Thoughts?
The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals)I'm not a Sede but it is my understanding that the way bishops are appointed is a disciplinary matter, and can be overuled if the salvation of souls is at stake. Can anyone with more knowledge than me clarify this?
This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?
Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.
Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.
Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html)) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.
So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.
Thoughts?
The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals)This is a good point, and I hadn't thought of it. Even if you want to say that a retired Archbishop who supports Vatican II is the sole carrier of the original mechanism for apostolic succession left, none of the traditionalist groups have ever implied that this needs to be the case, and none have made any sort of definitive statements about the time limits of the resistance/interregnum. I'd agree that it's another problematic point for most of the non-FSSP or diocesan traditionalist positions.
This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?
Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.
Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.
Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html)) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.
So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.
Thoughts?
Most sedevacantists don't see the Church being restored by some 100-year-old bishop appointed by Pius XII or John XXIII. You'll get various different explanations on this, but some believe that the Novus Ordo clergy of Rome could repent and profess the Faith, and they would have the right to elect a pope. Or a Novus Ordo cardinal could do the same thing, or several cardinals, and they would have the power to elect a pope. Or Jorge Bergoglio could repent (or some successor of his) and the whole church would accept him as pope, in which case he would be pope by acclamation, which is one of the ways a pope can be elected.As happens with a lot of conversations on sedevacantism, there's an element of speaking past one another. Many sedevacantists think that their position is spotless, and when others object to it, they simply aren't engaging the position. Xav isn't doing that, however. He's saying that the sedevacantist position is inconsistent for not addressing this concern. Just because sedevacantists haven't addressed it, that does not mean that it's coherent for them not to. It's possible to hold to a position that is incoherent, but not to know that it's incoherent. When you say that most sedevacantists disagree with Xav's idea here, you would need to defend that as a possibility. Just stating the opinion doesn't make it viable.
.
The idea you describe here, where there is some sort of deadline that is rapidly approaching, after which it will be impossible to elect a pope, is simply not part of sedevacantist theory, nor do sedes believe in anything like that.
.
Xav, you really should spend more time talking to sedevacantists and actually asking them what they believe. The Bellarmine Forums of John Lane aren't functioning anymore, but the old threads are all still there, and ideas like this get discussed there at great length. If you really want to learn what sedes actually believe, I'd look there: http://www.sedevacantist.com/viewforum.php?f=2
As happens with a lot of conversations on sedevacantism, there's an element of speaking past one another. Many sedevacantists think that their position is spotless, and when others object to it, they simply aren't engaging the position. Xav isn't doing that, however. He's saying that the sedevacantist position is inconsistent for not addressing this concern. Just because sedevacantists haven't addressed it, that does not mean that it's coherent for them not to. It's possible to hold to a position that is incoherent, but not to know that it's incoherent. When you say that most sedevacantists disagree with Xav's idea here, you would need to defend that as a possibility. Just stating the opinion doesn't make it viable.Yes, 62+years SVism runs into two problems here. First, you need Bishops with Jurisdiction to pass the alleged sentence that the supposed Pope-heretic has lost his office, before a new Pope is elected. But the sedes, since they waited 62 years to do it, have no Jurisdictional Bishops left. That is one part of the problem. The other problem is doctrinal. It cannot happen that there are no more Papally appointed Bishops, diocesan Ordinaries in other words. Yet that is exactly where 62 year sede-vacantism leads to. Hence, it is doctrinally incorrect and cannot be the true explanation.
The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals)A bishop with traditional orders who gives allegiance to a possible anti-Pope like Paul VI is still a bishop. 1958 or 1960 makes no sense as a cut off. Constitutional clergy in France were afterwards accepted. Valid orders with no Papal allegiance. The Pauline Ordinal is surely the point of possible rupture.
This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?
Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.
Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.
Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html)) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.
So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.
Thoughts?
Struthio, are you saying you will re-think your asssessment about sedevacantism? When? In 2035? If someone really believed in SVism, he should be doing all he can aimed at gathering those Bishops appointed by Pope John XXIII in a Council, and trying to elect a new Pope. He should be striving to do this quickly before time runs out.
By reductio ad absurdum, all Catholics can already be fairly certain 62 year svism is not the correct explanation in 3 to 5 to 8 more years, it'll become even more obvious that 65 year SVism etc is not correct.
[14] And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. [15] When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. [...] [34] Amen I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
The Church of Christ cannot cease to be Apostolic nor lose Her Apostolic Authority. This is clearly taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia. She will always have the Apostolic Mission, Ordinary Jurisdiction, and She will never defect.
But when does the generation that began in 1965 end? 2035? or supposedly 2085? You said 70 years. But also possibly till 120 years.
The idea you describe here, where there is some sort of deadline that is rapidly approaching, after which it will be impossible to elect a pope, is simply not part of sedevacantist theory, nor do sedes believe in anything like that.
On the other hand, the seeming "death of the Church" is the result of faithlessness, of apostacy, of bad will. And this cannot be compared to the death of Our Lord.Technically... The Crucifixion of Our Lord was the result of faithlessness, apostasy and bad will as well...
In my eyes, the destruction of the Church can more aptly compared to the destruction of the Temple A.D. 70. The "Apostate Church" has been trying to kill Our Lord (spiritually) again.
| 27 Apr (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/events/bay0427.html) 1958 (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/events/b1958b.html) | 62.07 | Archbishop Bernardino Piñera Carvallo (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html) | Archbishop Emeritus of La Serena (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dlase.html), Chile (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/cl.html) |
Technically... The Crucifixion of Our Lord was the result of faithlessness, apostasy and bad will as well...
The Jews the "people of God" at the time of Christ were to blame. The Catholics "the people of the Church" recently were to blame.
But when does the generation that began in 1965 end? 2035? or supposedly 2085? You said 70 years. But also possibly till 120 years.
I think that's mistaken. The Church of Christ cannot cease to be Apostolic nor lose Her Apostolic Authority. This is clearly taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia. She will always have the Apostolic Mission, Ordinary Jurisdiction, and She will never defect. If all offices in the Church have defected to usurpers, the Church also has defected. Since that is impossible, it could not have taken place, and that explanation is false: Here is the CE on Apostolicity.
"Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity ...
Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haeres, IV, xxvi, n. 2) says: "Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession", etc. In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth...
The history of the Catholic Church from St. Peter, the first Pontiff, to the present Head of the Church, is an evident proof of its Apostolicity, for no break can be shown in the line of succession. Cardinal Newman (Diff. of Anglicans, 369) says: "Say there is no church at all if you will, and at least I shall understand you; but do not meddle with a fact attested by mankind." ...
Regarding the Greek Church, it is sufficient to note that it lost apostolic succession by withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the lawful successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome. The same is to be said of the Anglican claims to continuity (MacLaughlin, "Divine Plan of the Church", 213; and, Newman, "Diff. of Angl.", Lecture 12.) for the very fact of separation destroys their jurisdiction. They have based their claims on the validity of orders in the Anglican Church. Anglican orders, however, have been declared invalid. But even if they were valid, the Anglican Church would not be Apostolic, for jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission."
Jeremiah 33:18
[18] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=33&l=18-#x) Neither shall there be cut off from the priests and Levites a man before my face to offer h0Ɩ0cαųsts, and to burn sacrifices, and to kill victims continually
When I started the thread in 2014, there were TEN such living bishops appointed by Pius XII!
Today there is just one:
27 Apr (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/events/bay0427.html) 1958 (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/events/b1958b.html) 62.07 Archbishop Bernardino Piñera Carvallo (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html) Archbishop Emeritus of La Serena (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dlase.html), Chile (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/cl.html)
That's 62.07 years A BISHOP, mind you -- not 62 years old. Wow!
Again, too much credit and authority is being given to non-infallible statements of theologians and even of the hierarchy (and even popes) in their fallible, ordinary capacity.Since bishops can only receive jurisdiction from a Pope, if Pius XII was the last pope, there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. If there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, there is no hierarchy, and there is Church with four marks.
Since bishops can only receive jurisdiction from a Pope, if Pius XII was the last pope, there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. If there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, there is no hierarchy, and there is Church with four marks.Circular.
Just because the majority of the "people in the Church" are faithless does not mean the Church is faithless. The majority of the Jews were faithless but at the time of Christ the Jєωιѕн religion was still the true religion of God.
True. And it means that both earn the destruction of the Temple / of the Church (with a few scattered "survivers").
And it does not mean: the faithless "Church" dies like Christ died on the cross (false comparison).
Why would you expect a resurrection, a restoration by supernatural intervention, while there is no indication of any type of repentance at all?
