Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 72520 times)

Gregory I · « **Reply #120 on:** November 26, 2015, 06:19:09 PM »

Quote

Here we see the response to a Patriarch, Saint, and future doctor of the Church when faced with a prelate who publicly deviated from the rule of Faith. He did not declare, based on his own authority (which was significant), that Nestorius had lost his office ipso facto by Divine law, without the judgment of the Church. Instead, he warned him of his error and attempted to bring him back to the Faith. When that was fruitless, he continued to remain in communion with him and appealed to the pope to render the necessary judgment. Nestorius was deposed for heresy three years later, at which time he became a public heretic according to the Church’s judgment.

And yet we have St Hypatius doing that very thing:

"When Saint Hypatius understood what opinions Nestorius held, immediately, in the Church of the Apostles, he erased his name from the diptychs, so that it should no longer be pronounced at the Oblation. [This was before Nestorius’ condemnation by the Third Ecuмenical Council.] “When Bishop Eulalius learned of this, he was anxious about the outcome of the affair. And seeing that it had been noised abroad, Nestorius also ordered him to reprimand Hypatius. For Nestorius was still powerful in the city. Bishop Eulalius spoke thus to Hypatius: Why have you erased his name without understanding what the consequences would be? Saint Hypatius replied: From the time that I learned that he said unrighteous things about the Lord, I have no longer been in communion with him and I do not commemorate his name; for he is not a bishop. Then the bishop, in anger, said: Be off with you! Make amends for what you have done, for I shall take measures against you. Saint Hypatius replied: Do as you wish. As for me, I have decided to suffer anything, and it is with this in mind that I have done this.”

From the Life of Saint Hypatius (Sources Chretiennes, No.177, pp. 210-214)

And we have St Vincent Ferrer declaring Benedict XIII to have lost his see through schism to his face, and he then declared the apostolic see vacant, refusing to recognize the Roman and Pisan claimants pending the council of Constance.

One sided history won't fly mr siscoe

2Vermont · « **Reply #121 on:** November 26, 2015, 07:25:38 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont

And you will not find any papal teachings that teach the UOM is fallible - at least I haven't. You will however find teachings of when the UOM *is* infallible, I gave you a link for that.

I already told you you need to look it up on your own. I gave you the link so you have no reasonable excuse not to. But as I said, first you'd need to accept dogmatic decrees as the supreme infallible authority, as the final word - and that they are to be understood as declared. This is a must. Until you can do that, there really is no need for you to even bother. There really isn't.

Just think 2Vermont, you could walk into virtually any NO seminary today and for the next 6 or 8 years, you could study and learn from the exact same NO books that Fr. Cekada learned from.

Do you wish you could do such a thing so as to gain the same education and garner the same knowledge as him? If you were able to do such a thing, you could earn the same Bachelor's Degree in NO Theology as him as well - now isn't that something to strive for if you were willing and able? Perhaps you might wish you had those same NO Theology books at home so you could simply study from them at your convenience.

Well, that's the reality of the situation, you could do exactly that if you had the gumption. His preachings about SVism, UOM / infallibility and etc. are laced with those things he learned during his NO formation - so no matter what you actually choose to embrace about SVism/UOM/infallibility and etc., understand where is preachinings get their roots from.

One example to show that the Cekadian version of papal infallibility and UOM infallibility comes from his NO formation is to note that Cekadian version consists of the errors spread by the living UOM, while saying the UOM is automatically infallible - therefore they are not the UOM. That's right up there with the NO trumpeting that because V2 was the new springtime, they are rebuilding the Church by closing 80% of the churches.

The point is, it's all Novus Ordo theology, it's all a part of the plan devised by the modernists to destroy the Church from within. It is how they were able to take over the Churches, destroy the altars, replace the Mass and etc. - all because everyone, including Fr. Cekada initially at least, was duped into accepting the changes because "the pope/bishop/priest/UOM/etc. cannot err so it must be ok".

Gee, Stubborn, if you are stating that the OUM can be fallible under *any* circuмstances, then you have to be able to find Church teaching to support that. Thanks for admitting that there is no such teaching. The Church has never taught that it is fallible because, well, it never is fallible.

You need to come to terms with that fact. If you are claiming that the Vatican II hierarchy is the authentic OUM, then you need to explain how it has promulgated error in its teaching to the Faithful, both in Vatican II and in its subsequent teachings throughout the world to include its Code of Canon Law and its Catechism.

You either do not read what I have written, which is what I suspect, or purposely make false accusations in your efforts to hang on to your error.

I hope that this 700 page book coming out will be worth the time for you to read because if it is, it will probably take you reading all 700 pages to unscramble your novus ordo thinking during your years of novus ordo formation.

Until then, perhaps you could concentrate on accepting dogmatic decrees as the supreme infallible authority, as the final word - and that they are to be understood as declared. Again, this is a must.

Again, where is the Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is ever fallible..under any circuмstances?

RobS · « **Reply #122 on:** November 26, 2015, 07:59:05 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote
Here we see the response to a Patriarch, Saint, and future doctor of the Church when faced with a prelate who publicly deviated from the rule of Faith. He did not declare, based on his own authority (which was significant), that Nestorius had lost his office ipso facto by Divine law, without the judgment of the Church. Instead, he warned him of his error and attempted to bring him back to the Faith. When that was fruitless, he continued to remain in communion with him and appealed to the pope to render the necessary judgment. Nestorius was deposed for heresy three years later, at which time he became a public heretic according to the Church’s judgment.

And yet we have St Hypatius doing that very thing:

"When Saint Hypatius understood what opinions Nestorius held, immediately, in the Church of the Apostles, he erased his name from the diptychs, so that it should no longer be pronounced at the Oblation. [This was before Nestorius’ condemnation by the Third Ecuмenical Council.] “When Bishop Eulalius learned of this, he was anxious about the outcome of the affair. And seeing that it had been noised abroad, Nestorius also ordered him to reprimand Hypatius. For Nestorius was still powerful in the city. Bishop Eulalius spoke thus to Hypatius: Why have you erased his name without understanding what the consequences would be? Saint Hypatius replied: From the time that I learned that he said unrighteous things about the Lord, I have no longer been in communion with him and I do not commemorate his name; for he is not a bishop. Then the bishop, in anger, said: Be off with you! Make amends for what you have done, for I shall take measures against you. Saint Hypatius replied: Do as you wish. As for me, I have decided to suffer anything, and it is with this in mind that I have done this.”

From the Life of Saint Hypatius (Sources Chretiennes, No.177, pp. 210-214)

But this was before the Fourth Council of Constantinople confirmed the position of St. Cyril and attached an excommunication to any layman who would separate from his Patriarch before the Church has rendered a judgment.

Quote

“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault.’ And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled” (Canon 10).

Those who separated from Nestorius before a judgment of the Church could have been excused in their day; those who separate from their Patriarch today, before the Church has rendered a judgment, cannot. In light of the above teaching of the Council, how do you justify following the example of those who did what the council later condemned, rather than the example a saint and doctor of the Church who did the contrary? That would be similar to rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and defending your actions by appealing to the writing of St. Thomas.

RobS · « **Reply #123 on:** November 26, 2015, 08:01:42 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

And we have St Vincent Ferrer declaring Benedict XIII to have lost his see through schism to his face, and he then declared the apostolic see vacant, refusing to recognize the Roman and Pisan claimants pending the council of Constance.

Please cite your source confirming that St. Vincent Ferrer declared that Benedict XIII (who he mistakenly believed to be pope) lost his office for schism. Not a quote saying he was withdrawing from obedience from him, but a quote saying he believed he lost his office.

Catholictrue · « **Reply #124 on:** November 26, 2015, 08:02:17 PM »

To Rob. Siscoe:

My question was whether, according to your current position (for your position, as well as Salza’s, frequently changes), "Cardinal" Kasper, Blase Kupich, pro-abortion public figures, etc. are to be considered Catholics or heretics. Presumably answering for Salza as well, you replied:

"There is a difference between a private judgment and the public judgment of the Church. A person may privately judge that a particular prelate is a heretic, but if this private judgment is not reflected by the public judgment of the Church, it has no bearing whatsoever on their ecclesiastical status."

Although you were understandably reluctant to explicitly say 'yes' in answer to the question (because it illustrates how bankrupt your position is), your answer means 'yes.' Therefore, the position of Salza and Siscoe (and that of your book) is that Blase Cupich is a Catholic bishop with authority over Catholics in Chicago, and that Catholics must hold communion with him in faith and government. Your position is that Walter Kasper is not a heretic, but a Catholic, and that Catholics must profess communion with him. Your position is that Catholics must hold communion with pro-abortion public figures who say they’re Catholic, with every kind of unbeliever at every Novus Ordo parish (many of whom openly deny the inspiration of Scripture, Church councils, the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, the Eucharist, etc.). They are not heretics, but ALL OF THEM ARE CATHOLICS, according to you. The absurdity and falsity of such a position speaks for itself. It is opposed to the entire history of Catholic teaching on the understanding of the effects of departing from the magisterial teaching of the Church: that is, automatic separation and expulsion from Christ's Church by divine law.

You have tragically failed to see the distinction between the effects and meaning of heresy in DIVINE LAW and the effects and meaning of heresy in ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. The procedures instituted in ecclesiastical law are not required by divine law to recognize heretics. The process, judgment, etc. are not necessary by divine law to recognize a heretic. According to divine law, a person must simply be obstinate against established magisterial teaching to be a heretic. You see everything in terms of ecclesiastical law, to the point that you conflate it with divine law. You just don't get it, as refutations of your work have clearly demonstrated, and you have fallen into massive errors and absurdities as a result (see the aforementioned example about Kasper, etc.). By failing to see this point – i.e. by equating ecclesiastical law processes that are instituted to declare heresy in normal times and which have additional effects, which are NOT necessary by divine law to simply recognize and reject manifest heretics – you have fallen into the position that those who publicly deny Christ are to be considered in the unity of the Church, since they claim to be Catholic and haven’t been declared heretics. That actually equates the external profession of a false faith with the true Church’s external profession of the true faith. By saying that Catholics need to profess communion with people who publicly reject Catholic truth (such as Walter Kasper, pro-abortion public figures, etc.), you have denied the unity of faith in the Church. Just because you put such nonsense into a book doesn’t change the fact that it’s nonsense.

As your answer shows, your position is that everyone in the world who professes to be Catholic must be considered a Catholic, no matter what he or she believes, as long as that person has not been declared a heretic (which is virtually no one). That is an astounding error. Anyone with a Catholic sense should be able to recognize that fact.

By the way, does your book have the approval of your local 'ordinary', from whom you claim one may not separate without a Church judgment? If not, why not? And if you say people cannot separate from the ‘hierarchy’ under Francis until an official judgment is made, why are you promoting and receiving endorsements from numerous priests who have separated from their ‘bishops’ and ‘ordinaries’ without a judgment? Can you not see the inconsistency (and outright hypocrisy) of such a position? In one breath you say that it’s absolutely forbidden to separate from one’s 'bishop' without a judgment, and then in the next you say: read it in a book endorsed by the head of a group (Bernard Fellay) who has been separated from his ‘bishops’ for decades, and by priests who are totally independent from their ‘bishops’, so much so that they teach one must not attend diocesan ‘services’!

RobS · « **Reply #125 on:** November 26, 2015, 08:09:48 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

To Rob. Siscoe:

My question was whether, according to your current position (for your position, as well as Salza’s, frequently changes), "Cardinal" Kasper, Blase Kupich, pro-abortion public figures, etc. are to be considered Catholics or heretics. Presumably answering for Salza as well, you replied:

"There is a difference between a private judgment and the public judgment of the Church. A person may privately judge that a particular prelate is a heretic, but if this private judgment is not reflected by the public judgment of the Church, it has no bearing whatsoever on their ecclesiastical status."

Although you were understandably reluctant to explicitly say 'yes' in answer to the question (because it illustrates how bankrupt your position is), your answer means 'yes.' Therefore, the position of Salza and Siscoe (and that of your book) is that Blase Cupich is a Catholic bishop with authority over Catholics in Chicago, and that Catholics must hold communion with him in faith and government. Your position is that Walter Kasper is not a heretic, but a Catholic, and that Catholics must profess communion with him. Your position is that Catholics must hold communion with pro-abortion public figures who say they’re Catholic, with every kind of unbeliever at every Novus Ordo parish (many of whom openly deny the inspiration of Scripture, Church councils, the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, the Eucharist, etc.). They are not heretics, but ALL OF THEM ARE CATHOLICS, according to you. The absurdity and falsity of such a position speaks for itself. It is opposed to the entire history of Catholic teaching on the understanding of the effects of departing from the magisterial teaching of the Church: that is, automatic separation and expulsion from Christ's Church by divine law.

All of the prelates you mentioned are members of the Church according to the Church's judgment. Those in positions of authority possess authority until they are removed by the proper authorities. Continued below...

RobS · « **Reply #126 on:** November 26, 2015, 08:22:14 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

You have tragically failed to see the distinction between the effects and meaning of heresy in DIVINE LAW and the effects and meaning of heresy in ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. The procedures instituted in ecclesiastical law are not required by divine law to recognize heretics. The process, judgment, etc. are not necessary by divine law to recognize a heretic. According to divine law, a person must simply be obstinate against established magisterial teaching to be a heretic. You see everything in terms of ecclesiastical law, to the point that you conflate it with divine law.

You've obviously been reading the erroneous arguments of Fr. Cekada. These are addressed at length and refuted in the book. Its too much to get into here. But if you read the book, you will see repeated examples of those who have unfortunately placed your trust in misquoting authorities, and purposefully eliminating doctrinal points (removing entire sections and cutting sentences short) that contradict their position. Their argument might look convincing to some, until you add back the part that they removed.

In fact, one Sedevacantist Bishop removed multiple sections containing a doctrinal point and didn't even provide an ellipses. He simply removed the part that undermined his argument, and spliced the paragraphs and sentences together. It is very difficult to conclude that this was an honest error. And it is even more difficult to conclude that it was an honest error when the other Sedevacantists priests always remove the same doctrinal point.

But the only way you will know what is removed is by looking up the source and having it translated. Most never bother doing that. Instead, they fall for the argument hook, line and sinker.

Gregory I · « **Reply #127 on:** November 26, 2015, 09:01:19 PM »

Mr Siscoe,

I do see your point, and I agree we need to be careful, but just consider the theology:

The Magisterium is the Authority of Christ.

Vatican II Purports to be Magisterium.

Therefore, if the Pope's are valid, Vatican II becomes an act of Christ.

That is blasphemous.

Can you provide for a severability clause between magisterial authority and magisterial teaching? And where would it be?

Catholictrue · « **Reply #128 on:** November 26, 2015, 09:09:13 PM »

TO ROB. SISCOE:

You replied by confirming that you believe all of those people who notoriously promote heresies and deny Catholic teaching publicly (such as Kasper) to be members of the Church, since they have not been officially removed. According to the same principle, you consider all the people at Novus Ordo parishes who even favor women ‘priests’, gαy 'marriage', etc. to be members of the Church, since they have not been declared heretics or officially separated. Your position has been reduced to its absurdity.

You then erect a straw man, perhaps to shift the focus away from these considerations, by referencing Cekada. I did not reference him or base my comments on him. Rather, I pointed out that the procedures instituted in ecclesiastical law are not required by divine law to recognize heretics. That’s a fact. Your response indicates that you don’t agree and that you don’t understand. That means that you actually think that one must always be declared a heretic by a Church authority and in ecclesiastical law to be considered a heretic. That is utter nonsense (as the examples listed above about women 'priests', etc. illustrate). It shows how flawed and warped your understanding of these matters are.

You also, at least so far, did not respond to whether your book is approved by your ‘ordinary’ and, if not, why not? Also, why do you feature endorsements from independent priests and from an independent bishop, as if that means something, when your book’s thesis is that it’s forbidden under pain of condemnation to separate from the the visible social unit without a declaration.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #129 on:** November 26, 2015, 09:59:33 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

By the way, does your book have the approval of your local 'ordinary', from whom you claim one may not separate without a Church judgment? If not, why not? And if you say people cannot separate from the ‘hierarchy’ under Francis until an official judgment is made, why are you promoting and receiving endorsements from numerous priests who have separated from their ‘bishops’ and ‘ordinaries’ without a judgment? Can you not see the inconsistency (and outright hypocrisy) of such a position? In one breath you say that it’s absolutely forbidden to separate from one’s 'bishop' without a judgment, and then in the next you say: read it in a book endorsed by the head of a group (Bernard Fellay) who has been separated from his ‘bishops’ for decades, and by priests who are totally independent from their ‘bishops’, so much so that they teach one must not attend diocesan ‘services’!

Bravo! Don't expect a response on that one.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #130 on:** November 26, 2015, 10:07:41 PM »

Yeah, I can do whatever I want as long as I RECOGNIZE the pope. It's like magic. I can reject all his commands and teaching, second guess all his decisions, doubt his authority to promulgate laws and canonize saints. But if I recognize him, I'm not guilty of schism or heresy. And all I have to do to recognize him is say his name after "una cuм" in the canon and maybe post his picture in the vestibule of my chapel. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Gregory I · « **Reply #131 on:** November 26, 2015, 10:26:44 PM »

Bravo!

We simply cannot attribute Vatican II to the authority of Christ, but of necessity we must if we acknowledge these men as Popes. It is a theological impossibility.

PaulFC · « **Reply #132 on:** November 26, 2015, 10:38:32 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

This is all very well but where is this Ordinary and Universal Magisterium found today, 24 of November in the year of Our Lord 2015?. If there is no current Magisterium nor teaching authority, then where the sedevacantists are learning their Catholicism from? The Magisterium must always exist and is visible. To say otherwise is heresy.

Please provide real answers as if you actually understood the topic instead of cut & paste treaties.

The magisterium today consists of those bishops who have retained the teachings of the faith before Vatican II.

Its the same as in the days of the Arian heresy when the majority of the Church fell for the heresy. Those bishops that held to the true teaching of the Catholic Church, no matter how few they were, were the magisterium. This is why St Athanasius was quoted as saying:

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

PaulFC · « **Reply #133 on:** November 26, 2015, 11:27:35 PM »

Quote from: John Salza

Second, those guilty of the crime of heresy lose their office, but only after the Church establishes the crime.

John,

What you have stated here is absolutely false, and there are many quotes from the Church that confirm otherwise. Here are a few of them that confirm loss of office is AUTOMATIC in the case of heresy, and the Church teaches this occurs BEFORE the Church establishes the crime. Notice especially the underlined parts. Please explain why all of these Church sources teach exactly the opposite of what you are going around preaching:

"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church." Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub. St. Antoninus (†1459)

“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged..." Pope Innocent III

"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"

"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant." St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"

"A heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof; in the event of his still claiming the Roman see, a General Council, improperly so called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, Deposition

"The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head." Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils

"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself." (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago.)

Gregory I · « **Reply #134 on:** November 26, 2015, 11:59:10 PM »

Quote

"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself." (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago.)

Here is a photocopy of the page from the book.

Very important text, because the council fathers spoke plainly.