Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 70914 times)

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #150 on:** November 27, 2015, 10:31:14 AM »

Quote from: PaulFC

I appreciate your input and I understand the argument. What I am saying is, the quotes from the Church on the subject clearly refer to a person that has not yet been officially declared a heretic, so Salza cannot possibly use the argument you are saying.

Never underestimate the ability of a lawyer to twist the meaning of words. Don't forget, Bill Clinton was a lawyer who seriously called into question the meaning of the word "is".

Cantarella · « **Reply #151 on:** November 27, 2015, 11:09:37 AM »

Quote from: PaulFC

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:

Do you know who these Bishops are?

Christ Promised the visible magisterium to exist until the end of times. It is that visible Magisterium is supplies jurisdiction, so where is it?

From what you said, the possibility we may find some Bishops ("who have retained the teachings of the faith before Vatican II") in the current conciliar hierarchy is there. Yes?

Cantarella · « **Reply #152 on:** November 27, 2015, 11:31:40 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

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.

Catholictrue has a point here and that is the Achilles heel of arguing against sedevacantism from a SSPX R&R perspective. It is not simple disobedience which makes a schism, but disobedience in an issue that touches on the ecclesiastical unity of the Church (For instance, the illegitimate ordination of bishops whereby the Apostolic Succession is compromised)" Although every case of schism involves disobedience, only certain types of disobedience constitute schism.

Regarding the Pope's loss of office due to heresy, in Canon Law the Pope is not ultimately bound except by the Divine Law so most talk about ecclesiastical penalties and procedures in regards to heretics from the angle of Ecclesiastical Law are a huge waste of time. It is de fide that the Roman Pontiff can be judged by none in this world although he may be rebuked and corrected by the Church's competent authority.

Gregory I · « **Reply #153 on:** November 27, 2015, 11:57:47 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: PaulFC

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:

Do you know who these Bishops are?

Christ Promised the visible magisterium to exist until the end of times. It is that visible Magisterium is supplies jurisdiction, so where is it?

From what you said, the possibility we may find some Bishops ("who have retained the teachings of the faith before Vatican II") in the current conciliar hierarchy is there. Yes?

NO, hang on, you are confusing two things here.

1. The Pope has TWO primacies in the Church:

a. Primacy of Doctrine-------->Infalliblity, Magisterium.
b. Primacy of Jurisdiction---------->freely exercise authority of governance over every Catholic.

Jurisdiction is the power to Govern, and is inherent in the office of the Papacy.

The Magisterium is the TEACHING authority inherent in the office.

The magisterium does not grant jurisdiction. It is the authority from Christ given to the Pope, and those in communion with him, to teach in the name of Christ.

The Power of Jurisdiction is the authority given by Christ to the papacy to Rule. No other bishop has Ordinary jurisdiction unless the Pope grants jurisdiction when he grants an apostolic mandate to all the bishops he establishes.

Now, if we take your logic strictly, Let us ask ourselves:

IN a 3 year interregnum, after the death of the Pope, What became of the apostolic mandates of all the bishops of the world? Even better, what of the apostolic mandates of those bishops, established by other bishops, during the interregnum? Did they govern their diocese' legitimately, or schismatically?

These are questions related to Jurisdiction.

Regarding the Church's magisterium, her authority to teach, I ALREADY told you this: The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is PASSIVLEY exercised when all the faithful taken together, hold as definitive matters of faith and morals. It is a preservative power.

AGAIN, Tanquerey, writing in 1894 explicitly says this:

Quote

4. The Common Understanding of the Faithful

295 Revealed doctrine can be discovered not only among the Pastors and other leaders who teach with the Pastors, but also among the faithful who with a common or general understanding profess a unanimous faith.

In order that this common understanding be a criterion of revelation, it must be:
a. certain and clear,
b. unanimous,
c. concerned with important matters of faith and of morals.