Today there is just one:
27 Apr (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/events/bay0427.html) 1958 (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/events/b1958b.html) 62.07 Archbishop Bernardino Piñera Carvallo (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html) Archbishop Emeritus of La Serena (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dlase.html), Chile (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/cl.html)
So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point?
The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.
Hmmm. I must be the reverse side of the coin that Sem is the obverse of, since I reject or disagree with both majors.
XavierSem keeps interjecting from the perspective that there's no grave substantial error in the V2 Magisterium and that the New Mass is not inherently defective and displeasing to God. That's why he's muddling up the question, because he's not a Traditional Catholic. He actually agrees with the SV major that the Magisterium cannot become this corrupt, and then he agrees with the R&R major that the Holy See can't be vacant for this long. So he's agreeing with the majors of BOTH positions, and he's stirring the pot because rejects the minors of both positions (i.e that the NO Magisterium and Mass are not Catholic). He's basically a conservative Novus Ordite and not a Traditional Catholic. So he continues to fan the flame of disagreement among Traditional Catholics, at one time appearing to agree with R&R, and at other times appearing to agree with SV.
Hmmm. I must be the reverse side of the coin that Sem is the obverse of, since I reject or disagree with both majors.
In many cases the saints and doctors of the Church show a parallel between Christ and His Bride, the Church. I think the best theory I have ever heard of how the Restoration will happen is that it will happen through the Hand of God and not through normal means of mankind. Most of mankind could not wrap their minds around the idea that Our Lord could die and still truly be God. Hence He was abandoned by even most of those closest to Him. If the apostles had known how Our Lord's Crucifixion would have been remedied by His Resurrection they would not have abandoned Him. It was a matter of Faith and only Our Lady, Saint John and a few others remained faithful and trusting in Our Lord until the end ...Agreed. We are to remain faithful to Our Lord and Our Lady until the end. No question about that.
Come Holy Ghost and restore the Faith on earth!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Put another way, if even a 60+ year interregnum is not doctrinally impossible, then what is? A 100 year one? At what point does "Perpetual Sucessors" dogma become a meaningless formula?
Ladislaus, still lying, I see. Notice how you keep switching from "the end will come before it happens", to "it's not a problem at all", to "it has to almost happen to fulfil prophecy". You can't even hold to a consistent narrative. Which is it? Also, it's only your opinion that this doesn't affect sedeprivationism. Even other sedeprivationists disagree. But more to the point, cuм Ex refutes the opinion that a so-called "material Pope" can invest others with authority. He cannot. cuм Ex says those appointed by him will have as much authority as he does, i.e. none. Either the last 62 years of Popes were truly Popes and therefore the Bishops appointed by them have their authority, or they were not Popes and the Bishops appointed by them have no authority. There is no third option.
Obviously a 3-year interregnum would not end the perpetual succesion, nor a 5-year, nor one that lasts 7 years, 6 months, 3 days, 5 hours, 43 minutes, and 52 seconds. There's no way theologically to put an arbitrary TIME limit to it.This is a textbook strawman. The limit is when all Papally appointed Bishops die. Bishops are Appointed or Consecrated around 35 and if they die around 80, that's around 45 years. There'll be outliers, so you can add 5 to 10 years at most. Beyond that is plainly ridiculous.
That is a highly unusual position, since each side typically uses their respective major to argue against the other major as a corollary.It may be unusual, but the times are unusual.
SVs: the See must be vacant because the Magisterium cannot become this corrupt.
R&R: the Magisterium must be able to get this corrupt because the See cannot be vacant for this long.
That is a highly unusual position, since each side typically uses their respective major to argue against the other major as a corollary.Ladislaus,
SVs: the See must be vacant because the Magisterium cannot become this corrupt.
R&R: the Magisterium must be able to get this corrupt because the See cannot be vacant for this long.
The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals)Papal appointment is not the same as Consecration so, even after the last Pius XII appointed bishop dies, the Apostolic Succesion will not be broken. Disciplinary laws can be void if they are impossible to follow. In an extreme scenario, should the pope and all cardinals die today, the bishops would have to elect a new pope. The law is at the service of the salvation of souls.
This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?
Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.
Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.
Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html)) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.
So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.
Thoughts?
There's no way theologically to put an arbitrary TIME limit to it.
This is a textbook strawman. The limit is when all Papally appointed Bishops die. Bishops are Appointed or Consecrated around 35 and if they die around 80, that's around 45 years. There'll be outliers, so you can add 5 to 10 years at most. Beyond that is plainly ridiculous.
I disagree with XavierSem insofar as he's an apologist for the Neo-SSPX, and therefore focuses too much on the RECOGNIZE and not enough on the RESIST..
Nevertheless, "I approve of this thread" as they say, because I basically made the same argument years ago. He just got probably his only thumbs-up from me...hahaha
But unlike XavierSem, I know and admit the distinctions within the broad category "Sedevacantists" -- I know it's not ALL sedevacantists, but a certain faction of them who will have to "get lost" once this last bishop dies...
.No, the whole thread is XavierSem saying that sedevacantists' theories are incoherent because they don't believe what he's saying, and they don't believe what he's saying because it would reveal their theories as incoherent.
This sounds more like Home Aloneism than sedevacantism. There are certain home alone types who only go to Mass to priests who were ordained before Vatican 2, and who received jurisdiction over a parish before V2. Those people might think what is being described here. When those old priests die (and most of them already have in recent years), many of their parishioners become *actual* home aloners.
.
No major sedevacantist group adheres to the view XavierSem is arguing against, namely that a new pope can only come from a bishop or cardinal appointed by P12 or J23, and in fact I don't think I've ever even run into a layman who believes that.
.
This whole thread is basically XavierSem claiming sedevacantists believe something that they actually don't believe.
To answer the main question here, of how sedevacantists think the Church can get a pope again, sedevacantists generally agree that if Francis (Bergoglio) were to repent and publicly abjure his errors, he would become a valid pope. Different schools of thought explain this differently, but they pretty much all agree on the basic idea. The people who adhere to the Thesis of Bp. Guerard des Lauriers would simply say that he was already validly elected, and simply removed the obstacle that was preventing him from being pope, so he forthwith becomes pope. Sedevacantists who do not adhere to the Thesis of Bp. Guerard would probably say Francis became pope by being accepted by the whole Church as pope. This is called election by "acclamation", and I believe it has happened in the past. It has been discussed by St. Robert Bellarmine and numerous other theologians.
.
Alternatively, most sedevacantists would probably accept it if several Novus Ordo cardinals -- or possibly even bishops -- renounced their errors, denounced Bergoglio as a modernist heretic, declared the papacy vacant, and elected a pope after he refused to recant his errors. Sedevacantists would accept a pope resulting from this process for similar reasons to the prior scenario I mentioned.
.
This is off the top of my head so some sedes might want to chime in and tinker with some of the details of this, but substantially that's the answer to your question. Note that it doesn't place any time limit on the Church. And yes, there are objections that can be made to these ideas, but they are of trifling difficulty in comparison with the difficulty of saying that real popes have been behind the universal heresy and apostasy of the Vatican 2 religion.
@DecemRationis
You complain about circular reasoning with respect to your own depiction of what happened in the 1960s in Rome.
How about the follow reasoning?
Once upon a time there were a bunch of men who appeared to be bishops of the Church. They went to Rome and solemnly published a bunch of heretical docuмents. The docuмents showed that the perceived bishops were in fact heretics from the beginning or else had embraced heresy on the occasion. (Later, a tiny number of them stepped forward to publicly express their disapproval of what had been approved.)
The Magisterium of the Church didn't fail at all, while the heretics (had) lost their offices before or on the occasion.
What do you say? Circular or straight?
They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy . . .
Pius IX, Etsi Multa
You say now these men “appeared to be bishops of the Church,” circling back from their subsequent heresy. The day before Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council, he and all those bishops were universally recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which in fact they were.
