Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism (Read 31601 times)

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #90 on:** October 08, 2019, 05:15:35 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 08, 2019, 04:17:21 PM

“The way I look at it” ......yes I know. Sorry, but no reputable theologian sees things the way you look at them.
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?

To add to this, I’m sure your argument will be that you wrote “canonical authority”, but no serious sedevacantist claims canonical authority.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #91 on:** October 08, 2019, 05:33:23 PM »

PV:

Quote

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.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #92 on:** October 08, 2019, 07:22:52 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 08, 2019, 04:08:47 PM

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.

The pope is ABOVE canon law period! We are talking about Divine Law which is reflected in canon 188.
Now here is Saint Alphonsus:

In 1961 Father David Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L wrote a dissertation for his doctorate in sacred theology published by The Catholic University of America entitled; "The Theological Defense of Papal Power by St. Alphonsus de Liguori". Saint Alphonsus follows Saint Robert Bellarmine on the heretical pope question on page 88.

David John Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L. "The Theological Defense of Papal Power By St. Alphonsus de Liguori" :

"If the pope ever, as a private person, were to fall into heresy, then at that moment, he would cease to be Pope, because he would then be outside the Church, and as such, would no longer be able to be the head of the Church. In this case, the Church would not depose him, because no one his authority above the Pope. It would simply declare that he had fallen from his pontificate. We have said: 'if the Pope as a private person were to fall into heresy', for the Pope, as Pope, ie. as teaching the whole Church ex cathedra, is not able to teach anything against the faith....."

But the Saint teaches that this heresy

.....must be a question of manifest and external heresy, not of an occult or mental heresy.

And again:

Then (when he is a manifest and external heretic) the Pope is not deprived of his power by the Council as by a superior, but..... He is immediately despoiled of it by Christ...."

St. Francis de Sales:

“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

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 Liguori:

“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.”

St. Antoninus:

“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943

“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #93 on:** October 08, 2019, 07:57:04 PM »

Quote

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.

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)

--Who can give such admonitions, but the Church officials?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #94 on:** October 08, 2019, 08:15:07 PM »

Let's make this real simple:

Quote

St Alphonsus:
...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.”

--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.

Quote

St Alphonsus
....must be a question of manifest and external heresy, not of an occult or mental heresy.

--Comment: Who decides if such heresy is manifest or mental? Answer: The Church.
.

Quote

St. Alphonsus Liguori:

“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.”

--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.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #95 on:** October 08, 2019, 08:35:02 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 08, 2019, 08:15:07 PM

Let's make this real simple:
--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.

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.

“Even before any declaratory judgment by the Church” , “ipso facto”, ”very fact”, ”automatically”, ”immediately lose all jurisdiction.” Do words have any meaning?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #96 on:** October 08, 2019, 09:01:13 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 08, 2019, 11:21:55 AM

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #97 on:** October 08, 2019, 10:32:39 PM »

Quote

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.
.
1. The pope’s material heresy is confirmed as obstinate/stubborn by him being twice rebuked by Church officials. Once he is determined to be stubborn, then he can be called manifest, but not before.
.
2. Once he is deemed manifest, then the Church would declare him such, and would say that the heretic has “judged himself” and his office is vacant. Then another election would take place.
.
As I’ve said a 1,000 times, 99% of sedevacantists think that they have the authority, training and status to determine manifest heresy (ie Step 1). They act as if “manifest” means what the Webster’s dictionary says it means. But they’re wrong. Manifest is akin to a canon law term and it requires some investigation and using St Paul’s 2 rebuke process. Even St Bellarmine mentions the Church declaring heresy (in another area of his writings), but he didn’t mention it his famous 5th opinion. Maybe he thought it obvious? Certainly it makes no sense that any laymen can declare this or that bishop/priest (and certainly not the pope) a heretic and out of office...without a Church decision beforehand. This is just chaos.
.
As St Paul tells us, those who preach a different gospel than his are “anathema” but this doesn’t mean we can take church govt matters into our own hands. All Catholics are allowed (and encouraged) to call out error and to preach truth, but it is another matter altogether to claim that a superior is guilty of manifest heresy, when those who claim such have no training nor authority nor any duty to “fix” ecclesiastical problems. Laymen and priests (and non-jurisdictioned bishops) have no legal standing in regards to canon law and they certainly have no permission to be a judge in such matters. St Bellarmine and all the rest of the theologians (including St Paul) were not writing to laymen; they were writing to other clerics and theologians. I can’t believe this has to be said - it’s so obvious!

trad123 · « **Reply #98 on:** October 08, 2019, 10:43:20 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 08, 2019, 08:15:07 PM

Who decides if such heresy is manifest or mental? Answer: The Church.

You have got to be kidding. A Catholic can tell when a person is spouting heresy out of their mouths or through a book they've written. No one can read minds; mental thoughts.

What is really under discussion is pertinacity.

I'm not able to make a declaration that the the chair is empty, the Church will make that declaration and fill it with a pope, but I can certainly treat Benedict and Francis as non-entities. Calling them popes is mere lip service as we ignore all that they do and say. I can certainly hold an opinion that the chair is empty, it's truly what I believe. I can't hold others to it, though.

I can't hold other Catholics to this view, and treat other Catholics as non-Catholics, and withhold communion with other Catholics, as MHFM does.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #99 on:** October 08, 2019, 10:48:19 PM »

From Pax Let’s-make-this-real-simple Vobis:

Quote

There's no Scriptural, canon law or theological basis for a laymen to judge the pope's status or ANY cleric's

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

trad123 · « **Reply #100 on:** October 08, 2019, 11:10:21 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 08, 2019, 08:15:07 PM

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.