The fact that the general agreement of the faithful is then a criterion of revelation is proved:

a. From the indefectibility of the Church. We have already stated that the Church cannot fail. But the Church would be failing in essentials if she were a society of erring souls. Therefore.

b. From the Fathers. For example, St. Augustine, in refuting the Pelagians, proved the existence of original sin in little children and the need, therefore, of baptism for these, from the common understanding of the faithful. This he regarded as a very strong argument of faith.

296 Other pertinent notes on this subject are these:

a. This infallibility in believing is often-times called passive infallibility; it depends on active infallibility (in teaching) which should always direct it.

b. We should avoid the error of those who think that the Church teaching merely confirms the opinions of the Church learning.4 For the Church teaching must pass judgment on these opinions, approve them or condemn them, and in this way direct the faith of her subjects and turn them from error.

c. Therefore, the faithful in the Church are in no way the teachers, they do not define authoritatively, but they give their belief. The Teachers impart and define the truth which all believe. But God is able to employ the faithful to promote some devotion, for example, the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; but even in such an instance all proceeds under the authority of the Bishops — they alone are the authoritative judges and proclaimers of the faith.

The great IRONY, is that the Novus Ordo and Vatican II Church is PRECISELY:

Quote

But the Church would be failing in essentials if she were a society of erring souls.

The ENTIRETY of the Novus Ordo Church of Vatican II since Paul VI is a society of erring souls. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is proof positive, the RCIA experience is proof positive, the Homilies of deluded priests is proof positive, and the inanity and moral decrepancy of the bishops, to say nothing of their doctrinal deviation is proof positive!

Therefore, the Conciliar "Church" is a defective and defected Church.

Or is this more of the work of Christ, which you must admit if you subscribe to the Vatican II "Magisterium" which is the Rule of Christ in his Church?

PaulFC · « **Reply #154 on:** November 27, 2015, 12:18:28 PM »

Quote from: RobS

We address at length the erroneous claim that Vatican II should have been covered by the Church’s infallibility by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. And if you believe the term “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” is equivalent to the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,” and that anything that comes from the “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” (even when not proposed definitively) must necessarily be infallible, please cite your source.

In the book, you will find a citation affirming that the Supreme Magisterium is not, per se, infallible.

RobS,

Your view of the magisterium of the Church is entirely non-Catholic. The Catholic Church is unanimous in stating that the magisterium consists of ordinary teaching and solemn teaching, BOTH infallible. All sources state this, and I can provide many. But to keep it brief for now, let's look at the definition of Infallibility in "A Catholic Dictionary" (imprimatur, 1931-1957):

"This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in the article "Science and the Church", under this section, "The Holders of the Teaching Office", explains it simply:
"The official activity of teaching may be exercised either in the ordinary, or daily, magisterium, or by occasional solemn decisions. The former goes on uninterruptedly; the latter are called forth in times of great danger, especially of growing heresies."

If there is one thing you should remember from this post, it is that the magisterium teaches in two ways; ordinary and solemn, both being infallible. All definitions state this.

Probably one of the most important quotes confirming this, which I'm sure you must have seen before, is from the First Vatican Council, where it states:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

If you think about this for a moment, this General Council could not have possibly solemnly mandated all of the faithful believe BOTH solemn and ordinary teaching from the Church if there were exceptions to their infallibility as you are claiming. This Council freely declared this because there are no exceptions to their infallibility.

Many other quotes can be given but this is a good start. It must be noted that there are many terms used by the Church referring to the Magisterium that mean the same thing. For example, you may see the solemn magisterium referred to as the extraordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium may be referred to as the universal ordinary magisterium, or the ordinary and universal magisterium, the ordinary teaching office, etc. etc. Using other words like "supreme" and other fancy words does not change the fact that the magisterium of the Church consists of ordinary and solemn teaching, both infallible at all times. If error is seen, the answer is that it is not part of the magisterium, since we know the Church cannot be the author of error. If you believe otherwise, please provide sources from the Church that are more authoritative.