Well, the Magisterium is only protected from error when the bishops are teaching in union with the Pope. Ephesus II taught Christological error and was later repudiated by Pope St. Leo the Great as a Latrocinium.Lad,
"Now, if both the Council of Ephesus and the Second Council of Ephesus are valid Councils, we’d have a serious problem: the Church would have just proclaimed heresy, contradicting both Herself and Scripture.But that’s not the case: we know the Second Council of Ephesus is invalid, and have known it from the start. As the council was closing, the papal legate (the pope’s representative to the Council), Hilarius, expressed the judgment of Rome: “Contradicitur (http://books.google.com/books?id=GjQsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA424&lpg=PA424&dq=hilarius+Contradicitur&source=bl&ots=L0Ipem-d76&sig=71XcG1GIHE-Gpn6fPlnDTnno63k&hl=en&ei=9Ff_TYvCH4XqgAff54zeCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hilarius%20Contradicitur&f=false)!” With a single word, he declared the Council invalid in the name of the pope. Leo himself confirmed this, and it’s from him that we have the name “Robber Council (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Robber_Council_of_Ephesus).”http://shamelesspopery.com/how-the-robber-council-establishes-the-papacy/
Papal appointment is not the same as Consecration so, even after the last Pius XII appointed bishop dies, the Apostolic Succesion will not be brokenDisagree. Apostolic Succession requires both Orders and Jurisdiction. One or the other by itself is not sufficient to maintain the succession. Consecration would transmit orders, but only Papal appointment will transmit jurisdiction. Therefore, that Papal appointment is necessary, and therefore the See cannot be vacant for 62 supposed years, as the sedes hold.
XavierSem, all these papally appointed bishops adhere to the heretical robber council. They lost their offices just like all the antipopes lost theirsStruthio, if all these Bishops along with the Popes lost their offices and promulgated heresy, the Catholic Church then and there died and defected. It is impossible. The comparison with Ephesus II is not correct at all; that was a purely local Council, and from the first, as "Shameless Popery" quoted by Decem Rationis has docuмented, was rejected by the Popes. The claims of the sedevacantists here are like the claims of the Old Catholics vis-a-vis Vatican I. That was already answered by the Pope: to claim heresy in a Universal Council of Bishops like Vatican I - not a merely local Council only, like Ephesus II - denies indefectibility.
The textbook definition of indefectibility is voided and stood on its head if the pope and the bishops in union with him can declare heresy to the universal church in an ecuмenical council. This is the elephant in the room that is avoided, or explained away as you do by circling back to say that the doctrine held to (indefectibility) remains intact and is not contradicted because the body protected by the doctrine wasn’t actually there at Vatican II but just “appeared” to be there..
.unless you want to get into the White Smoke Question, but that's another discussion
Papal appointment is not the same as Consecration so, even after the last Pius XII appointed bishop dies, the Apostolic Succesion will not be broken
All Trinitarian Dogmas remain the same. All Incarnational Dogmas remain the same. All Marian Dogmas remain the same. All Eucharistic Dogmas remain the same. Things like Ecuмenism are not Dogmas at all, but pastoral practices based on the possibility of good faith or invincible ignorance or material heresy among separated Christians. Once it is admitted separated Christians can be in good faith, and yet must still be reconciled to the Body of the Church, the supposed "heresy" in Vatican II disappears. There is no heresy in Vatican II. Nor can there be, for exactly the Reasons of Indefectibility mentioned by Pope Bl. Pius IX in Etsi Multa.Yes, you're correct here, Xav. Pope Pius XII (along with many other Popes in the past) have explicitly affirmed, along with many theologians at the time, that if your pastors aren't from the apostolic see, then you cannot follow them. You can claim that the whole hierarchy has defected if you want to reject Etsi Multa and apostolic succession, or you can play with the ideas that somehow an antipope snuck in and got rid of Cardinal Siri's legitimate rule (which Siri himself never accepted as at all legitimate and which it should be deeply concerning that no traditionalist clergy has accepted this theory publicly in 62 years...), that, somehow, the Church does not defect given a line of material Popes (is a chair indestructible if the sawdust remaining after its destruction is still materially but not formally a chair?), that it's somehow okay to believe that the Church operates only under bishops and priests with no actual jurisdiction or orders from Popes, that somehow all of the explicitly separate traditionalist organizations have unity of faith, government, and communion, or that people who point out the ridiculousness of these theories are somehow people who just lack faith and hate God and the Church, and that they're "like the Jews who didn't believe in Christ" for believing in Christ's promises... but none of that is going to save schismatic traditionalists from pretending that their theories are perfect.
Disagree. Apostolic Succession requires both Orders and Jurisdiction. One or the other by itself is not sufficient to maintain the succession. Consecration would transmit orders, but only Papal appointment will transmit jurisdiction. Therefore, that Papal appointment is necessary, and therefore the See cannot be vacant for 62 supposed years, as the sedes hold.
The same conclusion follows another way: the First Vatican Council says there will be Shepherds and Teachers in the Church until the end of time, who were sent just as the Apostles were sent. That is clearly a reference to Bishops who have power of teaching and of ruling, the Magisterial power and that of jurisdiction. The reference to "sent as the Apostles were sent" is another reference to canonical mission. These things are explained by theologians.
Msgr. Van Noort is one example: "What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. - This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked. [Christ's Church, Monsignor G Van Noort]"
Struthio, if all these Bishops along with the Popes lost their offices and promulgated heresy, the Catholic Church then and there died and defected. It is impossible. The comparison with Ephesus II is not correct at all; that was a purely local Council, and from the first, as "Shameless Popery" quoted by Decem Rationis has docuмented, was rejected by the Popes. The claims of the sedevacantists here are like the claims of the Old Catholics vis-a-vis Vatican I. That was already answered by the Pope: to claim heresy in a Universal Council of Bishops like Vatican I - not a merely local Council only, like Ephesus II - denies indefectibility.
Jerm, agreed.
Yeti, as you can see, Struthio doesn't agree with your theory. Sedes will not be able to come to agreement about it. But if you go by what older Theologians wrote, Fr. Suarez says you need to gather the Ordinary Pastors of the Church in Council. These Theologians envisioned only one single Pope possibly (and then not in Council) falling into heresy (as a private person only), and then a Council being convened, within the lifetime of that Pope, of all Jurisdictional Bishops ("Ordinary Pastors") to determine his pertinacity or lack thereof, and declare him deposed if he continues obstinate. Most said this was only a hypothetical and would never happen. But if you wish to claim this happened to H.H. Pope John XXIII and all his Successors, you need to show "Ordinary Pastors" ready to declare it.
Yes, you're correct here, Xav. Pope Pius XII (along with many other Popes in the past) have explicitly affirmed, along with many theologians at the time, that if your pastors aren't from the apostolic see, then you cannot follow them. You can claim that the whole hierarchy has defected if you want to reject Etsi Multa and apostolic succession, or you can play with the ideas that somehow an antipope snuck in and got rid of Cardinal Siri's legitimate rule (which Siri himself never accepted as at all legitimate and which it should be deeply concerning that no traditionalist clergy has accepted this theory publicly in 62 years...), that, somehow, the Church does not defect given a line of material Popes (is a chair indestructible if the sawdust remaining after its destruction is still materially but not formally a chair?), that it's somehow okay to believe that the Church operates only under bishops and priests with no actual jurisdiction or orders from Popes, that somehow all of the explicitly separate traditionalist organizations have unity of faith, government, and communion, or that people who point out the ridiculousness of these theories are somehow people who just lack faith and hate God and the Church, and that they're "like the Jews who didn't believe in Christ" for believing in Christ's promises... but none of that is going to save schismatic traditionalists from pretending that their theories are perfect.
Is there a contradiction between Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and traditional Catholic doctrine as expressed in numerous encyclicals, and most especially in Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura? In recent years some intellectual conservatives have audaciously denied that there is any such contradiction. Before commenting on their attempts, let us remind ourselves of the texts:
Quanta Cura: “…against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of civil society is that in which no duty is attributed to the civil power of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except insofar as public peace may require.’
“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man and ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society’.”
Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II): “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious liberty. Such liberty consists in this: that all men must be immune to coercion whether on the part of individuals, social bodies or any human power so that in religious matters no one is constrained to act against his conscience or prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private and in public, alone or with others, within due limits [these due limits are defined in paragraph 7 as being those of public peace and morality].
“It further declares that the right to religious liberty is truly founded on the very dignity of the human person as known by the revealed word of God and reason itself.
“This right of the human person to religious liberty in the juridical ordering of society is to be recognised so as to become a civil right.”
Now to all appearances these texts are in radical contradiction on three points. Pope Pius IX condemns the following ideas: 1. all men have a right to liberty of conscience and of worship; 2. this right of religious liberty should be made a civil right in every well-ordered society; 3. the best state of society is that in which men’s civil right to religious liberty is limited only by the demands of public peace.
These three points condemned by Pius IX are all three apparently taught by the Vatican II text. Moreover Pope Pius IX is exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium and teaches that these propositions are opposed to Holy Scripture (written divine revelation) while Vatican II declares its opposing doctrine to be founded on the revealed word of God and requires all Catholics to observe its teaching religiously.
https://romeward.com/articles/239750983/religious-liberty-the-failed-attempts-to-defend-vatican-ii
.
