that there is no Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction at all. You look at the same Bull cuм Ex cited by DR and this is very clear, "each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;". Therefore, if the Popes of 61 years were false Popes and heretics, all the Bishops they attempted to appoint were never Ordinaries and had no power, right, stability or office.
Clarence Kelly and Donald Sanborn certainly reject it. there are other sede bishops out there.
I’m guessing you meant bishops with ordinary jurisdiction but they wouldn’t be likely to keep such after openly questioning whether Francis is pope
Billot seems to say that the universal recognition makes a de facto claimant a claimant de jure (see bold/underlined portion; legitimacy means legally, or de jure):Ok, that’s Cardinal Billot’s view. Paul IV would disagree, and I question it in light of that disagreement.
Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”
I started this topic, but am now sorry that I did. Because it has become yet another religious cat fight among three or four CI forum members, who think that the majority of other members are vitally interested in their lengthy arguments and dogmatic certitudes. Are they? Really? I’m not sure what motivates these people.
Sean tries desperately to prove that V2 popes have been duly and fairly elected and accepted by the entire Episcopacy. Maybe so, maybe not.
Who knows what his underlying motives really are. After all, SJ just published a book with a written introduction by +Williamson. H.E. holds to the view that all these popes were legitimately appointed. It wouldn’t look good if even the mildest fragrance of Svism might waft up from its pages. +W and the R&R could not in conscience support any such content. So, one can at least speculate, Sean feels that he has to double down on his anti-Svism in deference to the bishop. He’s got real skin in the game.. But I’ll not spend too much time trying to second guess him. Why the others go at it so fiercely hammer and tong, they’ll have to answer for themselves.
Meanwhile, I repeat, ++Lefebvre was very close to going sede himself. I think that Francis would have finally pushed him over the edge, and into sede free fall.
Hi ByzCath. 61 year SVism's first problem is (1) it first of all leads to the fact that there is no Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction at all. You look at the same Bull cuм Ex cited by DR and this is very clear, "each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;". Therefore, if the Popes of 61 years were false Popes and heretics, all the Bishops they attempted to appoint were never Ordinaries and had no power, right, stability or office.Its just confusing to me because those same bishops accept Vatican II. So why can they all be wrong on the one but not the other?
Secondly, yes (2) it is the Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction, and Ordinary Teaching Authority, both of which come from appointment to episcopal office by the Pope (that's just the way the Catholic Church works, and what the Roman Pontiff's Primacy of Jurisdiction means) who count.
There is no Bishop in office today appointed before 1958, when Pope Pius XII was Pope: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html) The one Bishop who was appointed in 1958 is an Archbishop Emeritus and has resigned. At any rate, he would have recognized the Pope.
So the question is, "are there any Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction (61 yr sede-ism already has to say no to just this part; proving it is wrong) who today reject Pope Francis as the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church"? If the answer is no, then, as Fr. Hunter says, "The Church is infallible when She declares what person holds the office of the Pope .... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the Body of the Bishops would be separated from their Head, and the divine Constitution of the Church would be ruined."Your thoughts?God bless.resi
Its just confusing to me because those same bishops accept Vatican II. So why can they all be wrong on the one but not the other?
Let’s put it this way:Then there's no other option for you to submit to Francis as your rule of Faith; I'm not a convinced sedevacantist either due to not being convinced of the arguments preserving the visibility of the Church or the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome, however your alternative of an allegedly divine institution that's actively leading souls to hell by promulgating false doctrine, evil sacraments, and fake saints isn't the greatest consolation prize. Do you instruct converts to avoid what you claim is the Catholic Church with dogmatic certainty for the sake of their salvation?
There has been 100.0% acceptance of the popes since V2 by the bishops.
Every approved preconciliar writer on the subject assures us this ratification guarantees the legitimacy of the pope, and makes that recognition obligatory as dogmatic fact.
Where’s the wiggle room?
Because a pastoral, fallible, non-dogmatic council is not a dogmatic fact, while the identity of a universally accepted Pope is a dogmatic fact (about which there may be no disagreement):But all the Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction also accept Vatican II and the New Mass. And while some might say Vatican II is technically not infallible, they aren't going to say that Vatican II was destructive to the faith or anything like that. Not one.
The faith obliges you to be a dogmatic sedeplenist (i.e., Catholic), unless you would also like to express your doubts about any other dogmas and dogmatic facts of the faith).
Then there's no other option for you to submit to Francis as your rule of Faith; I'm not a convinced sedevacantist either due to not being convinced of the arguments preserving the visibility of the Church or the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome, however your alternative of an allegedly divine institution that's actively leading souls to hell by promulgating false doctrine, evil sacraments, and fake saints isn't the greatest consolation prize. Do you instruct converts to avoid what you claim is the Catholic Church with dogmatic certainty for the sake of their salvation?
Can you think of s single cardinal or bishop who is disputing Francis’ papacy?Lad regularly invents ideas that sounds legit. Currently he's on the "dogmatic fact" train, which in and of itself is nothing but a wholelotta bull. You have to remember that when it comes to this subject and Lad, Lad identifies and thinks strcitly as a "Dogmatic Doubtist". As such, there is no logic to much (not all) of what he says about this subject. Remember, poor lad said (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg604966/#msg604966): "And if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic." So this makes it apparent that in his mind, he's dealing with a bunch of schismatics because we don't doubt the pope's legitimacy. You gotta try to put yourself in his shoes to see where he's coming from.
Me either.
Then how in the world could his papacy not be a dogmatic fact (Lad’s implicit position), when it is the ratification of cardinals and bishops that makes the papacy a dogmatic fact?
And if a dogmatic fact, where the room to question or reject it??
The truth of the matter is that the idea of "universal" and/or "peaceful" acceptance being an infallible sign, is nothing more than the opinion of some theologians of the last 150 years or so. The sedes like to twist this opinion into a de fide teaching in order to fit it into their narrative, they do this as if the idea carries the authority of a teaching of the Church, that's what it's really all about.
There we’re getting to the heart of the matter: opinions of theologians and “teachings” of Magisterial authorities below the level of declaring what is of the deposit of faith (through either the extraordinary or universal, ordinary Magisterium) - while they are owed obedience and assent as the default and initial response in respect of their position, to what extent can they err when the deposit of faith, what must be believed to be saved, is not involved?You can read in Tuas Libenter (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/), what Pope Pius IX said about this.
You can read in Tuas Libenter (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/), what Pope Pius IX said about this.Are you questioning the binding nature of dogmatic facts?
He said that while we are bound in conscience to obey the dogmatic decrees of the Catholic Church, we are also to submit to, not only the Church's Universal Magisterium, but also her Ordinary Magisterium when the teaching is said to be divinely revealed:
"...this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith [...] they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure".
The "universal acceptance" opinion of some theologians from the last 150 years or so do not come close to meeting this criteria.
There really is no perplexity here:
1) Francis' papacy is a dogmatic fact, per the unanimous teaching of approved theologians, because it has been universally ratified by the bishops;
So, again you are saying that +Lefebvre and +Williamson are heretics.Nope: You are saying they are heretics for alleging they question a dogmatic fact.
Are you questioning the binding nature of dogmatic facts?No.
Right or wrong, Williamson is literally on video saying maybe t he Church will eventually declare these men antipopes. He seems to accept them but not with absolute certaintyWhich can mean that, at a certain point in the future, something could happen to break the universal consent of bishops, at which point the papacy will cease to be a dogmatic fact.
Which can mean that, at a certain point in the future, something could happen to break the universal consent of bishops, at which point the papacy will cease to be a dogmatic fact.There is already a break with the universal consent of bishops. If you consider novus ordo bishops have a vote in this consent, then many of them have openly questioned +Francis. If you do not consider novus ordo bishops to have a say in the "universal consent" (and I do not, being they are just as materially heretical as the post-V2 popes), then the lack of universal consent (which is near unanimous) among Trad bishops, is proof enough that every post-V2 pope was doubtful.
There is already a break with the universal consent of bishops. If you consider novus ordo bishops have a vote in this consent, then many of them have openly questioned +Francis. If you do not consider novus ordo bishops to have a say in the "universal consent" (and I do not, being they are just as materially heretical as the post-V2 popes), then the lack of universal consent (which is near unanimous) among Trad bishops, is proof enough that every post-V2 pope was doubtful.False: There is not a single Bishop with jurisdiction who rejects Francis’ legitimacy.
Nope: You are saying they are heretics for alleging they question a dogmatic fact.
But all the Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction also accept Vatican II and the New Mass. And while some might say Vatican II is technically not infallible, they aren't going to say that Vatican II was destructive to the faith or anything like that. Not one.