Cantarella · « **Reply #155 on:** November 27, 2015, 12:51:21 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

The ENTIRETY of the Novus Ordo Church of Vatican II since Paul VI is a society of erring souls. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is proof positive, the RCIA experience is proof positive, the Homilies of deluded priests is proof positive, and the inanity and moral decrepancy of the bishops, to say nothing of their doctrinal deviation is proof positive!

Therefore, the Conciliar "Church" is a defective and defected Church.

You really need to address this:

Quote from: RobS

It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.

McCork · « **Reply #156 on:** November 27, 2015, 02:04:49 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Gregory I
The ENTIRETY of the Novus Ordo Church of Vatican II since Paul VI is a society of erring souls. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is proof positive, the RCIA experience is proof positive, the Homilies of deluded priests is proof positive, and the inanity and moral decrepancy of the bishops, to say nothing of their doctrinal deviation is proof positive!

Therefore, the Conciliar "Church" is a defective and defected Church.

You really need to address this:

Quote from: RobS

It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.

Cantarella, you missed the subtle point by G1 where he puts "Church" in quotes. This means he doesn't really believe it is a Church, and that he is not going to elaborate on it there to avoid cluttering his main point.

In truth, only the Catholic Church deserves the description of a "Church" because it is the only true Church. A false Church is not a Church. What we have working within the realm of the true Church is an "illegitimate following" of men who claim to represent the Church but really do not because of their heresies. The "illegitimate following" is a sort of entity itself, a sort of club, which for the sake of convenience we call the "Conciliar Church".

Cantarella · « **Reply #157 on:** November 27, 2015, 02:30:09 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Gregory I
The ENTIRETY of the Novus Ordo Church of Vatican II since Paul VI is a society of erring souls. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is proof positive, the RCIA experience is proof positive, the Homilies of deluded priests is proof positive, and the inanity and moral decrepancy of the bishops, to say nothing of their doctrinal deviation is proof positive!

Therefore, the Conciliar "Church" is a defective and defected Church.

You really need to address this:

Quote from: RobS

It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.

Cantarella, you missed the subtle point by G1 where he puts "Church" in quotes. This means he doesn't really believe it is a Church, and that he is not going to elaborate on it there to avoid cluttering his main point.

In truth, only the Catholic Church deserves the description of a "Church" because it is the only true Church. A false Church is not a Church. What we have working within the realm of the true Church is an "illegitimate following" of men who claim to represent the Church but really do not because of their heresies. The "illegitimate following" is a sort of entity itself, a sort of club, which for the sake of convenience we call the "Conciliar Church".

Yes, but this "Conciliar" Church at some point in time had to be the Catholic Church (let's say right before the Council, October 10, 1962). It is unrealistic to say that 2600 Catholic Bishops entered the Council being the True Church of Christ and came out of the Council as apostates, NOT being the True Church of Christ anymore. Either a substantial change happened to the Church of Christ during the Council or did not. If it did not (not really, but just appears as if), then the pre / post conciliar Church is one and the same and there is continuity, at least materially. If it did, then the True Church of Christ (2600 bishops entering the Council on October 10, 1962) defected, which we know is impossible.

"By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected".

McCork · « **Reply #158 on:** November 27, 2015, 02:57:19 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Gregory I
The ENTIRETY of the Novus Ordo Church of Vatican II since Paul VI is a society of erring souls. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is proof positive, the RCIA experience is proof positive, the Homilies of deluded priests is proof positive, and the inanity and moral decrepancy of the bishops, to say nothing of their doctrinal deviation is proof positive!

Therefore, the Conciliar "Church" is a defective and defected Church.

You really need to address this:

Quote from: RobS

It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.

Cantarella, you missed the subtle point by G1 where he puts "Church" in quotes. This means he doesn't really believe it is a Church, and that he is not going to elaborate on it there to avoid cluttering his main point.

In truth, only the Catholic Church deserves the description of a "Church" because it is the only true Church. A false Church is not a Church. What we have working within the realm of the true Church is an "illegitimate following" of men who claim to represent the Church but really do not because of their heresies. The "illegitimate following" is a sort of entity itself, a sort of club, which for the sake of convenience we call the "Conciliar Church".