There is a saying, "truth trumps EVERYTHING."
Better to suffer a little roiling in the soul and confront the cognitive dissonance head on then hold to the comfort of an idea that makes a mockery of truth itself.
Here's the argument of John Daly claiming the teaching of heresy by an ecuмenical council in union with the pope, apparently an impossibility according to you. Maybe you're right; I'm all ears.
Here's the argument:
Have at it!
DR
.Of course, but I have a feeling Xavier will weigh in . :)
Wow, thank you, Decem. Can we address this post to XavierSem too? I'm dying to hear what he will say about this. :cowboy:
The textbook definition of indefectibility is voided and stood on its head if the pope and the bishops in union with him can declare heresy to the universal church in an ecuмenical council.
Quote from: MiserereMeiI'm interested in hearing XavierSem's response to this question as well.
Disagree. Apostolic Succession requires both Orders and Jurisdiction. One or the other by itself is not sufficient to maintain the succession. Consecration would transmit orders, but only Papal appointment will transmit jurisdiction. Therefore, that Papal appointment is necessary, and therefore the See cannot be vacant for 62 supposed years, as the sedes hold.
To XavierSem:
If this is true, then the apostolic succession between Mgr Lefevbre and the 4 bishops is broken (no appointment)?
Quote from: MiserereMei
Disagree. Apostolic Succession requires both Orders and Jurisdiction.
I agree.
But I don't say that this happened.
You say that the Fathers of the robber council were universally recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church, hence the living Magisterium (would have) set forth the (heretical) docuмents of that robber council.
I say:
a) The Fathers of the robber council were recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church by an overwhelming majority of Catholics, but that does not prove that there were no heretics among them.
b) The Fathers of the robber council were recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church by an overwhelming majority of Catholics, but whatever, all who approve heresy (already are or) in the process become heretics.
Excommunication for heresy or apostasy ipso facto or latae sententiae is a consequence of divine law, which exactly makes sure that no heretic ever is a member of the Church, much less has an office in the Church.
There is no circle in my reasoning. You confuse your ideas with mine. And you confuse "universal recognition as the living Magisterium" with actually holding the office.
I agree.In other words, you're saying that a moral unanimity of the bishops elected by true pontiffs of the Catholic Church in union with a pope elected and recognized by those bishops and the Church at large can become heretics or formally adopt heresy and preach it to the Church via ecuмenical council.
But I don't say that this happened.
You say that the Fathers of the robber council were universally recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church, hence the living Magisterium (would have) set forth the (heretical) docuмents of that robber council.
I say:
a) The Fathers of the robber council were recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church by an overwhelming majority of Catholics, but that does not prove that there were no heretics among them.
b) The Fathers of the robber council were recognized as the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church by an overwhelming majority of Catholics, but whatever, all who approve heresy (already are or) in the process become heretics.
Excommunication for heresy or apostasy ipso facto or latae sententiae is a consequence of divine law, which exactly makes sure that no heretic ever is a member of the Church, much less has an office in the Church.
There is no circle in my reasoning. You confuse your ideas with mine. And you confuse "universal recognition as the living Magisterium" with actually holding the office.
This question has been discussed before for pages. During time of papal vacancy jurisdiction does not cease, as, according to theologians, Christ provides jurisdiction to the Church to continue her mission, in all areas that are not reserved to the Pope. According to the theologians cited by the sedevacantists, Christ would supply jurisdiction to the Church even through an anti-Pope through "color of title".I think the issue is that Xavier asserts that both are needed for Apostolic Succession for the sede bishops, but seems to think it doesn't apply to the bishops that come from the SSPX. Or at least that's what it seems.....maybe he could clarify.
Otherwise, you simply have a shell game of sorts with words: the shell being the magisterium, the marble or coin under it the word "indefectibility."
Quote from: Pius IX, Etsi multaThey obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy ...
They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.
an end times fulfillment of prophecy, an aberration foretold by Scripture that is an exception to the otherwise true and governing principle or rule [...] Knowing you and your wisdom in this area, I'd thought you'd go there, Struthio.
“The Church cries to her Spouse: Why do certain men withdrawing from me murmur against me? Why do these lost men claim that I have perished? Announce to me the length of my days, how long I will be in this world? Tell me on account of those who say: it was and is no longer; on account of those who say: the scriptures have been fulfilled, all nations have believed, but the Church has apostatized and perished from all nations. And He announced and the voice was not vain. What did He announce? ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Moved by your voices and your false opinions, it asked of God that He announce to it the length of its days and it found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world. Let heretics perish as they are, and let them find that they become what they are not.”
Declare unto me, how long I shall be in this world: on account of those who say, "She has been," and is no more: on account of those who say, The Scriptures are fulfilled, all nations have believed [Mt 24,14], but the Church has become apostate, and has perished from among all nations....
26. Do you see not that there are still nations among whom the Gospel has not been preached?
Pius IX clearly states that to deny the indefectibility of the Church it is sufficient to state a) "that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy" or in other words, to state b) "that the Church has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred".Struthio,
I neither state a) nor b).
"They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council."
And then Pius IX says:I agree, you don't assert that necessity. But that necessity, in context, clearly arose (and would arise) if the Church defected by and through "the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council."
Quote from: Pius IX, Etsi multaQuoteThey assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.
I don't assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy. I believe we're witnessing the consummation of the age.
Pius IX does not say that there will be no great apostasy at the end, at the consummation of the world. On the contrary:
Quote from: St. Augustine, see newadvent.org (link above)QuoteDeclare unto me, how long I shall be in this world: on account of those who say, "She has been," and is no more: on account of those who say, The Scriptures are fulfilled, all nations have believed [Mt 24,14], but the Church has become apostate, and has perished from among all nations....
26. Do you see not that there are still nations among whom the Gospel has not been preached?
St. Augustine, and Piux IX quoting him, clearly imply that a great apostaty at the consummation of the age, when the Gospel has been preached to all nations, is to be expected.
Come on. You end the quote after the word "heresy," when the pope said this in full: [...] You left out the part in red.
[25] Call me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are unto generation and generation.http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/21101.htm
27. Let not therefore heretics flatter themselves against me, because I said, "the shortness of my days," as if they would not last down to the end of the world. For what has he added? "O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days" Psalm 101:24. Deal Thou not with me according as heretics speak. Lead me on unto the end of the world, not only to the middle of my days; and finish my short days, that You may afterwards grant unto me eternal days.https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801102.htm
My point there was, that I don't say that all the priests and the people fell into heresy with the bishops of the hierarchy. But now I see that Pius IX is not speaking about all priests and people, but about all priests and people minus those calling themselves Old Catholics.Struthio,
I retract the first part of my post. My main point is in the second part, anyway.
If we only look at the two sentences Incredibly, they boldly affirm ... Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church ..., then we might conclude that the problem of the Old Catholics is to state that the whole Church (except a few Old Catholics) has defected. But if we read on in Etsi multa, including the following paragraphs, we can see that Pius IX and St. Augustine do not have any problem with a major defection as asserted by the Old Catholics or the Donatists in principle. Their objection rather is that such a defection may only happen at the consummation of the age.
In the Donatist case, St Augustine argues that the consummation of the age has not yet come since the gospel of the kingdom has not yet been preached in the whole world (Mt 24,14).
In the Old Catholics case, Pius IX argues that the Old Catholics themselves imply that the consummation of the age has not yet come, since they start a new hierarchy with their pseudo-bishop Joseph Hubert Reinkens.
Pius IX is quoting St Augustine who is commenting on Psalm 101(102)
http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/21101.htm
St. Augustine comments:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801102.htm
The objection of St. Augustine against the Donatists, with respect to the question of indefectibility of the Church, is clear: They can't say that the Church fell in apostasy in the midst of her days. They can't say on the one hand that the Church fell in apostasy, and on the other hand see themselves as the continuation of the Church.
Same thing with the Old Catholics. By starting a new hierarchy, they undertake to continue the Church and thus allege a defection in the midst of her days.
In addition to the statements of the Vatican Council that there will be shepherds and a Pope usque ad consummationem saeculi, Pius IX says in Etsi multa that the problem of the Donatists and the Old Catholics is, that they assert a virtually universal apostasy before the consummation of the age.
The only thing that Pius IX is clearly saying is that to say that the pope and the bishops in union with him have affirmed heresy in an ecuмencial council is to declare that the Church has defected.
Eapropter denegant etiam indefectibilitatem Ecclesiae, blasphemantes ipsam in toto periisse mundo, proindeque visibile eius Caput et Episcopos defecisse : ex quo sibi ferunt necessitatem impositam legitimi episcopatus instaurandi in suo pseudo-episcopo [...]
For that reason, they additionaly deny the indefectibility of the Church, blaspheming that the same would have perished throughout the world, and accordingly its visible Head and the bishops would have erred : wherefore they assert a self imposed necessity to restore the legitimate episcopate in their pseudo-Bishop
Now, show me somewhere where Pius IX actually agrees or concedes that there will be a defection at the end of the age.
[14] And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. [15] When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation [...]
unless he first came who is called the apostate — apostate, to wit, from the Lord God. [...] And on this account some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; [...] But others think that the words, "You know what withholds," and "The mystery of iniquity works," refer only to the wicked and the hypocrites who are in the Church, until they reach a number so great as to furnish Antichrist with a great people, and that this is the mystery of iniquity, because it seems hidden;
And . . . you were first arguing there wasn't such a defection, 'cause them guys weren't "popes" and that wasn't, and what we have now isn't, the Magisterium. Are you now arguing that the Magisterium can indeed defect, but only at the end of the age as permitted by God and prophesied?
I'm new to this argument but when John XXIII abrogated back past the Council of Trent this became a new church. Yes, there were 33 Bishops that refused to attend the Council due to this abrogation. The problem I have is Thuc and the others that attended this Robber Council (Vatican II) let John XXIII have a pass at the destruction of the Church and blamed Paul VI for everything. On a separate note, PiusIX had known of the message of Our of La Salette. He understood Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of the antichrist. Even Pope Pius XII did everything he could to preserve the Church. It goes to show when so-called traditionalists attack him that they are no different than the Novus Ordo church.
I think the issue is that Xavier asserts that both are needed for Apostolic Succession for the sede bishops, but seems to think it doesn't apply to the bishops that come from the SSPX. Or at least that's what it seems.....maybe he could clarify.Still no response from Xavier. Interesting.
Once the new Holy Father
In the Latin original of Etsi multa we have a single sentence concerning the indefectibility and the new hierarchy:
Quote from: Pius IX, Etsi multa luctuosaQuoteEapropter denegant etiam indefectibilitatem Ecclesiae, blasphemantes ipsam in toto periisse mundo, proindeque visibile eius Caput et Episcopos defecisse : ex quo sibi ferunt necessitatem impositam legitimi episcopatus instaurandi in suo pseudo-episcopo [...]
Quote from: Pius IX, Etsi multa luctuosaQuoteFor that reason, they additionaly deny the indefectibility of the Church, blaspheming that the same would have perished throughout the world, and accordingly its visible Head and the bishops would have erred : wherefore they assert a self imposed necessity to restore the legitimate episcopate in their pseudo-Bishop
etiam here means additionally, since the word deny occurs for the first time. Before, the Old Catholics reject, oppose, boldly affirm, etc. But that's not all, they also deny the indefectibility. In what way do they deny the indefectibility? They do it by saying that the Church has perished, Pope and bishops have erred, and the legitimate episcopate has to be restored.
(They don't do it by saying that the Church has perished, Pope and bishops have erred, and the consummation of the age has begun.)
Pius IX concedes that therewillmay be a defection at the end of the age in the following way:
Pius IX compares the Old Catholics to the Donatists and adopts the reasoning of St Augustine. Augustine interprets the Psalm Call me not away in the midst of my days and tells the Donatists that they can't state that the Church has apostatized, since the consummation of the age has not yet come. How could the Donatists know that (at that time) the consummation of the age had not yet come? Augustine says: Non vides adhuc esse gentes in quibus nondum est praedicatum Evangelium? (Do you see not that there are still nations among whom the Gospel has not been preached?) This refers to Mt 24,14:
Augustine's reasoning is: An apostasy is not expected before the consummation of the age (i.e. in the midst of her days). Augustine therefore implicitly concedes, that an apostasy may happen at the consummation of the age.
P.S.: St Augustine elsewhere reckons with an apostasy at the consummation of the age. He comments on 2 Thess 2:
P.P.S.: With respect to my translation above: The word eapropter occurs in the encyclical Quanta cura of the same Pope Pius IX. vatican.va has an Italian translation where eapropter is translated as conseguentemente that's consequently. The English translation on papalencyclicals.net has for this reason.
The expression ex quo is used twice in Quanta cura. Translations are whereof or from which.
vatican.va: Quanta cura, Latin (http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/docuмents/encyclica-quanta-cura-8-decembris-1864.html)
vatican.va: Quanta cura, Italian (http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/docuмents/encyclica-quanta-cura-8-decembris-1864.html)
papalencyclicals.net: Quanta cura, English (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanta.htm)
Women need a stronger voice in the Catholic Church!!! The Church is hurting because for too long it's been all men who have run it!!! There needs to be a balance of women and men leading the Church. We are all equal to God. Let's live it!!!
Just stop it, Croix. You get more pathetic with each new account you create. Seek psychiatric help.
Listen, buster! Just because you're a man doesn't give you the right to bark orders at me! You're the one who needs mental help. This is the second time you called me a "croix". You brute!
What is it that you hope to accomplish? Your posts are a distraction from the discussions.
Just stop it, Croix. You get more pathetic with each new account you create. Seek psychiatric help.:laugh1: I have only gotten a handful of downvotes so far, but I suspected he was back when that started up. Then I saw the new member named "Karen Yapper" and I knew he was back.
:laugh1: I have only gotten a handful of downvotes so far, but I suspected he was back when that started up. Then I saw the new member named "Karen Yapper" and I knew he was back.
I just tried voting up or down but I can't do it. Don't be so sensitive. Women need to show their real strength more. Don't be reserved.So should we assume you signed up as a woman?
So should we assume you signed up as a woman?
:laugh1: I have only gotten a handful of downvotes so far, but I suspected he was back when that started up. Then I saw the new member named "Karen Yapper" and I knew he was back.
Croix is just trying to get in touch with his 'feminine side.'
He chose an avatar of a Jєωιѕн-looking woman making a disturbing/annoying face as a commentary on his disdain for both Jews and women.
He's self-identifying now as a Jєωιѕн woman. Who are we to judge?Exactly!
Exactly!
So you're an Anti Semite, too? You people are insane.
note the pope says, "[f]or that reason, they additionally deny the indefectibility." What reason? The one he just stated: they say the pope and the bishops in union with him in an ecuмenical council declared heresy.
22. And surely what these sons of perdition intend is quite clear from their other writings, especially that impious and most imprudent one which has only recently been published by the person whom they recently constituted as a pseudo-bishop. For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.
We can't make ourselves a rule of law above the Church and its governance. Leo XIII and Pius IX seem to have confirmed this in Satis Cognitum, with the essential government of the Church tied to the Roman See, and the idea that the head of the Church and all the bishops tied to it via the apostolic see defected is blasphemous. Again, you've explained how you disagree, but I simply don't find your points convincing. Agreeing to disagree is fine..
Even if you want to say that this only maintains until the consummation of the world, it seems extremely harsh to say that this is clearly the consummation of the world. Says who? The interpretation of a few people, most of whom are certainly wrong about other forms of doctrine, about a problematic council? There are certainly still interpretations of Vatican II that don't fall into objective heresy, much less formal heresy. If someone believes that they shouldn't go to mass to avoid perceived heresy, then I can't fault them for following their conscience. The problem instead arises when people say that those who do go to mass without any actual intent of heresy or wrongdoing will go to Hell or are separated from the Church, when this is clearly not true..
If it is the case, then Struthio is the only person on this thread doing the right thing, and everyone else's case is mere vanity. In fact, with the exception of him and maybe truecatholics.org, everyone else is going to Hell.
But as Ladislaus has said numerous times on numerous different threads (and which I will readapt here), even if rejecting an opinion is objectively heretical, this doesn't mean the person rejecting it is a heretic..
Given my experience in traditionalist Catholicism, I tend to assume that people believe those who disagree with their specific opinions are formally heretical and doomed to damnation. Again, this attitude paints and taints a lot of conversations I have with traditionalists (especially the CMRI types)..
.Sure, I will oblige!
Well, everyone does this in one way or another, since we all reject the heresies of Bergoglio (except Poche). And that's on private judgment, not on the judgment of anyone else. Where you want to go with that idea determines which traditionalist camp you fall into.
.
.
You give a lot of attention to whether or not other people are allowed to say what they are saying. I find this a little odd. If you disagree with something someone else says, why not just ignore it and consider it nonsense? Why does it bother you so much if other people disagree with you? And along similar lines, you seem to also be bothered greatly to try to determine the subjective state of other people's consciences. This comes out more in your next paragraph:
.
.
Why not just leave it to God to figure out things like this?
.
.
Yes, I say the same. Most trads of whatever variety say the same. This is nearly a universal belief in the trad world.
.
.
Jerm, can you please try an experiment? Next time you are having one of the conversations you describe here, just ask the person straight out the following question: "Do you believe that everyone on the other side of this question is going to hell?" For example, if you are talking to a sedevacantist, say, "Do you believe that everyone who goes to an SSPX chapel will go to Hell for heresy?" If you are talking to an SSPX person, say, "So do you believe that every sedevacantist will go to Hell for schism?" I think you will be very surprised at the answers you will get from doing this. I strongly doubt you will find even one traditional Catholic of any variety who will answer that question with a simple "Yes." If you do, please respond back and describe that conversation in detail.
I talked to Fr. Desposito on the phone on September 16, 2019. When I asked him, directly, [...]
But you were not addressing a post of Fr. Desposito, but one of mine. I am not Fr. Desposito.Fr. Desposito was not my only example. When I talked to Home Aloners like those who made truecatholics.org (which, having searched a bit more, seems to have been merged with betrayedcatholics.org), they said you had to stay home from masses to be Catholic. Having not met a Home Alone Catholic who did not say this, and seeing you promoted the position, I assumed that you also thought you had to stay home to be Catholic at all, and that everyone who didn't would be damned for certain.
Fr. Desposito was not my only example. When I talked to Home Aloners like those who made truecatholics.org (which, having searched a bit more, seems to have been merged with betrayedcatholics.org), they said you had to stay home from masses to be Catholic. Having not met a Home Alone Catholic who did not say this, and seeing you promoted the position, I assumed that you also thought you had to stay home to be Catholic at all, and that everyone who didn't would be damned for certain.
I am sorry if I misjudged you. If I'm wrong about your perspective, please tell me.
jerm, instead of clouding your mind with the various brands of dogmatism, you can simplify the problem by just asking whether dogmatism itself is correct.I agree with this nowadays. However, I don't know if it's a simple question of whether dogmatism is right or not. To some, the question of dogmatism is a question of whether you're in the true faith or not. So, while someone associated with the remnant of Catholics who is wrong would be a formal heretic, a person in, say, the Novus Ordo who's trying to live a good Catholic life would not be. They would be no different than a mere savage Indian who did not possess the faith, and their ignorance would not save them.
Dogmatism outside of actual defined dogmas is not Catholic. If you were to deny the Immaculate Conception, for instance, then you're certainly a heretic and outside the Church.
If, however, you apply Catholic dogma concretely to the crisis, you are using human reason and are capable of being mistaken. But these are known as material errors.
Dogmatists do not understand the concept of material errors.
Formal heresy means a rejection implicitly of the AUTHORITY of the Church to teach dogmas. Only those heresies which implicitly reject the actual authority of the Church to teach are formal errors. No dogmatist, despite however good a syllogism he thinks he has derived from dogma, has the authority to claim that their conclusions are dogma.
If you acknowledge the Church's teaching authority and intend with your will to believe everything the Church has defined, then you are not guilty of heresy. No one is counted as a formal heretic for drawing an erroneous conclusion from dogma. Here's a good litmus test for having the faith. If we were living at a time of an undisputed Pope, and the Pope came out and defined a dogma, would you believe it without question? Would you believe it without reservation even if prior to that time you would have considered the opinion to be wrong?
I agree with this nowadays. However, I don't know if it's a simple question of whether dogmatism is right or not. To some, the question of dogmatism is a question of whether you're in the true faith or not. So, while someone associated with the remnant of Catholics who is wrong would be a formal heretic, a person in, say, the Novus Ordo who's trying to live a good Catholic life would not be. They would be no different than a mere savage Indian who did not possess the faith, and their ignorance would not save them.
This is the problem. A lot of the people out there who profess to be of the true Catholic faith believe in doctrines that are mutually exclusive from others. So, Bp. Sanborn and the CMRI say that those who don't agree with BoD are non-Catholic. The Novus Ordo says that those who don't recognize the Pope are non-Catholic. MHFM says that both are non-Catholics, and they're the only true Catholics. Many Home Aloners say that none of those groups are Catholic, but only they are. But, a lot of these ideas seem to also hold to different faiths than others. MHFM and Home Aloners seem to profess belief in a Church that can lose actual Apostolicity, which is different from the Creed, and government + communion, which is different from what the Popes of the past have said. This is the fundamental problem I have talked about.
With one's private judgment, even a nondisputed Pope could become a disputed Pope the second that he declared something dogma. If you believed that the Immaculate Conception was a heresy and the Pope declared it to be one, what would stop you from saying that he was simply a heretic and therefore a non-Pope? You could say that he's not a disputed Pope, but then, someone who rejects what the Pope says could just claim him to be one. It seems like the whole Catholic system dies if private judgments are valid.
[5] For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many.
[11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many.
[12] And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold.
[23] Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him.
[24] For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.
[26] If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not.
There is quite the difference between saying that a clear Antichrist outside of the physical, clear government of the Church shouldn't be followed, and saying that one needs to resist the See of Rome itself. My concern is that a private judgment requiring people to sever from the Roman Diocese inevitably destroys the unity of the Church in faith, government, and communion. 62 years of defection according to these theories seems to verify this by merit of so many formally different Catholicisms rising.
It has been like this ever since. St. John, in his letter, talks about Antichrists even in his time. There have been all sorts of sects all the time in the past 2000 years. Consequently you will needsome private judgmentto use the brains the Lord provided you with to make up your mind.
There is quite the difference between saying that a clear Antichrist outside of the physical, clear government of the Church shouldn't be followed, and saying that one needs to resist the See of Rome itself. My concern is that a private judgment requiring people to sever from the Roman Diocese inevitably destroys the unity of the Church in faith, government, and communion. 62 years of defection according to these theories seems to verify this by merit of so many formally different Catholicisms rising.
Whatever you'reWhat about the unity of government and communion, or the visibility of the Church? These things are just as important as whether or not the Church is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. No one has been able to answer any of these concerns, and I cannot just be satisfied with not having answers to these questions.private judgement(hopefully) educated judgment may be, you have to judge. Either that the Conciliar Sect is the Antichrist, or that one must never even think such, or that ... Either that one must never ever attend a mass una cuм Pope X, or that one may, or that one has to. Etc. pp.
In my opinion, the problem of this day is enough for today. We shouldn't primary be concerned about "the unity of the Church in faith". In fact, we shouldn't be concerned about it at all. Why? Well, it's a dogma. The unity of the Church in faith is given, and can and will never be destroyed. That's how simple it is. All, who confess a different, false faith, are not members of the Church. Hence, the unity of the Church in faith is simply given.
We should be primarily be concerned about how we can please God and make it to heaven. That's enough for laymen.
What about the unity of government and communion, or the visibility of the Church? These things are just as important as whether or not the Church is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. No one has been able to answer any of these concerns, and I cannot just be satisfied with not having answers to these questions.
If the only thing people can say is that there is no answer, or that no one knows, then that's not very well-boding for the traditionalist positions. In fact, that seems to imply that the Church really has become invisible.
With respect to my point of view, I have written numerous posts about the Vatican Council teaching that there will shepherds and a Pope usque ad consummationem saeculi. After that the sheep will be scattered. And I haven't seen any useful comment from you on the topic.Thank you for the incredibly rude comment. You have repeatedly shown me your fantastic abilities at not knowing how to read and intentionally misunderstanding my arguments, as well as the lack of empathy shared by traditionalist Catholics like you who have the gall to condemn all of humanity for not accepting the precise, incoherent theology you love. The whole world is clearly against you because all of you are such great people who will watch with glee as your families and everyone else in the world is tortured. You'll deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst, say you can beat your wives, say ridiculously that the concerns of any person who's just seeking the truth are stupid, and so on, because of your conspiratorial mentality. I'm done with it.
The visibility is given by baptism and confession of the true Faith, even during the consummation.
If you can't find any trustworthy authority in this world, which tells you where to go and how to do the right thing, which delivers you from using private judgment, then this may be caused by the fact, that there is none. Why aren't you just a follower of the Conciliar Sect? I can tell: Because they don't give a da*n about any of your concerns.
Thank you for the incredibly rude comment. You have repeatedly shown me your fantastic abilities at not knowing how to read and intentionally misunderstanding my arguments, as well as the lack of empathy shared by traditionalist Catholics like you who have the gall to condemn all of humanity for not accepting the precise, incoherent theology you love. The whole world is clearly against you because all of you are such great people who will watch with glee as your families and everyone else in the world is tortured. You'll deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst, say you can beat your wives, say ridiculously that the concerns of any person who's just seeking the truth are stupid, and so on, because of your conspiratorial mentality. I'm done with it.
Eastern Orthodoxy makes more sense than Catholicism ever did. Your metaphysics, especially Aquinas', are contradictory bunk, the Papacy never existed in the first millennium of the Church and you use forgeries to try and prove it, your doctrines on Hell are vile, and you will look for anything to help you avoid the possibility that your beloved and simply awful faith is wrong. I tried to make things make sense, but you just say it doesn't have to. You come up with bullshit exegesis to avoid losing the fuzzy feeling you get when you pray the rosary. You act like you guys hold the truth and get aggressive when someone asks? You're all horrid missionaries for a cult, much less the true faith.
Maybe the reason the world doesn't like you is because you're all so intolerable and nauseating to talk to. I tried. I really did.
Matthew, please ban me from this forum so that I never return. Bye.
Thank you for the incredibly rude comment. You have repeatedly shown me your fantastic abilities at not knowing how to read and intentionally misunderstanding my arguments, as well as the lack of empathy shared by traditionalist Catholics like you who have the gall to condemn all of humanity for not accepting the precise, incoherent theology you love. The whole world is clearly against you because all of you are such great people who will watch with glee as your families and everyone else in the world is tortured. You'll deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst, say you can beat your wives, say ridiculously that the concerns of any person who's just seeking the truth are stupid, and so on, because of your conspiratorial mentality. I'm done with it.I knew it was just a matter of time.
Eastern Orthodoxy makes more sense than Catholicism ever did. Your metaphysics, especially Aquinas', are contradictory bunk, the Papacy never existed in the first millennium of the Church and you use forgeries to try and prove it, your doctrines on Hell are vile, and you will look for anything to help you avoid the possibility that your beloved and simply awful faith is wrong. I tried to make things make sense, but you just say it doesn't have to. You come up with bullshit exegesis to avoid losing the fuzzy feeling you get when you pray the rosary. You act like you guys hold the truth and get aggressive when someone asks? You're all horrid missionaries for a cult, much less the true faith.
Maybe the reason the world doesn't like you is because you're all so intolerable and nauseating to talk to. I tried. I really did.
Matthew, please ban me from this forum so that I never return. Bye.
An old Priest I once knew 102 God rest his soul said " we will all be surprised how many Novus Ordo Catholics there will be in heaven when we die." I said "How can you say such a thing look at the heresy" He replied it is God who judges them on their conscience not you or me even if they have an erroneous conscience that is between them and God."That old priest must have gone NO Aristotl, because being judged on our conscience is what the NO preach, but prior to the NO we were all judged on everything we ever did and everything we were supposed to have done but failed to do, God gave us a conscience to correct ourselves when we do, or are contemplating doing something wrong.
Thank you [...] for the lack of empathy shared by traditionalist Catholics like you who have the gall to condemn all of humanity for not accepting the precise, incoherent theology you love.
Eastern Orthodoxy makes more sense than Catholicism ever did. Your metaphysics, especially Aquinas', are contradictory bunk, the Papacy never existed in the first millennium of the Church and you use forgeries to try and prove it, your doctrines on Hell are vile, and you will look for anything to help you avoid the possibility that your beloved and simply awful faith is wrong.
I agree with this nowadays. However, I don't know if it's a simple question of whether dogmatism is right or not. To some, the question of dogmatism is a question of whether you're in the true faith or not. So, while someone associated with the remnant of Catholics who is wrong would be a formal heretic, a person in, say, the Novus Ordo who's trying to live a good Catholic life would not be. They would be no different than a mere savage Indian who did not possess the faith, and their ignorance would not save them.
An old Priest I once knew 102 God rest his soul said " we will all be surprised how many Novus Ordo Catholics there will be in heaven when we die." I said "How can you say such a thing look at the heresy" He replied it is God who judges them on their conscience not you or me even if they have an erroneous conscience that is between them and God."[size={defaultattr}]
Eastern Orthodoxy makes more sense than Catholicism ever did. Your metaphysics, especially Aquinas', are contradictory bunk, the Papacy never existed in the first millennium of the Church and you use forgeries to try and prove it, your doctrines on Hell are vile, and you will look for anything to help you avoid the possibility that your beloved and simply awful faith is wrong. I tried to make things make sense, but you just say it doesn't have to. You come up with bullshit exegesis to avoid losing the fuzzy feeling you get when you pray the rosary. You act like you guys hold the truth and get aggressive when someone asks? You're all horrid missionaries for a cult, much less the true faith.
Maybe the reason the world doesn't like you is because you're all so intolerable and nauseating to talk to. I tried. I really did.
Matthew, please ban me from this forum so that I never return. Bye.
I'm afraid that you simply do not have the Catholic faith, jerm. As per the bolded comment, you do not accept with the certainty of faith the core dogma of all faith, the teaching authority of the Church. This is precisely why you are constantly floundering around, because you do not have a rule of faith and because you are simply following the lights of your private judgment. You give clear indication of the fact that you lack supernatural faith.Lad, you really need to stop bothering.
As for you dogmatists, you really have to stop this crap. You can argue all you want that a certain position is or is not CONSISTENT with Church teaching. But stop claiming that your conclusions are in fact dogma themselves and that those who do not accept them are formal heretics. +Sanborn, MHFM/Dimonds, various R&R dogmatists, XavierSem, all of you need to stop this crap immediately. You in fact risk becoming schismatics yourselves. It's OK to argue that a certain proposition is objectively or materially heretical, but that's where you need to stop and stop now. Until the Church confirms your judgment, no one who doesn't agree with you can be classified as a formal heretic and refused Sacraments, etc.
Does any Traditional Catholic reject any clear dogmatic teaching of the Church? Not many, that's for sure. Which of these Catholics would have the audacity to deny, for instance, the dogma of the Real Presence, or the Holy Trinity, etc. etc. etc. They hold all these with the certainty of faith because they have the formal motive of faith. You can argue all you want that a certain conclusion LOGICALLY undermines a dogma, but the logic in question is not backed by the authority of the Church.
Does any Traditional Catholic reject the dogma of infallibility or the indefectibility of the Church? No, of course not. We all know these to be dogmatic teachings of the Church. You can ARGUE all you want that a long vacancy is incompatible with indefectibility or that the R&R position is incompatible with infallibility. And in fact they may be, and they may even be harmful to faith and dangerous to hold, and keep arguing that, in a spirit of charity, to help people pull away from dangerous opinions. But to raise these conclusions to the level of DOGMA is incredibly dangerous and harmful and leads to a schismatic tendency.
Quote from: XavierXavier, I see you have returned to the forum since actively posting in this thread almost a month ago.
Disagree. Apostolic Succession requires both Orders and Jurisdiction. One or the other by itself is not sufficient to maintain the succession. Consecration would transmit orders, but only Papal appointment will transmit jurisdiction. Therefore, that Papal appointment is necessary, and therefore the See cannot be vacant for 62 supposed years, as the sedes hold.
To XavierSem:
If this is true, then the apostolic succession between Mgr Lefevbre and the 4 bishops is broken (no appointment)?
Xavier, I see you have returned to the forum since actively posting in this thread almost a month ago.Thuc didn't have a Papal mandate and if he did it ended at the death of Pope Pius XI. Thuc was double-dipping making Bishops for both churches NO and Traditional.
Could you respond to MM's question? If both orders and jurisdiction is required for Apostolic Succession for sede bishops, doesn't it also apply to the SSPX bishops? Do your SSPX bishops have apostolic succession? And if they do, why is that different than those sede bishops that trace their lineage from ABL and Thuc?
Thuc didn't have a Papal mandate and if he did it ended at the death of Pope Pius XI. Thuc was double-dipping making Bishops for both churches NO and Traditional.I noticed you did not mention ABL. Why not?
Thuc didn't have a Papal mandate and if he did it ended at the death of Pope Pius XI. Thuc was double-dipping making Bishops for both churches NO and Traditional.
I noticed you did not mention ABL. Why not?
This is all in the interests of pushing this bogus Pius XII bishop as the only "pure" one left.Ah, thank you for reminding me that Aristotl was that poster in that thread.
Could you respond to MM's question? If both orders and jurisdiction is required for Apostolic Succession for sede bishops, doesn't it also apply to the SSPX bishops? Do your SSPX bishops have apostolic succession? And if they do, why is that different than those sede bishops that trace their lineage from ABL and Thuc?
+Thuc did in fact have a papal mandate, and the docuмent has been produced and posted online. It has the exact same language as the mandate given to +d'Herbigny. As for whether it expired at the death of Pope Pius XI, that's highly debatable. Typically those types of things remain in force unless revoked by a subsequent Pope.NO you are wrong there was no mandate something so sacred Thuc would have kept a copy. You assume I'm saying this because of the Bishop I have met. Again you are wrong I hold more of a valid theory toward ABL If your theory is correct then every Bishop would have the power to make Bishops without the permission of the Holy Father. I have read the so called Thuc mandate and it is FALSE NO HOLY FATHER WOULD GIVE THE RIGHTS THAT ARE MENTIONED. It is a FACT THAT POPE PIUS XII DID NOT GIVE THE SAME MANDATE TO THUC. Thuc was not even the Papal representative in Viet Nam after the death of Pope Pius XI Further I think it odd that both Bishop Sanborn and Anthony Cicadda both did not accept the Thuc line as valid prior to Dolan and Sanborn being made Bishops.
http://www.fraternitenotredame.com/2011_2_0/succession.php (http://www.fraternitenotredame.com/2011_2_0/succession.php)
NO you are wrong there was no mandate something so sacred Thuc would have kept a copy. You assume I'm saying this because of the Bishop I have met. Again you are wrong I hold more of a valid theory toward ABL If your theory is correct then every Bishop would have the power to make Bishops without the permission of the Holy Father. I have read the so called Thuc mandate and it is FALSE NO HOLY FATHER WOULD GIVE THE RIGHTS THAT ARE MENTIONED. It is a FACT THAT POPE PIUS XII DID NOT GIVE THE SAME MANDATE TO THUC. Thuc was not even the Papal representative in Viet Nam after the death of Pope Pius XI Further I think it odd that both Bishop Sanborn and Anthony Cicadda both did not accept the Thuc line as valid prior to Dolan and Sanborn being made Bishops.
"Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of “bishop,” or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. - The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. - What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. - This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked." [Christ's Church, Monsignor G Van Noort]
So does that answer the question?
Yes, there was a mandate. There's a copy of it available to read. He needn't have been some "papal representative" beforehand, as the entire point of the mandate is to keep things clandestine. Not that it matters whether or not he had a mandate, but you're the one who brought it up. Uhm, Pius XI gave the exact same mandate to d'Herbigny, so what the heck are you talking about that "no Holy Father would give the rights that are mentioned"? It matters not whether Pius XII gave him the same mandate. If it was not revoked, it was still in force. That's the standard Canon Law understanding of what happens in a papal transition. Unless something that was in place before is revoked, it's considered to receive tacit approval by the following Pope. So, for instance, Pius XII did not have to re-appoint every bishop who was in place during the time of Pius XI. As for Sanborn and Cekada (you can't even spell his name, so informed are you), they were in doubt about the status of the +Thuc line at first because they knew little about it. Once they conducted their investigation, they changed their minds. You're clearly just trying to smear the +Thuc line in an attempt to exalt your mythical Pius XII bishopAgain you are mistaken the one that gives all the powers to Thuc has never been shown. I have even checked in the archives of the Vatican and the Mandate is for Vietnam only. So tell me what years were you in the Seminary? I was in the seminary and that is not the understanding that I was taught regarding Papal Mandates. The mandates are null and void at the death of a Holy Father. Even if the mandate that you speak of did exist it became null and void when Thuc went along with the Novus Ordo as we know it today this became a new church under John XXIII. There you go again attacking someone who you don't even know nor have you ever seen his credentials. This is one one of the many reasons why people have walked away from the Church due to assumptions such as yours. You know what they say about assume it makes an ass out of you and me. By the way, "the mythical Bishop" is the only one that holds jurisdiction as a member of the ROMAN ROTA.
Yes, there was a mandate. There's a copy of it available to read.Yes, it's right here (http://essan.org/Main/Thuc_consecrations/thuc_consecrations.html).
By the way, "the mythical Bishop" is the only one that holds jurisdiction as a member of the ROMAN ROTA..
Yes the "pure" Bishop who's name everyone refuses to speak, if he's a member of the Roman ROTA than doesn't that make him a modernist? Since the Roman ROTA is currently under "Pope" Francis? 🤔No, he was made a member of the ROTA by Pope Pius XII. I know a couple that sought the Pauline Privilege and gained this in 1958 with the Bishop's name on it. Note I say, Bishop nor priest.
No, he was made a member of the ROTA by Pope Pius XII. I know a couple that sought the Pauline Privilege and gained this in 1958 with the Bishop's name on it. Note I say, Bishop nor priest..
This is all in the interests of pushing this bogus Pius XII bishop as the only "pure" one left.This nonsense about a pure bishop is tiresome. Why is it that nobody can know his name. There is no address and no phone number.
This nonsense about a pure bishop is tiresome. Why is it that nobody can know his name. There is no address and no phone number.I agree with you Endeavor, I myself have asked for his name only to be met with silence. I am only searching because of the distress this has caused my family, I am starting to think that "sedevacantistism" is just poppycock and full of charlatans
Where does he say Mass? Or is he a figment of someone's fevered imagination?
Or is he a figment of someone's fevered imagination?
The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals)In one of his interviews with Louis Verracchio, John Lane addresses this argument:
This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?
Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.
Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.
Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html)) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.
So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.
Thoughts?
I point out that the acts of jurisdiction of a putative pope would be valid by virtue of supplied jurisdiction, so that the extinction of the hierarchy is not even a concern, let alone an imminent threat to the notion that Paul VI, for example, was not pope. So, I say that if you can show me why sedevacantism as such leads necessarily to the extinction of the hierarchy, please do so.
(http://<iframe)
http://www.sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1840&sid=31a1abd1c49dac27a9ca95a359f500dd (http://www.sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1840&sid=31a1abd1c49dac27a9ca95a359f500dd)
Let me ask you one thing, DR: if even a 62 year vacancy is possible, is there any limit at all to the length of a vacancy? Is a 100 year vacancy possible? a 620 year one. A 1000 year one? Can the See have been vacant from 1100 or 1200 as Ibranyi claims? Clearly, that is wrong, and there is a limit. I submit that that limit is the time it takes for all Papally Appointed Bishops to die or resign.
The solitary evasion is very frigid. It should be noted early sedevacantists did not claim this but openly acknowledged themselves that their theory required that the Cardinals and Bishops appointed by the "AntiPopes" were not even Cardinals at all, nor had authority. This latter day evasion is just one, last, desperate attempt to save sedevacantism from reducing into open heresy in my opinion.
As for the claims of supplied jurisdiction, jurisdiction is not supplied to heretics. Are the appointments of the Patriarch of Constantinople or of Moscow authority-conferring because of supplied jurisdiction. If they are not, then neither are those of alleged heretic non-popes.
May Our Lord Jesus and Immaculate Mother Mary guide us all. Amen.There (and in many other thing as Catholic men - deo gratias!) we are in agreement.
Xavier - as to cuм Ex, Mr. Lane argues that the penalty aspect of it - all actions, appointments, etc. of a heretic pope are void - is merely human, not divine law, and he says theologians back him on that. He also says that the theologians support him on his position on supplied jurisdiction for the act of an anti-pope in the appointment of a bishop with the Catholic faith to a see established by a true pope.
As if this Pure Bishop theory was not crazy enough, I will add to it. Those like James Kosek and others in this circle claim the mother of the sibling group The Band Perry (country) was instrumental in getting this bishop to visit America. He was allegedly coming to A America to consecrate Kosek as bishop. Also, the questionable Francis Miller (self-proclaimed ofm) in his long quest for the bishop's mitre. It never ends with sedevacantists.I have met with this man this past week and I asked many questions and I will respond to just a few. As to giving Father Kosek and Francis Miller the Bishopric, he said " I wanted to speak with the two of them and see if they are Catholic or are pretenders like so many out there who want money. He said after speaking with Father Kosek he needs a great deal of training before he should be dealing with people. As to Father Miller, there are too MANY questions about his character". As to the Church He does not agree with the sedevacantists he said they pick and choose what they believe from Pope to Pope. He said that he is Roman Catholic and does not recognize Francis or any of the others back to John XXIII as pope. One thing that he did mention is that he would be willing to work with any priest that wishes to be Catholic. Yes, I have met Marie and she did bring him to America.
As to the Church He does not agree with the sedevacantists he said they pick and choose what they believe from Pope to Pope. He said that he is Roman Catholic and does not recognize Francis or any of the others back to John XXIII as pope.The definition of a sedevacantist is someone who believes the seat of St. Peter is vacant. So if he does not recognize Francis (and presumably not Benedict either) as pope then by definition he is a sedevacantist.