You once argued to me that even Athanasius Schneider (the very best bishop with jurisdiction at this point) isn't at all solid because the New Mass is displeasing to God. Yet its universally accepted as *not* a sacrilege.
I've said before I don't know whether its dogmatically certain that Francis is Pope. I'm questioning the logic on which that is based. I do think we should presume that he's the Pope unless/until we are told otherwise by competent authority. But is it absolutely certain? I don't know.
False: There is not a single Bishop with jurisdiction who rejects Francis’ legitimacy.
Idiot. I have repeatedly said that what they are questioning is not dogmatic fact, while you repeatedly assert that what they are questioning is dogmatic fact.
Sweetie, hush now.
:baby:
There is not a single approved pre-conciliar theologian who has disputed that a universally accepted pope is a dogmatic fact.
Consequently, for you to impute to Lefebvre/Williamson the questioning of the conciliar papacies is to impute to them the questioning of a dogmatic fact (which Cartachini says is a “mortal sin against the faith”).
False: There is not a single Bishop with jurisdiction who rejects Francis’ legitimacy.
There is not a single Bishop with jurisdiction who rejects the New Mass or the teachings of Vatican II.
Consequently, for you to impute to Lefebvre/Williamson the questioning of the conciliar papacies is to impute to them the questioning of a dogmatic fact (which Cartachini says is a “mortal sin against the faith”).
On one hand, I could argue that not 1 novus ordo bishop has any jurisdiction due to their acceptance of V2 heresy. Thus only leaving Trad bishops as those with 'supplied' or 'potential' jurisdiction.
.
On the other hand, assuming novus ordo bishops have jurisdiction, they would only possess material jurisdiction, as their spiritual jurisdiction is "impounded" (using Fr Chazal's terminology) due to acceptance of V2 heresy.
.
On a third hand, even if you assume novus ordo bishops have full jurisdiction, while they did not reject +Francis' election by way of media (as this would be the only way we were to hear of such things, and that's assuming the media would report honestly, if at all), there are other ways which opposition could have been made publically that we are unaware of (because public does not mean "known by all" but only "able to be known by all" in the sense that eventually it would come to light). Being that I have no evidence of this, I will assume it didn't happen.
.
Further, let's assume there was no public rejection of +Francis' election. But this does not mean that doubts and challenges have not been made since, as Socci's book (who has a history of credible witnesses and sources from inside the Vatican) and other websites have statements from Vatican officials which suggest a growing idea that +Benedict is still pope and his resignation was invalid. Certainly this is evidence of a rejection, even if after-the-fact. One could argue that the false translation of +Benedict's resignation letter from latin to the vernacular is a cover-up and this would make the acceptance of +Francis' resignation invalid, because it was based on lies.
.
Finally, even if we assume that +Benedict's resignation was valid, +Francis' legitimacy is being openly questioned right now, as the "dubia" letter is direct evidence.
.
All of these scenarios have some truth to them and support a doubt to some degree.
Whoop-dee-do:
I’m not defending those things as dogmatic facts.
Does everyone need to cite these quotes for you again? You are a dishonest liar if you claim that they have not questioned their legitimacy.
You are begging the question in assuming that the legitimacy of Bergoglio is dogmatic fact, and then lying about whether or not +Lefebvre and +Williamson ever questioned their legitimacy. So you are using a combination of two lies to come up with your deranged conclusion.
Trad bishops have full spiritual jurisdiction, as did St Athanasius. The novus ordo bishops would have material jurisdiction, which is the visible continuance of the Church. This suffices.Supplied, not ordinary (ie., case by case, not habitual).
You can cite the quotes all you want, but you only demonstrate that you do not understand them:
They are speaking of a future contingent action; of what may or may not transpire in the future.
If, at some point in the future the pope should lose his universal acceptance among a large portion of the bishops, then his papacy would no longer be a dogmatic fact (and therefore, the papacy would become questionable).
Supplied, not ordinary (ie., case by case, not habitual).
You are a dishonested, retarded baboon. First of all, these are not facts, but teachings and disciplines. If you actually understood the notion of universal acceptance, you'd understand that theologians derived it from the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens, based on the logical Major that the Church cannot universally embrace an erroneous rule of faith. And yet, according to you, the Church CAN universally embrace grave doctrinal error and a harmful Mass. Johnson, you are nothing short of a heretic who denies the indefectibility of the Church. You are a manifest heretic, and are not a Catholic.
Another lie. +Lefebvre was clearly saying that HE might have to conclude that Wojtyla is not the pope ... even before any such declaration by the Church. +Williamson's quote was referring to all the V2 papal claimants, including all the past ones.Oh yes:
But no one has demonstrated that habitual ordinary jursidiction is required to avoid ecclesiavacantism; that is Pax's point and his distinction. But it's above your mental capabilities.Honey-
Honey-A doubtful pope is not one at all.....
There, there.
Please articulate how a church devoid of anyone with jurisdiction supplied by the pope (and lacking any pope, or hope of ever recovering a pope), and therefore a heirarchy, is not a church which has defected.
Vatican II is not infallible, there is nothing de fide defined in it. But yes, Vatican II can contain no heresy, otherwise the Church defected in 1965. Those who say otherwise are mistaken. Pope Pius IX said clearly in Etsi Multa that to say a Council fell into heresy denies Church indefectibility. But there are lot of grades of theological certitude between "de fide" and "heresy". Two main things in Vatican II are "ecuмenism" and "interfaith dialogue", these are not defined in strict terms at all. They are merely pastoral proposals. If anything is de fide with respect to them, it is de fide that we can and should work for the conversion of the separated to the Catholic Church.
Its just confusing to me because those same bishops accept Vatican II. So why can they all be wrong on the one but not the other?
Vatican II is not infallible, there is nothing de fide defined in it. But yes, Vatican II can contain no heresy, otherwise the Church defected in 1965. Those who say otherwise are mistaken. Pope Pius IX said clearly in Etsi Multa that to say a Council fell into heresy denies Church indefectibility. But there are lot of grades of theological certitude between "de fide" and "heresy". Two main things in Vatican II are "ecuмenism" and "interfaith dialogue", these are not defined in strict terms at all. They are merely pastoral proposals. If anything is de fide with respect to them, it is de fide that we can and should work for the conversion of the separated to the Catholic Church.“Bishop” huonder the heretic is what you meant.
His Excellency Bishop Fellay docuмents that many Bishops consider many points of Vatican II to be "open questions": ""And then, from time to time, I receive letters. Like this one: I will read it to you in English because it is an image:
“Stick to your guns. Always stick to your guns.” This means: Keep your hands on your revolvers. Hold them firmly. In other words: “Defend yourselves. Always. And refuse to compromise in these matters that do not really pertain to the substance of the faith: religious liberty, ecuмenism, dialogue with non-Christian religions. There are many of us in the hierarchy who think and believe in what you are doing about these questions.” It is a bishop who wrote that to me. He does not write “I”, he writes that there are many of “us”. He wrote other things too that I dare not read to you, they are so laudatory ... “Come to our aid.” And also: “Do not let go of anything, continue like this, we need it!” This is new! There was nothing like this before! The bishops used to tell us: obviously there are problems, but at the end of the day.... And here they are telling us: “Resist, we need it!” Actually they do not speak too loud because they know very well that if they do, they will be cutting off their own heads ... I am not telling you their names because we do not want to burn out these prelates, but there are several of them.
I discover some, just like that, by surprise, and there are a certain number of them! And these are young bishops! And some of them were appointed by Pope Francis! He is not just appointing bad ones! He is all mixed up, like his whole attitude, which has also increased the general confusion. But it is extremely interesting to see that there is this movement, and I am certain that it will no longer stop. Why? Because these bishops see where the truth is, and they will not give in. They are annoyed, they are cornered, because they are in the system, but they will no longer give in. Just like these priests who have discovered the old Mass, they will do all that they can, they are annoyed, cornered, but they will keep it. These are skirmishes that have been won." http://fsspx.asia/en/content/23944 (http://fsspx.asia/en/content/23944)
And as mentioned here, http://catholicismhastheanswer.com/vatican-ii-must-be-clarified/ (http://catholicismhastheanswer.com/vatican-ii-must-be-clarified/) Vatican II is non-infallible, so lesser error than strict heresy is possible in theory. "Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide;The Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature."- Dietrich Von Hildebrand. "The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest." -Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), address to the Chilean Bishops, 13 July 1988, Santiago Chile
Also, Bishop Fellay said the Society Bishops, from the Holy Year forward, now have Ordinary Jurisdiction themselves: "As a result of the Pope’s act, during the Holy Year, we will have ordinary jurisdiction. In the image I mentioned, this has the effect of giving us the official insignia of firefighters, whereas such a status was denied us for decades. In itself, it adds nothing new for the Society, its members, or its faithful. Yet this ordinary jurisdiction will perhaps reassure people who are uneasy or others who until now did not dare to approach us." From: https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/ (https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/)
So it's not true that every Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction in the Latin Church offers the New Mass today. The New Mass is a vastly inferior form of the Mass; it is truncated, partial and extrinsically deficient in comparison to the Traditional Mass, the True Mass of the Roman Rite. A new Mass would have at most like 1/100th of the Graces of the True Mass. Every well-informed Priest and Bishop should therefore make the decision to offer the TLM instead. After Summorum Pontificuм in 2007 and Universae Ecclesiae in 2011, it is quite possible for every Bishop to do this. But it is neither invalid nor a Black Mass nor heretical, as +ABL also said in the 1980 letter to the Holy See cited earlier.