A fact yet to be rendered official is still a fact.

Recognizing the fact that Benedict wasn't pope, and that Francis isn't pope, by the judgment of a laymen is not a legal declaration. Of course! It's not our job to fill the chair.

But we have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #101 on:** October 09, 2019, 04:20:31 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 08, 2019, 10:32:39 PM

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #102 on:** October 09, 2019, 04:41:28 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on October 08, 2019, 10:48:19 PM

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

Is this the latest from the Amazon?

donkath · « **Reply #103 on:** October 09, 2019, 05:35:39 AM »

As an ordinary pewsitter which most Catholics are - I think it is safe to say that of course we can all see that the pope is pretty well what Hollingsworth describes. Doesn’t seem to me that Pax Vobis is disputing that. What he appears to be saying is that regardless of what we think the Pope has to be officially and legally removed. We can all agree to our heart’s content but tell us HOW to do it please(?) It stands to reason and common sense that his removal can only be done by persons with authority such as Cardinals. Believing he is an antipope does not make him one. Believing the Chair of Peter is vacant does not make it vacant.

There is also another point to be considered. A whole generation of ‘Catholics’ has grown up who adore the man and his teachings - not to mention the world at large. If they do not believe in Christ they certainly believe in him (the Pope). Do they outnumber traditionalists? They sure do. I think the numbers are well and truly in their favour. In which case a kind of catholic civil would break out.

In short - it is too late! Something should have been done long before the election of Pope Francis— nay during the reign of Pope Paul VI!

So - is God allowing it? Is intervention now possible for Rome to return to tradition?

Might I suggest that God was surely waiting for us to do something right at the outset, and because we failed we have to take the consequences of our own inaction, tepidity, laziness and cowardice.

Time and time again man has refused to do the simple things asked through His and His Mother’s visits to us here on earth through his Saints. But we’ve done (or not done) it again! Fatima has been trampled into the dust.

So - is He not leaving us to ourselves since we know better?

A final thought: Is it not possible that the post-conciliar popes will now be judged as popes. That is according to their state-in-life in order to receive the full impact of God’s justice? In other words it would have been better for them, as well as for us, if they had been removed along the lines laid out by Mother Church?

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #104 on:** October 09, 2019, 05:54:54 AM »

What did Our Lord and Our Lady say at Fatima? "Make it known to My ministers that given they follow the example of the king of France in delaying the execution of My Command, they will follow him into misfortune ... It will never be too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary." and "In the end, My Immaculate Heart will Triumph: The Holy Father will Consecrate Russia to Me, she will be converted, and a Period of Peace will be given to the world". Neither modernists nor sedevacantists take the fact that God respects and requests the Consecration of Russia by the Pope and by all the Catholic Bishops, that He has given His Word that He will accept it, that this Consecration will certainly happen, that it will never ever be too late to perform it. What is needed is Catholic Action for the Consecration. That is the Solution to the Crisis - not sedevacantism which is a falsehood proximate to heresy and easily refuted.

Archbishop Lefebvre in 1966: "What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church."

The absurdity of the hypothesis of a 61 year Sede Vacante is answered and refuted by 3 simple teachings (1) the dogmatic fact that a Pope recognized by the world's Bishops is certainly validly elected, something +ABL referred to in his letters more than once. (2) The doctrine that true Popes are necessary to appoint true diocesan Bishops to office, and that therefore an indefinite interregnum is not possible; else the mark of Apostolicity will be lost. (3) The dogma that the Church cannot be without at least some Papally appointed Bishops. When these considerations are understood, 61 year SVism is seen to be impossible and therefore not the true explanation.

Anyway, since this thread is about Archbishop Lefebvre's views, I strongly recommend everyone to read this complete work on SSPX Asia: Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre - http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/index.htm

I will just post one excerpt from 3 letters sent by +ABL that can be read here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_41.htm

"8 March 1980
Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to the Sovereign Pontiff¹
Most Holy Father,
To put an end to some rumours which are now spreading both in Rome and certain traditionalist circles in Europe, and even in America, concerning my attitude and my way of thinking with respect to the Pope, the Council, and the Novus Ordo Mass, and fearing lest these rumours should reach Your Holiness, I may make so bold as to reaffirm my consistent position.
1. I have no reservation whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness. I have already had to act with severity, and continue to do so, with regard to some seminarians and priests who have allowed themselves to be influenced by certain clerics who do not belong to the Society.
2. I am fully in agreement with the judgment that Your Holiness gave on the Second Vatican Council, on 6 November 1978, at a meeting of the Sacred College: "that the Council must be understood in the light of the whole of holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church."
3. As for the Novus Ordo Mass, despite the reservations which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical.
I would be grateful to God and to Your Holiness if these clear declarations could hasten the free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society of St. Pius X by the Church, and likewise of all those who, subscribing to these declarations, have striven to save the Church by perpetuating its Tradition.
I beg Your Holiness to accept my profound and filial respect in Christo et Maria.

†Marcel Lefebvre"

What is the solution? Not to say that the Pope is not the Pope, or that the Bishops are not Bishops, but to pray and work for the Pope and the Bishops of the Church to do their duty and Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, as the Our Lady and Our Lord commanded.

Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism (Read 31601 times)

Quo vadis Domine

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

hollingsworth

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Quo vadis Domine

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Pax Vobis

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Pax Vobis

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Quo vadis Domine

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Clemens Maria

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Pax Vobis

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

trad123

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

hollingsworth

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

trad123

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Quo vadis Domine

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

2Vermont

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

donkath

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Nishant Xavier

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism