Quote from: Cantarella

For true apostolic succession to occur, both material and formal succession must exist.

As you obviously know, Cantarella, there doesn't always actually have to be an ACTUAL Pope.  As many SVs have repeatedly pointed out, there have been many lengthy periods of sedevacante in the past.  And there's no definition for how many years it would take before the Apostolic Succession would cease.  So R&R needs to define under what conditions it would actually cease.  Usually when R&R throw this argument out there it's done in such a way as to imply that there must be an absolutely-continuous succession of popes, not even one instant in which there isn't one.  That's a completely specious argument and it holds no water whatsoever.  Even during times of sedevacante the papacy continues to exist at least in potency ... if not in act.  In essence, it would have to get so bad that there would be no way any longer for the Church to get an ACTUAL pope.

So because it's clearly not related to time, Nishant formulated the ecclesiavacantist critique.

In the context of sedeprivationism, however, this problem completely goes away.  Even a material pope can make appointments and exercise the other material aspects of the jurisdiction.  So, for instance, if a heretical pope (materially but not formally pope) were to appoint a Bishop to a specific See, if that Bishop had no other impediments to formally exercise the office, he could indeed formally exercise the office.

How Sedeprivationism resolves the problem of the Magisterium's perceived defection in Vatican II Council, compared to the SSPX R&R?

The True Church of Christ was true up to Vatican II Council but then it defected?

John Salza:

I have reviewed a number of your claims, in addition to responses to them. I have determined that your position is false and contradictory.  It’s been docuмented that you repeatedly switch your position on the primary issues.  For example, sometimes you say that people cannot consider a person who says he's Catholic to be a heretic without an official Church process or judgment, but other times you say they can.  Are public figures who support abortion (such as Joe Biden) to be considered Catholics or heretics according to you, yes or no?  If you say no, that would contradict basically everything you are currently arguing on this issue.  If you say yes, that would really speak for itself and show you are in communion with the most notorious of heretics – and that, according to you, a person could believe in literally anything and must be considered Catholic, as long as he claims to be Catholic and hasn’t gone through an official condemnatory process.  

Also, do you agree with your endorser and colleague, Chris Ferrara, who has proclaimed “Cardinal” Walter Kasper a heretic?  Kasper hasn’t been declared a heretic or gone through an official process.  So, according to you, Kasper would have to be considered Catholic and not a heretic, right?  But even your endorser contradicts such a ridiculous conclusion, and proclaims Kasper (without any declaration) to be a heretic based on his clear contradiction of magisterial teachings.  

Also, according to you, are Catholics supposed to recognize the execrable Blase Cupich as the leader of the Catholic Church in Chicago, with whom they should be united in faith and government?  Should Catholics recognize and be under the German “bishops”, who endorse divorce and “remarriage” and even sodomy?  These considerations, besides many others, show that your position is a theological travesty.  

I tried to clarify who is saying what.  I didn't edit anything out except the final sentence - ("So yeah...").

TRUE OR FALSE POPE?
 Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors
 By John Salza and Robert Siscoe, 700 pages
 Foreword by His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay

Sneak Peak
 TABLE OF CONTENTS AND PREFACE

Quote from: True or False Pope

 True or False Pope? is the most thoroughly researched, detailed and systematic refutation of Sedevacantism that exists. In this 700 page tome, John Salza and Robert Siscoe present material from Popes, ecuмenical councils and Doctors of the Church that you will never find on a Sedevacantist website.

Doubtful.

Well, the book will remove those doubts for you. Stay tuned.

Quoting directly from today’s leading Sedevacantist apologists, Salza and Siscoe reveal how Sedevacantists have distorted the teachings of their favorite Popes and theologians, especially St. Robert Bellarmine, and how they even contradict each other. The book also reveals the many unfortunate tactics used by Sedevacantists in an effort to “prove” their case, that is, to defend what is indefensible.

Well what does St. Robert Bellarmine SAY?

 

"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us? This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope. To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian “simpliciter” [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one “secundum quid” [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian — the faith and the [baptismal] character — the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is “in extremis” [at the point of death]. Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, “in actu” [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her “in actu,” for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated “in actu” from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be “in actu” in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united “in actu” to Christ, but only potentially — and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, “in actu,” to Christ. Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter” for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope [“ad bene esse,” to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope (“ad bene esse papae”). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not “simpliciter,” but only “ad bene esse.” To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter,” but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures. Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary “simpliciter,” or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition “simpliciter” necessary, for the disposition “simpliciter” necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary “ad bene esse,” and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition. Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same. Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: “It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.” And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: “The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null. There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms. Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope. But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts. The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff. Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.” According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church. This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia. The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."

See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html#sthash.WwmzYSLU.dpuf


Is THAT enough context?????????

How impressive. You've cut and pasted from Bellarmine. As our book shows, Sedevacantists are very proficient at the cut and paste technique. Unfortunately, most of their scholarship does not go beyond it.

The authors begin by demonstrating that Sedevacantism logically results in a heretical denial of the attributes (visibility, indefectibility, infallibility) and marks (especially apostolicity) of the Catholic Church.

Lol. That is funny. Last I checked there are bishops, priests and deacons which are the elements of the Visible institutional Church. Even if none had Jurisdiction, the ability to obtain it remains in the Church, because she possesses the Papacy in potential and could in theory elect a Pope for herself who would grant her bishops jurisdiction.

Really? If all jurisdiction comes from the Pope but we haven't had a Pope since 1958, then where is the jurisdiction? There is a distinction between having jurisdiction and "the ability to obtain it" which means jurisdiction doesn't exist. This sedevacantist's statement proves too much for him.

The only ones who admit the Church is defectible are the RnR legal bar who are willing to assert that the heresies of Vatican II are the work of the Church's Magisterium, and therefore ultimately of Christ, which is blasphemous.

The Sedevacantist error of Monolithic Infallibility strikes again. Of course, because the Sedevacantist understanding of infallibility is erroneous, the Sedevacantist thesis is erroneous, as our book shows in spades.

After explaining the bonds that unite man to the true Church, the authors explain the distinction between heresy and lesser errors, and how the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church.

Ah, very conniving, because they are CORRECT, BUT they are making a smoke screen. They will argue: "Suppose a person gets in an argument with another person and in that argument says something heretical and refuses to retract it. Is he severed from the Church???"

No, he is not, because he is a SECRET heretic. He is subjectively guilty of the sin of heresy, but his excommunication is not ipso facto because it is not PUBLIC and MANIFEST. However, PUBLIC heretics fall from their office and lose jurisdiction ipso facto, as Bellarmine says above.

This Sedevacantist is quite confused. First, he obviously isn't aware that such a person is an occult excommunicate, if in fact he is subjectively guilty of heresy, but this is a judgment of the internal forum. Second, those guilty of the crime of heresy lose their office, but only after the Church establishes the crime. This Sedevacantist, in typical fashion, fails to understand that Bellarmine was giving his opinion about what happens to the heretic AFTER the Church judges the crime. Bellarmine certainly was not teaching that clerics lose their office automatically based on the private judgment of individual Catholics.

The authors then go on to provide the most detailed analysis in print of what the Church does in the case of a heretical Pope, based upon the teachings of all the classical theologians who addressed the topic.

What the Church chooses to DO to a manifestly Heretical Pope is quite distinct from the reality of Divine Law which states that a Public Heretic loses his office. What are being confused here are two things: Divine Law, and the appropriate application of canon law. Apples and oranges.

No, it is the Sedevacantist who has confused the issue. Heretics do not lose their office for the "sin of heresy under Divine law" since sin is a matter of the internal forum and Divine law does not bar a heretic from holding office in the Church, so long as he is tolerated by the Church. This is the teaching of Pope Alexander III and many other theologians, which you will never find on a Sedevacantist website.

After a very important explanation of the scope of infallibility (papal, conciliar, disciplinary, New Mass, canonizations), the authors tackle and refute the Sedevacantist arguments against the new rites of episcopal consecration and ordination.

 The authors conclude by affirming the Recognize & Resist position of Traditional Catholics, and expose in great detail the bitter fruits of Sedevacantism.

I can't wait. lol.

You can "lol" all you wish, but we can assure you that your laughter will be turned into tears.

This groundbreaking work proves the Sedevacantist thesis is an overreaction to the crisis in the Church, akin to the reflexive “faith” of Protestantism. This explains why Sedevacantists are divided into many competing factions and sects that even condemn each other, and some of these sects have also elected their own “Popes.”

Those would actually be CONCLAVISTS, not Sedevacantists. Is it any surprise that when the shepherd is struck the sheep will scatter?

They are Sedevacantists who have elected their own "Popes." But whether you wish to call them Sedevacantists or Conclavists, it doesn't matter. They are both guilty of the error of private judgment by usurpation, condemned by the Fourth Council of Constantinople.

The book also underscores that the Church is currently suffering a mystical Passion similar to that of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Like those who lost faith in Christ during His Passion, Sedevacantists have lost faith in the Church, His Mystical Body.

That's not true, they just claim the Novus Ordo isn't it. The Traditionalists are.

You bet it's true. Sedevacantists have lost faith in the Church because they refuse to recognize the suffering Church, and they can't point to a Church which has the three attributes and four marks of Christ's Church.

And, in doing so, they have become among her most bitter persecutors. No matter what one’s perspective is on the crisis of the Church, anyone who reads this book will conclude in no uncertain terms that Sedevacantism – one of the great modern errors of our times – far from being a “solution” to the crisis, cannot be held or defended in good faith by any true Catholic.

Then you will have to explain how St. Vincent Ferrer became a sedevacantist. He realized Pope Benedict XIII of Avignon was not willing to lay down his papacy in order to restore order in the Church and resolve the great western schism. So, to his face, he said that since Benedict XIII was unwilling to heal the Church, he had become schismatic. He therefore declared the Papal throne vacant, to his face, and refused to recognize the claimants of Rome or Pisa until the council of Constance elected Pope Martin V.

This shows how ignorant this Sedevacantist is. St. Vincent Ferrer was not a Sedevacantist because there was no universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope during the Western Schism. This Sedevacantist has a lot to learn. Be assured that our book will help him.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote

Not all SVs are also EVs.

The most common reasoning among sedevacantists is that the Pope lost pontificate due to heresy because a heretic places himself outside the Church and a heretic cannot be Pope.

Are all conciliar Bishops heretics? If not, which ones are not? I want to know their identities. If so, when did they commit heresy: by signing Vatican II docuмents, by universally accepting a heretic as a Pontiff, by committing mass apostasy, when was the precise moment they all became heretics? Per sede logic, they did at some point, (they do not agree when), thus placing themselves outside the Church and leaving their offices vacant, as happens with the Pope.

Every Bishop signed the Vatican II Council docuмents, including Archbishop Lefevbre.

Actually Bishop de Castro Mayer dos not sign one and neither did Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello.

Castro De Mayor was never a sedevacantist though, as he evidently recognizes Paul VI as his Pope, Vicar, Holy Father...in his letter on the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969 (posted below), and after 4 years after Vatican II Council, he himself was in communion.

Bishop de Castro Mayer letter on Novus Ordo Missae

http://sspx.org/en/bishop-de-castro-mayer-letter-novus-ordo-missae

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote

Not all SVs are also EVs.

The most common reasoning among sedevacantists is that the Pope lost pontificate due to heresy because a heretic places himself outside the Church and a heretic cannot be Pope.

Are all conciliar Bishops heretics? If not, which ones are not? I want to know their identities. If so, when did they commit heresy: by signing Vatican II docuмents, by universally accepting a heretic as a Pontiff, by committing mass apostasy, when was the precise moment they all became heretics? Per sede logic, they did at some point, (they do not agree when), thus placing themselves outside the Church and leaving their offices vacant, as happens with the Pope.

Every Bishop signed the Vatican II Council docuмents, including Archbishop Lefevbre.

Actually Bishop de Castro Mayer dos not sign one and neither did Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello.

Castro De Mayor was never a sedevacantist though, as he evidently recognizes Paul VI as his Pope, Vicar, Holy Father...in his letter on the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969 (posted below), and after 4 years after Vatican II Council, he himself was in communion.

Bishop de Castro Mayer letter on Novus Ordo Missae

http://sspx.org/en/bishop-de-castro-mayer-letter-novus-ordo-missae

Actually he was a Sedevacantist, but privately.

On the other hand he had a tendency towards sedevacantism, as when he would say of John Paul II, ‘Whoever does not belong to the body of the Church cannot be its head’.
“Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of this twofold tendency in Bishop de Castro Mayer, which is why he would say concerning the bishop’s legalism, ‘Bishop de Castro Mayer must understand that today we have to “go illegal”, if necessary’ (a remark to be understood, obviously, in the present context), and concerning his sedevacantism, Archbishop Lefebvre said, ‘Were it not for me, Bishop de Castro Mayer would be sedevacan-tist, but in order not to separate from us, he holds back from sedevacantism’.
“I think the Archbishop was right. There were in Bishop de Castro Mayer the two tendencies of legal-ism and sedevacantism."

http://www.leofec.com/bishop-williamson/275.html

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote

Not all SVs are also EVs.

The most common reasoning among sedevacantists is that the Pope lost pontificate due to heresy because a heretic places himself outside the Church and a heretic cannot be Pope.

Are all conciliar Bishops heretics? If not, which ones are not? I want to know their identities. If so, when did they commit heresy: by signing Vatican II docuмents, by universally accepting a heretic as a Pontiff, by committing mass apostasy, when was the precise moment they all became heretics? Per sede logic, they did at some point, (they do not agree when), thus placing themselves outside the Church and leaving their offices vacant, as happens with the Pope.

Every Bishop signed the Vatican II Council docuмents, including Archbishop Lefevbre.

Actually Bishop de Castro Mayer dos not sign one and neither did Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello.

Castro De Mayor was never a sedevacantist though, as he evidently recognizes Paul VI as his Pope, Vicar, Holy Father...in his letter on the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969 (posted below), and after 4 years after Vatican II Council, he himself was in communion.

Bishop de Castro Mayer letter on Novus Ordo Missae

http://sspx.org/en/bishop-de-castro-mayer-letter-novus-ordo-missae

Actually he was a Sedevacantist, but privately.

Well, publicly he was not which is what matters to us, and his approach was far different from the one you see in the average sedevacantist in 2015. At the most, Bishop Mayer speculated that the Council was suspect of heresy. He understood the appropriate distinctions and ecclesiastical procedures. Here are extracts from a talk he gave in São Paulo, Brazil, to an auditorium of TFP members about the New Mass and Vatican II Council.

From the exchange of opinions between Bishop Castro Mayer and Prof. Corrêa de Oliveira:

Quote

Prof. Plinio - Your Excellency spoke about the ambiguity of the Council, and I spoke of those ambiguities making up a system of thinking. Let me elaborate on this point so that Your Excellency may tell me whether it is right or wrong. I believe that by putting all these ambiguities together, what emerges is a wrong doctrine, a false doctrine. These are not, therefore, accidental ambiguities due to the inaccuracy of the writers. Even when the ambiguities are contradictory, there is a common thread that weaves them together. I used the expression “the suspicion of heresy.”

It is good to point out to those here [in the auditorium] who are accustomed to the language and implications of civil law, that when a person is suspected of a crime in civil law, he is supposed innocent until proven guilty. Thus, even when he is suspected of a crime, he is to be treated as innocent. This is not the case with the suspicion of heresy in Canon Law. To be suspected of heresy is a crime in itself. Therefore, when such a situation presents itself, when an individual author writes ambiguous things representing an erroneous system of thinking, he objectively acts wrongly and commits a crime. It is not licit for him to do this.

 Applying this to the Council, we cannot go so far as to say: “The Council has these many ambiguities, therefore it is heretical.” But we can say: “It is in an irregular situation according to Canon Law.” It seems that the Council’s systematic ambiguity goes against the teaching mission of the Church.

Is this position correct?

Bishop Mayer - If the study of the Council would prove that a systematic ambiguity was used always toward the same end, a suspicion [of heresy] could be held over the authors of the Council. For this suspicion to constitute a crime, it should be confirmed by the authors. If they do not confirm the suspicion, they are not subject to the canonical punishment.

Prof. Plinio - Do they incur crime, but are not subject to penalty?