Bp. Huonder is also another diocesan Bishop or Ordinary who is now, by the Grace of God, going to be offering the TLM exclusively.
A new Mass would have at most like 1/100th of the Graces of the True Mass.Makes me feel better that modern science is able to solve the novus ordo problem, by mathematically calculating the liturgical sanctity of the new rite. What else should they put their efforts towards? Can they calculate how many QUADrillion (that's 1,000 trillion) of novus ordo-ites have gone to invalid masses when "for all" was used in the consecration formula? +Benedict changed the formula back to "for many", so the invalid "for all" was used for 40+ years, times 52 sundays, times 1 billion catholics = approx. 2 QUADrillion. Even if you assume half of that, it's 1 quadrillion. That's a lot of invalid masses, which have NO graces. 0%. zilch.
Vatican II is not infallible, there is nothing de fide defined in it. But yes, Vatican II can contain no heresy, otherwise the Church defected in 1965. Those who say otherwise are mistaken. Pope Pius IX said clearly in Etsi Multa that to say a Council fell into heresy denies Church indefectibility.
Makes me feel better that modern science is able to solve the novus ordo problem, by mathematically calculating the liturgical sanctity of the new rite. What else should they put their efforts towards? Can they calculate how many QUADrillion (that's 1,000 trillion) of novus ordo-ites have gone to invalid masses when "for all" was used in the consecration formula? +Benedict changed the formula back to "for many", so the invalid "for all" was used for 40+ years, times 52 sundays, times 1 billion catholics = approx. 2 QUADrillion. Even if you assume half of that, it's 1 quadrillion. That's a lot of invalid masses, which have NO graces. 0%. zilch.Your math is wrong a semi grace was given during the for all masses, a half grace is given at the modern “for many” novus ordo, bonus points for hand holding our father and +2 for every extra minister, -5 for every veil.
.
It's insanity that people keep defending the novus ordo.
You should really discount what Hesse said as his defense of the NRO was that it is a schismatic rite and therefore can deviate from the form of the Roman rite, by that logic I can make my own rite and the words “eenie miney mo” is a valid form for consecration.
There is good evidence that VII was not a real council. After all, it did not intend to do what actual Councils have ALWAYS done, which is to address, rebuke, and condemn error, and in that light to clarify true Church teaching. VII did not do that.
I'm going mainly by what Fr. Gregory Hesse said as to why VII was not a valid council. It was his opinion, as a canon lawyer.
You should really discount what Hesse said as his defense of the NRO was that it is a schismatic rite and therefore can deviate from the form of the Roman rite, by that logic I can make my own rite and the words “eenie miney mo” is a valid form for consecration.
I have no idea what "NRO" means. Do you mean the Novus Ordo? If so, Fr. Hesse did believe that the Novus Ordo is a schismatic Mass. But.... it's a tad bit more complicated than just saying that one can make up his or her own "rite."NRO is new rite of ordination. If you watch the video on “are novus ordo sacraments valid?” He makes a ridiculous argument to say that it is valid. VII is indeed heretical and is not a true council, as it was called by Roncalli, a heretic who could not have Been elected to the papacy.
I don't have any interest in getting further involved in a debate on what Fr. Hesse believed regarding the NO.
Do you deny that VII deviated from all other Councils in not addressing and condemning error?
NRO is new rite of ordination. If you watch the video on “are novus ordo sacraments valid?” He makes a ridiculous argument to say that it is valid. VII is indeed heretical and is not a true council, as it was called by Roncalli, a heretic who could not have Been elected to the papacy.
Your math is wrong a semi grace was given during the for all masses, a half grace is given at the modern “for many” novus ordo, bonus points for hand holding our father and +2 for every extra minister, -5 for every veil.:laugh1: Yes, good points. I supposed there would be a +10 for the heretical con-celebrations with non-Catholic "ministers"? What would "pride" masses offer... +50?!
Fr. Hesse did indeed believe that the new rite of ordination is valid. He was hardly alone among traditionalists in believing that. There is no consensus among traditionalists that the new rite of ordination is invalid. If you want to believe it's invalid, that's you choice.Lefebvre and almost all other OG trads atleast doubted, if not knew it was invalid. I said it very clear in my las reply. Vatican II is not a valid council as John xxiii was not a true pope. If you think that John xxiii was a true pope, then you must accept v2 or you are in schism.
I'll ask again. If you are not comfortable in answering, that's fine. Do you deny that VII deviated from all other Councils in that it did not address and condemn error?
Lefebvre and almost all other OG trads atleast doubted, if not knew it was invalid. I said it very clear in my las reply. Vatican II is not a valid council as John xxiii was not a true pope. If you think that John xxiii was a true pope, then you must accept v2 or you are in schism.
Lefebvre and almost all other OG trads atleast doubted, if not knew it was invalid. I said it very clear in my las reply. Vatican II is not a valid council as John xxiii was not a true pope. If you think that John xxiii was a true pope, then you must accept v2 or you are in schism.Meg, if only you would profess that JXXIII was not a valid pope, you would not be in schism. :facepalm:
Meg, if only you would profess that JXXIII was not a valid pope, you would not be in schism. :facepalm:
Meg, if only you would profess that JXXIII was not a valid pope, you would not be in schism. :facepalm:
Sweetie:
...
1) Ladislaus says the opposite of every pre-conciliar theologian: A universally accepted pope is not a dogmatic fact.
Lefebvre and almost all other OG trads atleast doubted, if not knew it was invalid. I said it very clear in my las reply. Vatican II is not a valid council as John xxiii was not a true pope. If you think that John xxiii was a true pope, then you must accept v2 or you are in schism.I think "accepting" Vatican II is vague terminology. What exactly does it mean to accept it? Paul VI himself said its not defining any infallible dogma. Now I get, as Ladislaus and other people would point out, that's not supposed to mean that it can be positively harmful, and there could be room for debate regarding just how off a pastoral council that's accepted by basically all bishops can be, but I don't think even the Vatican (or at least the Vatican under Benedict XVI) said the thing was completely above criticism.
This is why I will no longer respond to any of your (SJ's) posts. You are a shameless liar, Johnson. I will continue this discussion with people like ByzCat and Pax. We're all trying to get to the truth and form our consciences. You, Stubborn, and Meg are only interested in grinding your axes. And, as such, you are absolutely useless for having meaningful discussions with. Much is made of dogmatic sedevacantism ... but rarely is there a mention of dogmatic R&Rism.
Hey, I'm not asking you or anyone else to endorse my newly arrived at position concerning SVism , or to take my side on any other topic. But in the interests of preserving forum sanity, I ask for your assistance in bringing this unfortunate thread to an end.
Just my two-cents worth:Ladislaus says Sean, particularly, is dogmatic about it. Which is definitely true. He borderline implied that I'm a heretic for taking the "We have to assume he's Pope but the Church might eventually tell us he wasn't" position.
I agree that the thread should come to and end - but the discussion will just keep going on other threads - since the sedes and sedeprivationists dominate the forum.
You said that you don't want anyone to endorse your newly arrived at position of SVism, so I suggest that you not start another thread in which you contend that +ABL would be an SV if he were still alive.
If forum members want to hold the SV position, I don't really care. It's that they often insist that everyone who has any Catholic sense or intelligence HAS to hold the SV or sedeprivationist position. I don't happen to believe that R&R is absolutely or necessarily the correct view. Most who hold the R&R position aren't dogmatic about it, though Ladislaus will falsely accuse us of it, because he's vindictive.
We can't see the whole picture. That's what SV's and their fellow travelers don't get.
Yes, Sean was a bit unhinged on this thread. Even I have to admit that. And....I don't think it was appropriate to say that Ladislaus should be banned, when he was really only joking about that, and not serious. This subject seems to bring out the worst in traditional Catholics. But they, it does bring a lot of traffic to the forum, so who am I to complain?
Ladislaus says Sean, particularly, is dogmatic about it. Which is definitely true. He borderline implied that I'm a heretic for taking the "We have to assume he's Pope but the Church might eventually tell us he wasn't" position.
He's not necessarily saying everyone who's R + R is dogmatic about it.
Get over it, wussy.1: I don't actually care. I just was pointing out that you are dogmatic on the issue.
Ladislaus is a dogmatic doubtist: Anyone he cant cause to doubt dogmatic facts is a heretic. :o
Total idiot.
Ps:I am absolutely a Catholic (ie., dogmatic sedeplenist, as all are obliged to be).
1: I don't actually care. I just was pointing out that you are dogmatic on the issue.All Catholics are required to be completely dogmatic on the issue
2: I acknowledge that it might be a dogmatic fact. If it is, I submit to it. Even if its not, I still think it much, much, much more prudent to assume that the man who appears to be the Pope, is. If he isn't, the Church can tell us later. Im not obliged to figure that out on my own.
All Catholics are required to be completely dogmatic on the issueCan you prove that logically? I mean I figure you probably won't bother.
Just keep in mind that SJ, XavierSem, Praeter, Disco and Salsa and all the other nutty r&r people have no authority. You aren’t in schism or heresy with any Novus Ordo Bishops so no worries. If Frank is the pope we’re all saved. If he’s not the pope it is the r&r people who tried to excommunicate everyone who have big troubles.If he is the Pope, wouldn't sedevacantists who tried to anathemize people for rejecting their opinion also be in trouble?
Can you prove that logically? I mean I figure you probably won't bother.Yes: Start On page 1, and read to present.
I realize that ordinarily you're supposed to accept the Pope that's universally accepted. The problem is that Francis is no more "universally accepted" than Vatican II is. With that being said, and with all the opinions of theologians on what happens to a heretic pope, I don't see how its *impossible* for some future Trad Pope to be like "yeah actually Francis was never really Pope, he wasn't Catholic."
Yes: Start On page 1, and read to present.Obviously Sean’s favorite book is “How to make friends and influence people”.
I can’t recall the last time I saw 3 consecutive posts by non Feeneyite/non sedevacantists here.I mean, I'm neither, but I suspect you'd accuse me of being both... somehow...
... I don't see how its *impossible* for some future Trad Pope to be like "yeah actually Francis was never really Pope, he wasn't Catholic."
Lad:
Lad, as the forum member who started this topic, I appeal to you to end this debate. It is going on 3800 views and I've forgotten how many pages. The topic needs to be put out of its misery. I am asking you and the others to desist in the interests of maintaining CI as a viable and reasonably informative chat site. I apologize for having introduced it in the first place.
Obviously, SJ, (in my opinion certainly) is an unhinged, maybe even deranged individual. Just look at how he responded to me yesterday. Hey, I'm not asking you or anyone else to endorse my newly arrived at position concerning SVism , or to take my side on any other topic. But in the interests of preserving forum sanity, I ask for your assistance in bringing this unfortunate thread to an end.
Bp. Williamson has been informed of SJ's remarks to me. They're extremely bizarre. But it's up to him if we wants to continue an association with SJ.
If he is the Pope, wouldn't sedevacantists who tried to anathemize people for rejecting their opinion also be in trouble?Who do you have in mind?
It would seem a Novus Ordo bishop would have more meaningful authority here.
Alright, hollingsworth, I'll back off. This is an issue I'm keenly interested in, because it's crucial to forming our consciences. And I've enjoyed bouncing thoughts off ByzCat and Pax, who both appear to be inquiring sincerely into the truth of the matter ... even though neither are sedevacantists. Unfortunately, SeanJohnson derailed the conversation.
Indeed, the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy must be known a priori from some external criterion. Theologians all agree that this criterion is the universal peaceful acceptance of the Church. Question is whether such universal peaceful acceptance exists or existed in the case of the V2 papal claimants. Now, the other thing is that there are OTHER possible explanations for what happened with Vatican II and the New Mass. Could Paul VI have been blackmailed (on account of, say, his alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activities)? That too would have rendered any forced acts of his null and void. We just don't know.
With regard to Universal Acceptance, what happens in situations where the vast majority of the "Church" have succuмbed to the same errors as the papal claimant? When 90%+ of the Conciliar establishment are heretics (as demonstrated by their own polls), then how they heck can that count for anything?
Who do you have in mind?Nobody in particular. I was just saying Novus Ordo bishops at least *seem* to have actual authority (whereas the R + Rs on this forum clearly don't) and thus would at least *potentially* have the authority to call people schismatic. Though I'm not even sure a Novus Ordo bishop would say that what I said was schismatic. Now if I said "yeah, the see is vacant, there's no authority" than that would be a different matter, but I'm saying we should assume there's (imperfect) authority and act accordingly so I'm not sure how meaningfully I'm saying anything different than the SSPX (though I guess Burke still thinks they're schismatic. meh.)
Lad, as the forum member who started this topic, I appeal to you to end this debate. It is going on 3800 views and I've forgotten how many pages.Who cares how long a thread goes on? You continually complain about this and I just don't get it.
Unfortunately, SeanJohnson derailed the conversation.That's an understatement. Sean is a monotonous "chest thumper" who seems to miss his glory days of high school, so he visits this site to throw around adolescent barbs in place of actual adult conversation. Somehow he gets fulfillment from such activities.
Who cares how long a thread goes on? You continually complain about this and I just don't get it.More projection!
That's an understatement. Sean is a monotonous "chest thumper" who seems to miss his glory days of high school, so he visits this site to throw around adolescent barbs in place of actual adult conversation. Somehow he gets fulfillment from such activities.
Alright, hollingsworth, I'll back off. This is an issue I'm keenly interested in, because it's crucial to forming our consciences. And I've enjoyed bouncing thoughts off ByzCat and Pax, who both appear to be inquiring sincerely into the truth of the matter ... even though neither are sedevacantists. Unfortunately, SeanJohnson derailed the conversation.I started a new thread, quoting the substantive portion on this, so if you're interested in continuing it we can continue it there.
Indeed, the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy must be known a priori from some external criterion. Theologians all agree that this criterion is the universal peaceful acceptance of the Church. Question is whether such universal peaceful acceptance exists or existed in the case of the V2 papal claimants. Now, the other thing is that there are OTHER possible explanations for what happened with Vatican II and the New Mass. Could Paul VI have been blackmailed (on account of, say, his alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activities)? That too would have rendered any forced acts of his null and void. We just don't know.
With regard to Universal Acceptance, what happens in situations where the vast majority of the "Church" have succuмbed to the same errors as the papal claimant? When 90%+ of the Conciliar establishment are heretics (as demonstrated by their own polls), then how they heck can that count for anything?
Just keep in mind that SJ, XavierSem, Praeter, Disco and Salsa and all the other nutty r&r people have no authority. You aren’t in schism or heresy with any Novus Ordo Bishops so no worries. If Frank is the pope we’re all saved. If he’s not the pope it is the r&r people who tried to excommunicate everyone who have big troubles.Disco and Salsa.... :laugh1:
Makes me feel better that modern science is able to solve the novus ordo problem, by mathematically calculating the liturgical sanctity of the new rite. What else should they put their efforts towards? Can they calculate how many QUADrillion (that's 1,000 trillion) of novus ordo-ites have gone to invalid masses when "for all" was used in the consecration formula? +Benedict changed the formula back to "for many", so the invalid "for all" was used for 40+ years, times 52 sundays, times 1 billion catholics = approx. 2 QUADrillion. Even if you assume half of that, it's 1 quadrillion. That's a lot of invalid masses, which have NO graces. 0%. zilch.Wait, are we somehow certain "for you and for all" invalidates the rite? Somehow I just came across this. Do we know this, somehow, or are you just saying its impossible?
.
It's insanity that people keep defending the novus ordo.
Then, seeing Lad getting raked over the coals and thoroughly thrashed on the subject of dogmatic facts, tries to bail out his new ally by providing him an exit strategy: “Oh, the thread has been derailed; please desist!”
No, what I mean is that I will no longer engage you on the subject, or any other subject for that matter.Dodger.
No, what I mean is that I will no longer engage you on the subject, or any other subject for that matter. I am only in the business of informing my own conscience. If I were to conclude that these men are to be considered legitimate popes with the certainty of faith, then I would not only accept them but would beat the SSPX back into full communion with them. To this point, however, I simply do not recognize these men as having the same faith and the same religion that I do. And that in fact is of the essence when it comes to Universal Acceptance. It essentially boils down to that, does the Church recognize these men as one of their own, a fellow believer. Clearly Traditional Catholics do not, and regard them as alien and foreigners. Whether one wants to quibble about the precise mechanisms to being able to consider such a one removed from office ... well, those are just technicalities. What's important is that we do not recognize these men as our rules of faith, and conversely do not give them our acceptance.Leaving aside the fact that Sean is being obnoxious, though, I don't see why "they're legitimate popes, but we've exaggerated the universal ordinary magisterium" is *off the table* as a solution.
Dodger.
Ladislaus gets argued into a corner, then goes storming away (again).
Leaving aside the fact that Sean is being obnoxious, though, I don't see why "they're legitimate popes, but we've exaggerated the universal ordinary magisterium" is *off the table* as a solution.Not at all: I’m simply teaching Loudestmouth a lesson by treating him the way he treats other people.
Keep in mind that Papal Infallibility itself was debatable up till 1870. Vatican I dogmatically affirmed it under limited circuмstances. Maybe trying to go beyond that, or trying to say the ordinary teaching authority" of the Church in one particular era is certainly infallible, is a problem.
Not at all: I’m simply teaching Loudestmouth a lesson by treating him the way he treats other people.I've never seen him be rude though, despite disagreeing with him plenty. You on the other hand I've never seen actually make a serious argument.
Seems he doesn’t like to be on the receiving end of it.
This has to be one of the most laughable things you have ever posted, and you have set the bar very high. You've done that dozens of times. When argued into a corner, you bail out of a thread; in fact, you've bailed off CathInfo several times. You claimed just the other day that you were going to stop posting entirely. But we now see you're back. Not only that, but your modus operandi also includes starting a thread to have all those who do not see the crisis your way banned. I am not bailing on anything ... except for wasting my time exchanging posts with you. This is my last post in response to anything you have to say.Look: Ladislaus declares he is leaving (again), and two minutes later he is right back at it!
I've never seen him be rude though, despite disagreeing with him plenty. You on the other hand I've never seen actually make a serious argument.Oh, I doubt you find it too tiresome: you are holding strong 19 pages into it.
But I find talking about personalities tiresome. The doctrinal issue is way more interesting.
Leaving aside the fact that Sean is being obnoxious, though, I don't see why "they're legitimate popes, but we've exaggerated the universal ordinary magisterium" is *off the table* as a solution.
Keep in mind that Papal Infallibility itself was debatable up till 1870. Vatican I dogmatically affirmed it under limited circuмstances. Maybe trying to go beyond that, or trying to say the ordinary teaching authority" of the Church in one particular era is certainly infallible, is a problem.
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
In my own mind, this has crossed a line. Clearly not everything ever taught by any Pope ever is infallible. Unfortunately, many sedevacantists exaggerate the scope of infallibility ... as an overreaction against R&R. But I think we've crossed a line from the mere technicalities of infallibility into what I would consider to be a defection of the Magisterium and Universal Discipline. I subscribe to Monsignor Fenton's line of thought on this matter.I suppose I don't understand why I'm obliged to believe this with the certainty of faith. And either way the pickle seems to be basically the same. In neither case do I see why Mssgr. Fenton's reasoning is infallible.
This is my understanding of the Holy Catholic Church as well. With Vatican II and the New Mass, we are not talking about an isolated passing thought in some Encyclical. What we have here is a new theological system. Along with it has come a Mass that has done grave violence to the Church's revered Liturgical Tradition. My faith in the holiness and the indefectibility of the Church rule out this possibility as a matter of faith. I believe this with the certainty of faith.
See, a material continuity of the Church does not suffice for indefectibility. If the Church can by her official teaching and discipline bring grave harm to souls, where we feel that we cannot in good conscience participate in whatever this is, then the Church would have defected in her mission. At that point, what good would a mere material continuity be. In that case, souls would be better off if such an institution were in fact to go extinct. It's one of the main reasons Our Lord left the Church with teaching authority, so that the sheep in heeding it would be kept from going astray.
If I were to tell St. Robert Bellarmine that I considered it a possibility that the Church could hold an Ecuмenical Council that endangered the faith and a Roman Rite Mass that harmed souls, he would unquestionably without the slightest hesitation declare me a heretic and outside the Church.
Nobody in particular. I was just saying Novus Ordo bishops at least *seem* to have actual authority (whereas the R + Rs on this forum clearly don't) and thus would at least *potentially* have the authority to call people schismatic. Though I'm not even sure a Novus Ordo bishop would say that what I said was schismatic. Now if I said "yeah, the see is vacant, there's no authority" than that would be a different matter, but I'm saying we should assume there's (imperfect) authority and act accordingly so I'm not sure how meaningfully I'm saying anything different than the SSPX (though I guess Burke still thinks they're schismatic. meh.)Novus Ordo Bishops almost never excommunicate anyone and even if they do, they don’t believe that you are outside the Church. They believe you would be in imperfect communion but that would not cause you to be damned. In the worst case scenario you are publicly humiliated but your salvation is assured. The r&r people on the other hand have no authority in neither the Catholic Church nor in the Conciliar Church. But they are attempting to usurp the pope’s authority by binding you to their opinions rather than the pope’s laws. As Ladislaus points out, it is hypocritical. If Frank is the pope, I’m going to obey him, not some small group of clergy who have no authority. If Frank isn’t the pope, then we shouldn’t be having anything to do with the Conciliar Church. Not only do we not have to recognize a non-Catholic pope, but we should avoid him and his minions like the plague.
Novus Ordo Bishops almost never excommunicate anyone and even if they do, they don’t believe that you are outside the Church. They believe you would be in imperfect communion but that would not cause you to be damned. In the worst case scenario you are publicly humiliated but your salvation is assured. The r&r people on the other hand have no authority in neither the Catholic Church nor in the Conciliar Church. But they are attempting to usurp the pope’s authority by binding you to their opinions rather than the pope’s laws. As Ladislaus points out, it is hypocritical. If Frank is the pope, I’m going to obey him, not some small group of clergy who have no authority. If Frank isn’t the pope, then we shouldn’t be having anything to do with the Conciliar Church. Not only do we not have to recognize a non-Catholic pope, but we should avoid him and his minions like the plague.I’m not sure if ladislaus quite agrees with you. It seems like (correct me if I’m wrong) you’re DEFINITELY sede whereas ladislaus is probabilisticaly sede
I’m not sure if ladislaus quite agrees with you. It seems like (correct me if I’m wrong) you’re DEFINITELY sede whereas ladislaus is probabilisticaly sedeC’mon now, the guy who just worshipped Gaia in the Vatican Gardens might be the pope of the Catholic Church? Give me a break.
Indeed, the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy must be known a priori from some external criterion. Theologians all agree that this criterion is the universal peaceful acceptance of the Church. Question is whether such universal peaceful acceptance exists or existed in the case of the V2 papal claimants. Now, the other thing is that there are OTHER possible explanations for what happened with Vatican II and the New Mass. Could Paul VI have been blackmailed (on account of, say, his alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activities)? That too would have rendered any forced acts of his null and void. We just don't know.There are a number of problems with your idea, here is only one: Let's pretend for a moment that the next pope is an even more stringent and orthodox pope then say, Pope Pius X, and he plans to wholly restore the Church. There is no way that this pope would enjoy a "universal peaceful acceptance of the Church." No way.
There are a number of problems with your idea, here is only one: Let's pretend for a moment that the next pope is an even more stringent and orthodox pope then say, Pope Pius X, and he plans to wholly restore the Church. There is no way that this pope would enjoy a "universal peaceful acceptance of the Church." No way.
There are a number of problems with your idea, here is only one: Let's pretend for a moment that the next pope is an even more stringent and orthodox pope then say, Pope Pius X, and he plans to wholly restore the Church. There is no way that this pope would enjoy a "universal peaceful acceptance of the Church." No way.
Throughout this conciliar revolution, from it's beginning until now, not so much as one drop of blood has been shed because the pope, hierarchy, priests, nuns and people all abandoned their faith *willingly*, some even eagerly, they do not want anything to do with anything other then what they have - what they really want is what they’ve got, that’s why they have it, that’s why they’ve chosen it, that’s why they fight for it, and its why they continue to absorb it, they cling to it and they love it. You're living in a dream world if you have any notion that a holy pope will be universally peacefully accepted by the whole Church - if anything, he'll be universally violently rejected. Much blood will be shed, be certain of this.
Right now, no pope is going to receive "universal peaceful acceptance of the Church" (whatever that means to you) unless he's a Modernist Liberal who is hell bent on destroying the Church.
So that's the problem with the opinion of "all theologians" (of the last 100 years or so who hold this opinion) who make the universal peaceful acceptance the criterion for papal validity.
C’mon now, the guy who just worshipped Gaia in the Vatican Gardens might be the pope of the Catholic Church? Give me a break.
Now THAT was an interesting insight!
Ultimately, you are raising the question:
“What about a claimant who’s papacy should be a dogmatic fact, but isn’t?”