Bishop Mayer - According to the Canon Law when they incur crime, the penalty applies. If they are not subject to the penalty it is because they did not incur crime.

Prof. Plinio - I understand. You are right.

Bishop Mayer - Absolutely speaking, unless a clear charge is made against a person, he is exempt from punishment. He may be subject to an inquiry regarding the orthodoxy of his thinking. But he will still have the chance to publicly defend himself and say that he understood this or that thesis in such and such way [that is not against the Faith].

Prof. Plinio - I wonder whether for the good of the Church the solution for this situation would be for a group of Bishops and the faithful who see an ensemble of systematic ambiguities in the Council docuмents to take a public position exposing their perplexity and asking for an explanation. I am not sure to whom this should be directed - John Paul II, the ensemble of the conciliar fathers, the Council itself - I don’t know.

Bishop Mayer - I don’t know either. Perhaps one could direct it straight to the Pope and to the commission in charge of interpreting the Council.

Bishop Sanborn talks about Sedeprivationism here http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf and explains the theological reasons for it. It is quite good, because it take into account the difference between what the Church does legally, and the spiritual reality.

Sedeprivationism is ACTUALLY called the Cassiciacuм or Material/Formal thesis.

For example, Luther was a Public heretic in 1517 and objectively did not exist as a Catholic any longer, formally. But he was not excommunicated until 1521. He was therefore no longer either a material or formal Catholic.

I like what he says about Novus Ordo Catholics:

"Their legal status as Catholics is confirmed by the fact that all traditional priests admit them to the practice of the traditional Faith without any lifting of excommunication, and without any public or formal abjuration of error. "

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

I love how Stubborn likes to trot out the super ad hominem, "Cekadian!", whenever someone writes something he doesn't like.


 :roll-laugh1:

Well, look at you. You've been out of the NO for what, a whole year now? Or is it two whole years? Three? Five?

I remember you saying that reading Fr. Cekada's works eventually led you to SVism - which is a shame really. In many of his writings it is plain to see the remnants of his 10 years of NO priestly formation before he discovered tradition, and his UOM version is one of those remnants. My guess is that for those who've done their time in the NO, they more easily accept his version because some of the same remnants of the NO remain in them as well.

And I never really intended for it to be a super ad hominem, just an appropriate label.

Fr Cekada believes and teaches what the Church teaches:  that the UOM is infallible.  You, on the other hand, believe heresy:  that the UOM is fallible.

Of course, I'm sure you'll provide Church teaching to support your heretical view....in ...3...2....

2Vermont,
Fr. Cekada earned a Bachelor's Degree in Novus Ordo Theology using Novus Ordo curriculum from a Novus Ordo Seminary, then he was a Novus Ordo Monk for two years. He had 10 years of Novus Ordo theological, philosophical training, formation and indoctrination before entering the SSPX Seminary in Econe, 2 years later he was ordained a priest by +ABL, 8 years later he was kicked out of the SSPX. Not surprising, +Sanborn, +Dolan, +Kelly all had similar formations, all got kicked out of the SSPX and I wouldn't be surprised if the others that were kicked out at that time all shared the same NO indoctrination.  

So when you say Fr. Cekada teaches what the Church teaches, consider, at least consider that his NO formation reflects much of what he teaches, which, like all things NO, is in fact at least confused and always partially corrupted.

This is why the Cekadian version of the UOM consists a confused group of people, sometimes consisting of some or all the Bishops, sometimes a few saints or theologians, basically his UOM consists of whoever is necessary to prove a point at any given time - but one thing the Cekadian UOM never includes is the pope (which is convenient for a SV), even though the pope is the head of the UOM, the other thing his UOM confuses is Universal. The "Universal" in the Cekadian UOM, is an ambiguous number that can mean whatever anyone chooses it to mean - but one thing is certain, it does not actually mean "universal".

As if you do not know, these are tell tale signs of Novus Ordo teaching, teachings where there are no absolutes, everything is open to interpretation - just like his version of the UOM, which is the NO version of the UOM that he was taught in his NO curriculum at his NO seminary - which you and so many people fall for as being a Church teaching.
 

As predicted, still no Church teaching that the OUM is fallible.

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".