That scenario never occurred to me before.
And I completely agree with your suggestion that a truly orthodox pope would never has his pontificate ratified by the universal moral unanimity of the bishops.
The only question is if you wait for the church to reject their papacy 100% or you reject it yourself.And just say that all trads rejected him universally what does that actually achieve?
The last 6 posts sum up the entire sede debate. All Trads reject V2 popes as being not catholic. We’ve all separated ourselves from his authority. The only question is if you wait for the church to reject their papacy 100% or you reject it yourself.
And just say that all trads rejected him universally what does that actually achieve?
Peace and unity and common purpose among Traditional Catholics.Then would we have an obligation to do something keeping that peace and harmony amongst ourselves? By doing something I mean it would have to be some kind of religious movement??
The movement would be keeping the Faith alive...and working together to do it. So instead of having 3 masses from different groups in 1 city, you’d have 3 priests helping 3 different cities. But that’s idealism. The devil knows human nature and it’s easy for him to split us up by disagreements, which is what we have now.
The movement would be keeping the Faith alive...and working together to do it. So instead of having 3 masses from different groups in 1 city, you’d have 3 priests helping 3 different cities. But that’s idealism. The devil knows human nature and it’s easy for him to split us up by disagreements, which is what we have now.
The movement would be keeping the Faith alive...and working together to do it. So instead of having 3 masses from different groups in 1 city, you’d have 3 priests helping 3 different cities.Thank you so much Ladislaus and Pax Vobis. Of course you point out that there would be disagreements but it is not idealism surely. It is using our faith unitedly. It seems to me this is what we MUST do. We can't keep letting Pope Francis and all his sychophants continue to destroy the Church. Oh I know that God has promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Of course He won't. But we have to use our faith the right way. It is what we must do - surely! WE are the Church Militant - WE have to do the fighting!
Yep. Within 5 miles of each other we have around here an R&R Independent priest and a CMRI priest. Within another 20 miles you have an SSPV priest, and two more SSPX chapels. So we have about 5 Traditional Catholic chapels within relatively close proximity.THAT sums up very well indeed the fact that we have to work on our own sins first. The religious movement needs to engage in prayer and penance. So the priests have to be united in order to unite the laity. Or is it possible for the laity to pray thus so that the priesthood is united(?)
If the criterion for being dogmatically certain about the legitimacy of a Pope is NOT peaceful universal acceptance, than what is it?The pope in his legislation on the conclave, said that the man elected is instantly the true pope. He said for no other purpose then that so we would be certain who the pope is. If we cannot be certain after that, then even if one were to rise from the dead...
Now THAT was an interesting insight!Personally, I've already been through all of what you've numerated above, and more. I think it's likely you will need to sort it out for yourself as my conclusions are constantly discounted as wrong or otherwise unbelievable. Yet for the ones who discount them, their problem remains.
Ultimately, you are raising the question:
“What about a claimant who’s papacy should be a dogmatic fact, but isn’t?”
That scenario never occurred to me before.
And I completely agree with your suggestion that a truly orthodox pope would never has his pontificate ratified by the universal moral unanimity of the bishops.
But does that necessarily mean that the unanimous opinion of theologians are wrong that said universal acceptance makes such a papacy a dogmatic fact (and therefore as binding as it is certain)?
Still thinking it through, but I don’t think so:
It seems to indispensable to the hierarchical constitution of the Church that there could be a true pope rejected by a sizable number of bishops (for any reason), or conversely, that all the bishops could be deceived into recognizing a false pope.
But the example of a good pope-elect who refuses to gain universal consent has already happened in history (e.g., during the GWS, when saints backed competing claimants, and consequently none of them were popes, precisely because of the lack of universal consent.).
Moreover, theologians of the stature of a Billot or Alphonsus would have had these historical example in mind when writing about dogmatic facts and universal consent of the bishops.
For that reason, I don’t think the unfortunate reality you describe discredits the criteria of universal consent as the measuring stick of the legitimacy of any papacy (modernist or orthodox).
I think it does show tgat the Church has been led into an inextricable predicament which only our Lord’s intervention will solve.
Personally, I've already been through all of what you've numerated above, and more. I think it's likely you will need to sort it out for yourself as my conclusions are constantly discounted as wrong or otherwise unbelievable. Yet for the ones who discount them, their problem remains.
Suffice to say that the pope is the pope, but because we owe obedience to God first, all we can do is remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first. Always God's first. That we must remain the pope's good subjects, is dogma. Try starting there.
It is because, contrary to the most fundamental of Catholic principles, most Catholic people had (and many still have) such blind trust in their bishops and their priests and in the pope, that they were totally defenseless against the conciliar revolution. When they see popes publicly sinning, this is when they see him preaching heresy, or kissing the koran and etc. ad nausem, they can't believe their eyes. Because they don't believe a pope can do what the conciliar popes have done and remain popes, we have people here claiming unless we profess the pope is not the pope, we're in schism.
The people learned to have such blind trust from somewhere - I believe this thinking emanates from some theologians, only within the last 150 years or so.
It seems my position is a hybrid between yours and Lad’s:Would you agree that the bishops at v2 defected from the faith and were thus outside of the church?
1) like you, I believe the pope is the pope
2) like Lad, I believe dogmatic facts are binding (and for my part, I would add the conciliar popes are dogmatic facts in light of the universal consent of bishops).
3) #1 comes from #2
4) the possibility of a good pope not receiving universal consent (eg., Siri) does not weaken #2 (although it does leave the Church in a difficult situation).
It seems my position is a hybrid between yours and Lad’s:For me, #1 comes from Pope St. Pius X's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. By that I mean specifically, that the pope telling us how we identify the next pope is all I need for certainty. That the pope actually said this, is dogmatically certain - is it not?
1) like you, I believe the pope is the pope
2) like Lad, I believe dogmatic facts are binding, and the conciliar popes are dogmatic facts in light of the universal consent of bishops.
3) #1 comes from #2
4) the possibility of a good pope not receiving universal consent (eg., Siri) does not weaken #2 (although it does leave the Church in a difficult situation).
Would you agree that the bishops at v2 defected from the faith and were thus outside of the church?I would agree that they taught heresy, but not that they are outside the Church.
I would agree that they taught heresy, but not that they are outside the Church.Does heresy not remove you from the church?
Does heresy not remove you from the church?Suppose the sin of heresies is confessed by the penitent (pope) and absolved by the priest in confession - is that possible?
Suppose the sin of heresies is confessed by the penitent (pope) and absolved by the priest in confession - is that possible?You are acting like this is my original beloef, it is the belief of many popes and saints that heresy places you outside the church.
If you say that it is possible while at the same time you say that a heretic pope is outside of the Church, then how is it that a non-Catholic went to confession at all?
For me, #1 comes from Pope St. Pius X's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. By that I mean specifically, that the pope telling us how we identify the next pope is all I need for certainty. That the pope actually said this, is dogmatically certain - is it not?It’s not just that. It’s that you basically don’t believe it’s possible to obey him... at all. You can’t even attend a mass that he approves, even a Latin Mass, because that would be a compromise of some sort. There is at the least a real tension there beyond just “popes sin grievously”
In a nutshell, the whole notion of even needing "dogmatic proof" revolves around people not believing what they see, namely, popes publicly sinning and promoting sin. They see the sin, they know it's a sin, but they see the pope and don't believe he's a pope because they've been led to believe that a pope cannot sin, or at least sin *like that*. Where is that dogma by the way? But when one accepts that he is the pope and that he can sin *like that*, then that whole particular problem is solved for them.
It’s not just that. It’s that you basically don’t believe it’s possible to obey him... at all. You can’t even attend a mass that he approves, even a Latin Mass, because that would be a compromise of some sort. There is at the least a real tension there beyond just “popes sin grievously”It starts with the dogma that it is necessary to be subject to the pope or no salvation for me. This is the starting point for me. I stress "for me". This is *my* Rule of Faith in this matter. I believe it is everyone's Rule of Faith in this matter even though many disagree. Unlike the sedes, there is no possible way around this for me, nor is there any possible way for me to get out of this. What it is, is a requirement for salvation, it is dogma. I pray those get saved who think they can get out of it by believing we have no pope, but I know I can't get out of it that way. If I live to be 150 years old, that's the way it will and must remain.
And to be clear, I’m technically closer to your side of the debate.
Does heresy not remove you from the church?Sometimes, and under certain conditions.
Suffice to say that the pope is the pope, but because we owe obedience to God first, all we can do is remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first. Always God's first. That we must remain the pope's good subjects, is dogma. Try starting there.
Even if we believe he is a true pope, which I don't, how can real Catholics demonstrate loyalty and obedience, practically speaking, to a pontiff like this?
Quote ...by the divine, indeed even natural, precept of charity, they are bound in this to provide sufficiently for the needs of the faithful (Suarez, De poenitentiae sacramento, disput. XXVI., Sect. IV, n.7).
| (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/Images/1999_September/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_Vatican.jpg) | In Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican you will find a complete set of the docuмents exchanged between Rome and Archbishop Lefebvre in the time leading up to and immediately following his episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988. Available from Angelus Press (http://www.angeluspress.org/). Price $12.95 plus shipping and handling. |
Quote …the coming into play of epikeia is subordinate to the existence of a right. In fact, in certain cases, the law loses its power to bind – as where its application would be contrary to the common good or to natural law – and in such a case it is not in the power of the legislator to bind or to oblige.19 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#19B)..There is a place for epikeia because the will of the legislator either is not able or is not bound to impose the application of the law to the case in question.20 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#20B)The state of necessity in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre is precisely the case in which the lawmaker cannot impose the application of the law because it has become, by force of particular circuмstances, contrary to the common good and to the divine natural and positive law. On his part, under the pressure of a precept of divine natural and positive law, “…the subject [e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre – Ed.] not only may, but he is bound not to observe the law, whether he asks or does not ask for permission to do so from the superior.”21 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#21B)
Quote that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission.29 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#29B)
Quote …one does not presume in the lawmaker that he has the will to bind in such case and even if he had, it would be without effect. On this point all doctors are agreed who treat of obedience and of laws.30 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#30B)
For the reason, when it is established for certain that the law in a particular circuмstance has become unjust or contrary to another command or virtue which is more binding, then the law ceases to oblige and on his own initiative he can disregard the law without having recourse to the superior,31 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#31B) given that the law in that case could not be observed without sin nor could the superior bind his subject to respect it without sin.32 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#32B)
Quote Moralists have sought to fix the criteria to be laid down for the application of epikeia. In substance, these criteria come down to the three following cases: a) when in a particular situation, the prescriptions of the positive law are in opposition to a superior law which binds one to regard higher interests [i.e., epikeia in the proper sense]; b) when, for reason of exceptional circuмstances, submission to the positive law would be too burdensome, without there resulting a good proportionate to the sacrifice being demanded; c) when, without becoming evil as in the first case and without imposing an unjustified heroism as in the second case, the observance of the positive law runs into special and unforeseen difficulties which render it, as it turns out, harder than it should have been according to the intention of the legislator.35 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#35B)
Quote A place is given to epikeia whenever the law makes itself harmful or too burdensome. In the first case [i.e., harmful], the superior really could not oblige and hence epikeia is necessary [(§174) which is the case as it concerns us here - Ed.].
Quote It is said that the purpose of the law ceases "contraire" [through contrary custom - Ed.] when its observation is harmful. If the purpose of the law in a particular case ceases "contraire," the law ceases [to oblige]. The reason is that if the purpose of the law ceases "contraire," then one has the right to use epikeia.
Quote In cases that happen rarely, and in which it is necessary to depart from the ordinary law...a virtue of judgment is needed based upon these higher principles, a virtue which is called gnome and which implies a particular perspicacity of judgment (ST, II-II, Q.51, A.4).
Quote The spiritual man receives from the habit of charity the inclination to judge rightly of everything according to divine laws, arriving at his judgment by means of the gift of wisdom, even as the just man arrives at his judgment in accordance with the rules of law through the virtue of prudence (ST, II- II, Q.60, AA.l,2).
Quote (This article ends the theological aspect of this continuing study of the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations. Part 3 will appear in the November 1999 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_November/The_1988_Consecrations.htm) SISINONO insert in The Angelus taking up the canonical arguments supporting the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's action to consecrate four bishops.)
Stubborn:
Since this monstous topic I've created slogs on inexorably, I will simply admit defeat. It is just craziness to go on and on, and on and on, and on and on to infinity. But have it your way.
All that said, I am nevertheless overcome with curiosity about Stubborn's above quote. Because I think it probably reflects the position that most of you have taken here and elsewhere. Tell me, Stub, how do we "remain the pope's good subjects?" Even if we believe he is a true pope, which I don't, how can real Catholics demonstrate loyalty and obedience, practically speaking, to a pontiff like this? I would rather have asked this question of ++Lefebvre, but he's dead. Maybe +Williamson, who is still alive can address this question in one of his future ECs.
Stubborn: it means that we should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful.In one sense you're correct that it is a non-answer, but only in the sense that neither he nor any of the conciliar popes have commanded us to do anything, as such there is nothing to obey him in.
Thanks, Stub. Your answer was as I expected, i.e. really a non-answer. But I don’t want to seem to hard on you and other millions of Catholics who seek desperately to make a square peg fit into a round hole. I had to scroll down for your answer, and over a mountain of keyboard diarrhea deposited by SJ. But I finally got there.
BTW, Stub, should we obey the UN as Francis commands?
Stubborn:In one sense you're correct that it is a non-answer, but only in the sense that neither he nor any of the conciliar popes have commanded us to do anything, as such there is nothing to obey him in.
Bergoglio wants us, i.e. "man" to obey the UN, according to reports
https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2019/09/18/really-pope-francis-must-we-obey-the-united-nations-and-the-evil-it-commands/
Of course Francis wants us to obey the U.N. He's a Modernist. That's how they think.Stubborn made the ridiculous argument that the Conciliar Popes haven't commanded us to do anything.
They've certainly given us commands that we can't obey.Examples?
Examples?They command us to accept Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo as licit. Francis commands us not to proselytize.
Stubborn made the ridiculous argument that the Conciliar Popes haven't commanded us to do anything.
I mean that's clearly ridiculous. They've certainly given us commands that we can't obey. They've also given us commands that some of us, at least, can obey in good conscience, while others perhaps can't.
Stubborn made the ridiculous argument that the Conciliar Popes haven't commanded us to do anything.
I mean that's clearly ridiculous. They've certainly given us commands that we can't obey. They've also given us commands that some of us, at least, can obey in good conscience, while others perhaps can't.
Whether we're obliged to obey their *lawful* commands is gonna be a difference between R + R and Sede.
And I'm not convinced of the Sede view of the papacy itself, really that's my biggest issue with it. I'm highly skeptical of ultramontanism. While they were incorrect, I guess I'm not convinced the Conciliarists were *all* wrong (I agree with them being wrong where dogma condemns them.) And I think from a realist standpoint its a bit silly to be all like "we have to obey the Pope no matter what. Wait, we can't? I guess he's not a true pope then."
But Stubborn did actually make this claim, and it doesn't make any sense.
Most novus ordo clergy and laity consider the SSPX heretics. They are even claiming that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. And yet they continue to follow the false occult of Vatican II. To them it is major sin that Archbishop was in disobedience to the Pope and yet they remain silent when Pope John Paul II did nothing to the pervert priests who broke their vows/promises of chastity and poverty. Many don’t have a problem with the Amazon synod.
Rome has been in a state of apostasy by breaking the first Commandment. They became schismatics when they created Vatican II the counter church with the help of liberal Protestants and Rabbis.
The hippy baby boomers will defend and make up excuses for Vatican II. There are feminist young women attending Latin Masses praying for the day of female priestesses .
There are many clergy praying for marriage of priests so they can marry their boyfriends. Many have already raped and molested children and seminarians while stealing from parishes.
These people are preaching a different gospel by actions and words.
Holy scripture warns us against wolves in sheep clothing.
Stubborn made the ridiculous argument that the Conciliar Popes haven't commanded us to do anything.
Stubborn made the ridiculous argument that the Conciliar Popes haven't commanded us to do anything.I asked, exactly what command? As I said, to date, no one, inculding you, has mentioned exactly what it is that he is supposed to have bound us to.
I mean that's clearly ridiculous. They've certainly given us commands that we can't obey. They've also given us commands that some of us, at least, can obey in good conscience, while others perhaps can't.
Whether we're obliged to obey their *lawful* commands is gonna be a difference between R + R and Sede.
And I'm not convinced of the Sede view of the papacy itself, really that's my biggest issue with it. I'm highly skeptical of ultramontanism. While they were incorrect, I guess I'm not convinced the Conciliarists were *all* wrong (I agree with them being wrong where dogma condemns them.) And I think from a realist standpoint its a bit silly to be all like "we have to obey the Pope no matter what. Wait, we can't? I guess he's not a true pope then."
But Stubborn did actually make this claim, and it doesn't make any sense.
Bergoglio wants us, i.e. "man" to obey the UN, according to reportsWell, the UN is a corrupt, Jєω-masonic institution. We have to deny his request.
https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2019/09/18/really-pope-francis-must-we-obey-the-united-nations-and-the-evil-it-commands/
They command us to accept Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo as licit. Francis commands us not to proselytize.Please post these, per above, they are only a few, shouldn't take you much time.
Just a few examples.
You haven't been around long enough to know some of his strange perspectives. Stubborn believes that unless the Pope says, "I command you to do [such-and-such] under the pain of sin," then there's no command.I know with certainty that the pope most assuredly and absolutely, certainly *can* command us to do that which is sinful - reality proves this. When that happens, the highest and most fundamental of all Catholic Principles decides our course of action for us. That principle you wholly and continually reject, is: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man." What I'd like to know is, why?
He also asserts that the Magisterium is absolutely infallible ... but says that Vatican II is not part of the Magisterium.There was a poster who was banned, Bellator Dei, who posted maybe a dozen or so quotes directly from popes in their encyclicals that taught this exact thing. The Church's magisterium is 100% infallible, 100% of the time.
Please post these, per above, they are only a few, shouldn't take you much time.Lumen Gentium:
Lumen Gentium:The command was for the Constitution to be promulgated, and sadly, it was. Hopefully the next council will condemn LG for what it is. But there is no command, not even one command binding us to sin.
Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)
But there is no command, not even one command binding us to sin.
So which part of Lumen Gentium must we believe? The orthodox part? Or the part which is anti-orthodox? Or maybe both?All I’m saying is that the Vatican is commanding it. Im not saying it’s pleasing to God to obey the command
.
Nevermind that Vatican officials have said that LG (and all of V2) is not doctrinal. They also said it can be questioned. They also said that it must be interpreted accordingly to Tradition. Ergo, that out-of-context paragraph you quoted does not mean what you think it means.
I don't understand what you're getting at. RARELY has the Church ever explicitly tagged a command as "binding under pain of sin". It's generally assumed that anything commanded by the Church is binding under pain of sin, and then moral theologians later debate the degree of sin involved with breaking any one of these commands.I said "binding us to sin", not "binding under pain of mortal sin". If the pope were to command our adherence to LG or any of the heresies in the V2 teachings / docuмents, that would be his attempt at binding us to sin because he would be commanding us to go contrary to the faith, to displease God, which is sin. He would be commanding us to sin.
Several popes have said that Catholics must accept and give internal assent to the teachings of Vatican II. In fact, it's this COMMAND that they have been giving to the SSPX explicitly as a condition for regularization. So I cannot possibly fathom how you have concluded that the Vatican has not made these things binding under pain of sin. Otherwise, they'd just say, "SSPX, you reject Vatican II? No biggie. It's completely optional anyway. So, let's talk logistics about how to get you set up." If +Fellay had been told that he did not have to accept Vatican II in order to return, he would have been officially back 15 years ago. In fact, that has always been THE sticking point in the talks, whether the SSPX accepts Vatican II. So I don't know what you are smoking to conclude that the Vatican does not consider the teachings of V2 to be binding.
V2 is a legally binding council, but it is not morally binding. It is legally binding in that we must give “religious assent” to its “pastoral initiatives”. It is not morally binding because 1) it doesn’t teach with certainty of faith, 2) “religious assent” allows for critique, and something which can be questioned is not binding, 3) V2 is supposed to be “interpreted in the light of Tradition”. Something which requires interpretation is not a command, nor binding.I'm not disagreeing with this. But that's different than what Stubborn said.
.
All previous ecuмenical councils were both legally and morally binding because 1) they were taught with “certainty of faith”, 2) they required 100% submission of mind/will, under penalty of anathema (ie grave sin), 3) the teachings were clear and concise.
.
V2 was ecuмenical in the sense that all bishops/cardinals took part in it. However it cannot be compared to previous ecuмenical councils in form, purpose or conclusion. V2 is a historical anomaly; it was only ecuмenical in appearance; it was a non-doctrinal conciliar novelty.
.
Modernists love to take a pre-existing idea or organization and “subvert expectations” by changing the rules, altering legal fineprint, and inventing new terms to explain all the changes. Just like the devil uses magic to make a trick appear real, so the Modernists used legal trickery to make V2, a conciliar novelty, appear the same as all previous councils. But it is not so. And they’ve admitted it.
I'm not Stubborn.If I recall correctly the way the sequence of discussion went, stubborn made the absurd claim that the conciliar popes haven’t commanded us to accept any of the new errors. When I said that was ridiculous and was asked for proof, I presented lumen gentium as proof that most certainly the conciliar hierarchy does command us to accept VII. That’s it. That’s all I was saying. I offered no comment on whether we should obey the command. You wound up basically replying to me arguing that we shouldn’t obey the command which is different than saying the command doesn’t exist, which is what I was arguing against
If I recall correctly the way the sequence of discussion went, stubborn made the absurd claim that the conciliar popes haven’t commanded us to accept any of the new errors. When I said that was ridiculous and was asked for proof, I presented lumen gentium as proof that most certainly the conciliar hierarchy does command us to accept VII. That’s it. That’s all I was saying. I offered no comment on whether we should obey the command. You wound up basically replying to me arguing that we shouldn’t obey the command which is different than saying the command doesn’t exist, which is what I was arguing againstLet me clarify, the pope and council can command us to commit sin, as in: "By my authority and in the Holy Spirit, you must believe Catholics and Muslims worship the same God" or "By my authority, you must accept Vatican II".
You wound up basically replying to me arguing that we shouldn’t obey the command which is different than saying the command doesn’t exist, which is what I was arguing againstV2 requires “religious consent” which is conditional. It’s similar to your parents requiring you to obey a “negotiable bedtime”. Ok, I agree that V2 was a council (or I agree to go to bed eventually), but I’m not required to agree to the docuмents as they are written. What kind of “command” is that? Practically speaking, it’s not a command.
V2 requires “religious consent” which is conditional. It’s similar to your parents requiring you to obey a “negotiable bedtime”. Ok, I agree that V2 was a council (or I agree to go to bed eventually), but I’m not required to agree to the docuмents as they are written. What kind of “command” is that? Practically speaking, it’s not a command.As my late father used to always say... Ambiguous laws (commands) are NEVER binding.
V2 requires “religious consent” which is conditional. It’s similar to your parents requiring you to obey a “negotiable bedtime”. Ok, I agree that V2 was a council (or I agree to go to bed eventually), but I’m not required to agree to the docuмents as they are written. What kind of “command” is that? Practically speaking, it’s not a command.It’s more like this:
Sorry, Byzcat, none of the errors in V2 are obliged to be accepted. "Religious submission" is a novel term and is conditional submission, on the assumption that V2 agrees with Tradition. If it doesn't agree with Tradition, then we're allowed to question it. If we're allowed to question it, then it's not obligatory.I think ByzCat3000 is basically asking how it is possible that we can reject V2 and the "pope's commands", when some here say that it is pretty much an infallible doctrine that all councils are always infallible (although they may teach little, insignificant errors) and that whatever the pope and council teach is always infallibly safe.
Sorry, Byzcat, none of the errors in V2 are obliged to be accepted. "Religious submission" is a novel term and is conditional submission, on the assumption that V2 agrees with Tradition. If it doesn't agree with Tradition, then we're allowed to question it. If we're allowed to question it, then it's not obligatory.All I’m saying is that they tell us to accept it. That’s it.
All I’m saying is that they tell us to accept it.
That's an inaccurate statement, if you fail to include the idea of "religious submission". Accepting it 100% vs accepting it conditionally are LIGHT YEARS apart in meaning. You need to include the full context of what "accept" means.I grant that there's a bit of ambiguity in "religious submission." "Religious submission" might allow for questioning whether certain things are worded in the best possible way, maybe allowing for minor errors. There is *no way* they meant that you can go so far as to say the council is heretical, and use that as a pretext to refuse to attend masses under the diocesan structure. There is no way that they meant that you can say the NO is illicit and arguably invalid.
I grant that there's a bit of ambiguity in "religious submission." "Religious submission" might allow for questioning whether certain things are worded in the best possible way, maybe allowing for minor errors.Religious submission = conditional assent. Doctrinal submission = absolute assent. The difference between 'conditional' and 'absolute' is huge.
There is *no way* they meant that you can go so far as to say the council is heretical,
and use that as a pretext to refuse to attend masses under the diocesan structure.
There is no way that they meant that you can say the NO is illicit and arguably invalid.Again, V2 did not create the new mass, so even if one gave 100% "submission" to V2, the saying/attending of the new mass is a completely separate issue. And whether one has to "agree" with the new mass is a completely separate obligation (assuming an obligation exists, which it doesn't). I don't think you know what you're talking about.
To be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't do those things, just that if you're going to do them you have to argue that disobedience is justified, either because the true hierarchy of Christ can badly screw up, or because they're imposters. Saying you aren't *really* disobeying is a cop out.