Yes, but this "Conciliar" Church at some point in time had to be the Catholic Church (let's say right before the Council, October 10, 1962). It is unrealistic to say that 2600 Catholic Bishops entered the Council being the True Church of Christ and came out of the Council as apostates, NOT being the True Church of Christ anymore. Either a substantial change happened to the Church of Christ during the Council or did not. If it did not (not really, but just appears as if), then the pre / post conciliar Church is one and the same and there is continuity, at least materially. If it did, then the True Church of Christ (2600 bishops entering the Council on October 10, 1962) defected, which we know is impossible.

"By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected".

Nobody said everyone did or will defect. What you are here directly implying is that Holy Scripture is unrealistic. You are criticising Holy Scripture! It has been predicted by Holy Scripture that there will be a great falling away, and that a remnant will remain so obscure that it will be able to hide from the Antichrist for years. It is been well-known without complaint since St. Athanasius penned it, that the Church can become a handful of faithful and still be the true Church, without the buildings. Vatican II occurred, and a great falling away is in the process of happening, There are a handful that reject Vatican II and are keeping the faith.

Cantarella · « **Reply #159 on:** November 27, 2015, 07:44:29 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Gregory I
The ENTIRETY of the Novus Ordo Church of Vatican II since Paul VI is a society of erring souls. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is proof positive, the RCIA experience is proof positive, the Homilies of deluded priests is proof positive, and the inanity and moral decrepancy of the bishops, to say nothing of their doctrinal deviation is proof positive!

Therefore, the Conciliar "Church" is a defective and defected Church.

You really need to address this:

Quote from: RobS

It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.

Cantarella, you missed the subtle point by G1 where he puts "Church" in quotes. This means he doesn't really believe it is a Church, and that he is not going to elaborate on it there to avoid cluttering his main point.

In truth, only the Catholic Church deserves the description of a "Church" because it is the only true Church. A false Church is not a Church. What we have working within the realm of the true Church is an "illegitimate following" of men who claim to represent the Church but really do not because of their heresies. The "illegitimate following" is a sort of entity itself, a sort of club, which for the sake of convenience we call the "Conciliar Church".

Yes, but this "Conciliar" Church at some point in time had to be the Catholic Church (let's say right before the Council, October 10, 1962). It is unrealistic to say that 2600 Catholic Bishops entered the Council being the True Church of Christ and came out of the Council as apostates, NOT being the True Church of Christ anymore. Either a substantial change happened to the Church of Christ during the Council or did not. If it did not (not really, but just appears as if), then the pre / post conciliar Church is one and the same and there is continuity, at least materially. If it did, then the True Church of Christ (2600 bishops entering the Council on October 10, 1962) defected, which we know is impossible.

"By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected".

Nobody said everyone did or will defect. What you are here directly implying is that Holy Scripture is unrealistic. You are criticising Holy Scripture! It has been predicted by Holy Scripture that there will be a great falling away, and that a remnant will remain so obscure that it will be able to hide from the Antichrist for years. It is been well-known without complaint since St. Athanasius penned it, that the Church can become a handful of faithful and still be the true Church, without the buildings. Vatican II occurred, and a great falling away is in the process of happening, There are a handful that reject Vatican II and are keeping the faith.

The fact that God indeed always operates through a small remnant (His true flock) in the midst of the apostasy of the many, and it has always been so, since the beginning of time, has absolutely nothing to do with sedevacantism, or the supposed Magisterium's defection in Vatican II, which was the point I was trying to make; but if anything, it should be a reminder and a lesson on the continuity of the True Religion of the Just through time.

Quote

The constant focus of God's action, in the Old and New Testaments, is on the remnant. When all Israel is ready to apostasize and stone Moses, it is Moses God is concerned with; He is ready to consume the unfaithful. When ten of the twelve tribes go after foreign gods, God sends them away into oblivion. When Jerusalem sins, God wipes them away like one wipes a dish but encourages the small remnant who remains to be faithful. It is the remnant that must be encouraged, the remnant that must be strengthened, the good of the remnant which must be preserved. It is the remnant which will fulfill God's will; it always has, whether that remnant was 7,000 men, as in the case of Elijah, or a single man, in the case of Moses.

The modern Church is fundamentally afraid of entering into a remnant scenario; petrified of a circuмstance when the world scoffs and laughs at her, in which she loses all relevance. And therefore she tries everything to postpone or avoid this state of affairs, even to the point of compromising very basic Catholic disciplines and inventing ingenious ways around doctrine. Ultimately, it is because they do not trust God. They care about numbers; "What are we going to do about declining Mass attendance?" "What about these abysmal baptismal statistics?" God doesn't care about your numbers; He cares about truth. Just preach the truth. Let God worry about the numbers. If hearts are soft, they will repent and come back by the preaching of the truth. If not, the truth will serve as a sword against them, and they shall go forth, and God will wipe them away as one wipes a dish, and the 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal will rise up in judgment against them, and the Lord will start over again if He needs to, working out His mysterious providence through the remnant that He has chosen by grace.

God works through remnants. And He doesn't care about the numbers. He will wipe everything out and start over if He has to. He's done it before. It's the way He operates.

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2014/03/god-is-not-impressed-by-numbers.html

Gregory I · « **Reply #160 on:** November 27, 2015, 11:38:22 PM »

Quote

Yes, but this "Conciliar" Church at some point in time had to be the Catholic Church (let's say right before the Council, October 10, 1962). It is unrealistic to say that 2600 Catholic Bishops entered the Council being the True Church of Christ and came out of the Council as apostates, NOT being the True Church of Christ anymore. Either a substantial change happened to the Church of Christ during the Council or did not. If it did not (not really, but just appears as if), then the pre / post conciliar Church is one and the same and there is continuity, at least materially. If it did, then the True Church of Christ (2600 bishops entering the Council on October 10, 1962) defected, which we know is impossible.

"By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected".

Hang on, you are heading the right direction, but veering off track.

VATICAN II was a substantial change. The changes introduced by IT are substantial Change. The Church herself remains unchanged.

What this demonstrates is that VATICAN II cannot come from legitimate magisterial authority. It is therefore not an act of the Church, and not an act of Christ reigning in his Church.

Now, THERE WAS NO MASS EPISCOPAL DEFECTION. I want to be clear. There WERE many bishops who signed out of confusion. But they all walked out bishops, they all walked out occupying their sees. The single exception would be Paul VI.

He Formally was stripped of his authority and his jurisdiction. Why? Because he promulgated Public Heresy.

Nevertheless, he materially retained the Papal Office, but, he placed an obstacle between the office and the authority: Heresy.

Since he no longer willed the good of the Church, and he proved he did not objectively have the good of the Church in mind, through his heresy, he was formally stripped of jurisdiction.

SO, the question you are asking is :

When Vatican II ended, where was the Church?

Where she had always been:

But she was now formally headless.

AS the years would roll by, the heresies from Vatican II, resulting from its implementation, would creep through each diocese and eviscerate it.

BUT those who would remain faithful to tradition, who would call the heresy heresy, who separated themselves from these perversions, THEY are the ones who retained the Catholic faith.

The 7000 whom God had reserved who had not bowed their knees to Ba'al, that was the Traditionalists.

The laity who are stuck within the Novus Ordo establishment however, are, and remain, through their general goodwill, Catholics, since no canonical act has ever severed them from the Church. And the "Bishops" retain their material offices through common factual error, and as a result, the Church supplies jurisdiction to these various elections of various bishops. Ecclesia Supplet. JURISDICTION, NOT GRACE.

The same with the Cardinals. There is this really ridiculous cry of "IF THERE IS NO POPE THERE ARE NO CARDINALS!"

Not true. These men who are designated through election to the Papacy, they possess a valid election, but their heresy (from willfully implementing and acting upon Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Mass and apostasy, from ecuмenical activity) is an obstacle to the exercise of Jurisdiction.

Now, the Cardinals and the "Popes" are of the same mindset. So, they approach him, anticipating him to be Pope, and make an error of FACT. Making that error, they receive from the "Pope" the Cardinals hat.

Because this is a common error of Fact, and Even a LEGAL Common Error, the Church Supplies Jurisdiction, and they obtain the Cardinals Hat Validly and Canonically, even from a Formally Heretical Pope who has no Ordinary Jurisdiction due to heresy.

So, we have many structures that remain intact due to Common Factual Error, and we have simultaneously many Heretical Bishops, MOST of which are Doubtfully Consecrated as Priests and Bishops.

THIS gets into the Fact that Pope Pius XII IRREFORMABLY set the Form for the Ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons in "Sacramentum Ordinis." This means, it is literally an IRREFORMABLE act, and the fact that the reform of it was attempted simply proves those trying to do it are not who they say they are. The Church cannot do this.

See for yourself, he is invoking Papal Infallibility:

Quote

"Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.

5. As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: In the Ordination to the Diaconate, the matter is the one imposition of the hand of the Bishop which occurs in the rite of that Ordination. The form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:" etc.
...

These things We proclaim, declare, and decree, all things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those worthy of special mention, and accordingly We will and order that in the Roman Pontifical they be clearly indicated. Let no man therefore infringe this Constitution which We have enacted, nor dare to contravene the same.

You can't really BE more forceful...

This is an irreformable act, one that cannot be undone, Rome has spoken. YET, Paul VI undid it. Further prof that he simply could no be Pope.

SO, as the years wind on, and as these priests are ordained in dubious rites, and as bishops are consecrated in Profoundly doubtful consecrations, the number of true priests rapidly dwindles.

YET, we know, and in fact have made lists of bishops who are still alive from Pope Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI. There are Very many spread all over the world.

In addition, we have the ordinations by Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre, and

Archbishop Thuc apparently was granted a Motu Proprio by Pius XI where he didn't NEED Papal permission to consecrate Bishops.
http://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC.html# (Photos of docuмents).

And the Church Retains the Passive Exercise of Her Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

But the Novus Ordo is not the Church. Its CHARTER was Vatican II. Its Membership was an exponential swelling from 1965 onward to the present day. The LEAVING that took place was the Silent Apostasy JPII spoke of, from Tradition, to Protestantism. From Catholic, to Anglican.

The Novus Ordo Chruch is basically the Church of England now. It has the High Church and the Low Church, for those with different tastes. It has extreme liberals, and extreme conservatices, and very borad-minded priests, ALL under the Vatican II umbrella. It followed the same program of Reform as England: "Make the Mass Vernacular, introduce small changes, insist on the priority of fellowship." It's exactly what happened. The English Reformation is a near perfect Model of the Novus Ordo.

But Cantarella, don't be so surprised, it was FORESEEN by Marie Julie Jahenny, who had approbation from her local Bishop. She literally saw this happening and said so.

Quote

"On 10th of May 1904, She (Our Lady) denotes the new clergy and its
Mass :

« They won't stop at this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go
further TO COMPROMISE ALL AT ONCE AND IN ONE GO, THE HOLY
CHURCH, THE CLERGY AND THE FAITH OF MY CHILDREN... » She
announces the « DISPERSION OF THE PASTORS » by the Church itself ;
real pastors who will be replaced by others formed by hell, initiated in
all vices, ALL INIQUITIES, PERFIDIOUS, WHO WILL COVER SOULS
WITH FILTH... NEW PREACHERS OF NEW SACRAMENTS, NEW
TEMPLES, NEW BAPTISMS, NEW CONFRATERNITIES. . . >

She says LOTS more too:

Quote

1881: THE GREATER NUMBER [OF BISHOPS] ARE READY TO GIVE THEIR FAITH TO SAVE THEIR BODIES... THE SUFFERING THEY CAUSE (the Church) WILL
NEVER BE REPAIRED. IN A SHORT TIME THE PASTORS OF THE
CHURCH WILL HAVE SPREAD SCANDALS EVERYWHERE AND WILL
HAVE GIVEN THE LAST SWORD THRUST TO HOLY CHURCH. -

Quote

She frequently announced that the enemies of the Church would
penetrate into its bosom "AND PERPETRATE HORRIBLE SCANDALS
AND THRUST THE SWORD INTO THE HEART OF THE CHURCH.
RAGE HAS NEVER BEEN GREATER."
She assisted at a dialogue between Our Lord and Lucifer and the
latter said
:
I will attack the Church. I will overthrow the Cross, I will decimate
the people, I will deposit a great weakness of Faith in hearts. THERE
WILL ALSO BE A GREAT DENIAL OF RELIGION. FOR A TIME I WILL
BE MASTER OF ALL THINGS, EVERYTHING WILL BE UNDER MY
CONTROL, EVEN YOUR TEMPLE AND ALL YOUR PEOPLE,
.
« Saint Michael says that Satan will have possession of everything for
some time and that he will reign completely over everything ; that all
goodness, Faith, Religion WILL BE BURIED IN THE TOMB, . . Satan and
his own will triumph with joy, but after this triumph, the Lord will in
His turn gather His own people and WILL REIGN AND TRIUMPH OVER
EVIL AND WILL RAISE UP FROM THE TOMB THE BURIED CHURCH,
the prostrated Cross...

Read it for yourself, page 40.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B72oYysTeSi1MHVvYkRlZ3pfVTQ

In fact, read the whole book. We're there.

Best for last:

Quote

On 27th of November 1902 and 10th of May 1904, Our Lord and Our
Lady announced the - New Mass >. Listen :
- I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are
now working hard to remake according to their ideas AND UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF THE ENEMY OF SOULS A MASS THAT CONTAINS
WORDS THAT ARE ODIOUS IN MY SIGHT.

When the fatal hour arrives when the faith of my priests is put to the
test, it will be (these texts) that will be CELEBRATED IN THIS SECOND
PERIOD... THE FIRST PERIOD IS (THE ONE) OF MY PRIESTHOOD
WHICH EXISTS SINCE ME. THE SECOND is (the one) of the
persecution WHEN THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH and of Holy Religion
(will impose their formulas) in the book of the second celebration...
THESE INFAMOUS SPIRITS ARE THOSE WHO CRUCIFIED ME and are
awaiting THE KINGDOM OF THE NEW MESSIAH >

Amakusa · « **Reply #161 on:** November 28, 2015, 04:16:38 AM »

Gregory I, you quote Marie-Julie Jahenny, but you don't know her prophecies. Do you know when they have been found back? In 1972. And do you know what the Lord had said about their disappearance? He had said that they would be found back when they would be better understood. Well, 1972, is the date of Paul VI's replacement with a double. In France, the two persons who look after the house of Marie-Julie believe in Paul VI's survival.

One day you will understand this prophecy:

M.-J. JAHENNY, September 18th, 1877:

"At the foot of the mountain, in a rock, I see like a solitary cell where an old man with white hair is imprisoned and his face shining. He wears a cross on his chest. Jesus receives him and embraces him. He dries his tears and says to him: For a long time you carry the cross but soon I will give you back all your rights and your freedom!"

Stubborn · « **Reply #162 on:** November 28, 2015, 06:16:44 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont

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

I tell you what 2V, since you are so sure of your Cekadian inspired belief, why don't you just show your knowledge on this subject and actually contribute something useful, like produce a teaching or lesson from the Church - either papal, solemn or magisterial - which accurately reflects your belief as regards the infallibility of the UOM.

After producing either papal, solemn or magisterial teachings, then feel free to post theological explanations of those teachings if you need to.

Pope Pius XII refers to the OUM here as part of his declaration on the Assumption of Mary. The infallible teaching of the Assumption was always taught and believed as part of the infallible OUM:

But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God" gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful," affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.

Note the following criteria as dictated by PPXII in the above part of your quote:

1) The reason PPXII gives as grounds to define this dogma, is because Our Lady's Assumption into heaven was "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which means it's been taught by virtually all the Catholic hierarchy since the time of the Apostles. This is the criteria right here. This is it.

"Almost unanimous" means what it says.

What "almost unanimous" does *not* mean, is 'one or more of bishops, theologians, saints, Canon Law, or Catechisms', these things comprise the Cekadian OUM and his OUM are always automatically infallible - otherwise they loose their offices ipso facto.

2) PPXII confirms that due to #1 above itself, the Assumption was already dogma even before he defined it and because of #1, we can be certain that the Assumption is a revealed truth, contained in the deposit of faith.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth, and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

Note that the Holy Ghost is specifically *not* promised to manifest new doctrine, which is what V2's Novus Ordo is, a new doctrine.

The Holy Ghost *is* promised "so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith." Which is to say that if the teachings have not been unanimously taught since the time of the apostles, which means that if the teachings are not from the deposit of faith, protection from error by the Holy Ghost is not promised.

"all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

We are not and never were and never will be bound to believe the NO because it is not contained in Scripture or tradition, nor has it ever been proposed by the Church either solemnly or in it's OUM as divinely revealed truths which must be believed.

Rather, the NO was perpetrated and forced upon the lethargic faithful population who for many decades were taught to believe that no matter what came out of Rome, it was always automatically infallible, which is what Fr. Cekada was taught, which is why he teaches such a thing which he in turn uses to confuse the masses and to promulgate SVism.

2Vermont · « **Reply #163 on:** November 28, 2015, 07:36:59 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont

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

I tell you what 2V, since you are so sure of your Cekadian inspired belief, why don't you just show your knowledge on this subject and actually contribute something useful, like produce a teaching or lesson from the Church - either papal, solemn or magisterial - which accurately reflects your belief as regards the infallibility of the UOM.

After producing either papal, solemn or magisterial teachings, then feel free to post theological explanations of those teachings if you need to.

Pope Pius XII refers to the OUM here as part of his declaration on the Assumption of Mary. The infallible teaching of the Assumption was always taught and believed as part of the infallible OUM:

But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God" gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful," affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.

Note the following criteria as dictated by PPXII in the above part of your quote:

1) The reason PPXII gives as grounds to define this dogma, is because Our Lady's Assumption into heaven was "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which means it's been taught by virtually all the Catholic hierarchy since the time of the Apostles. This is the criteria right here. This is it.

"Almost unanimous" means what it says.

What "almost unanimous" does *not* mean, is 'one or more of bishops, theologians, saints, Canon Law, or Catechisms', these things comprise the Cekadian OUM and his OUM are always automatically infallible - otherwise they loose their offices ipso facto.

2) PPXII confirms that due to #1 above itself, the Assumption was already dogma even before he defined it and because of #1, we can be certain that the Assumption is a revealed truth, contained in the deposit of faith.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth, and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

Note that the Holy Ghost is specifically *not* promised to manifest new doctrine, which is what V2's Novus Ordo is, a new doctrine.

The Holy Ghost *is* promised "so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith." Which is to say that if the teachings have not been unanimously taught since the time of the apostles, which means that if the teachings are not from the deposit of faith, protection from error by the Holy Ghost is not promised.

"all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

We are not and never were and never will be bound to believe the NO because it is not contained in Scripture or tradition, nor has it ever been proposed by the Church either solemnly or in it's OUM as divinely revealed truths which must be believed.

Rather, the NO was perpetrated and forced upon the lethargic faithful population who for many decades were taught to believe that no matter what came out of Rome, it was always automatically infallible, which is what Fr. Cekada was taught, which is why he teaches such a thing which he in turn uses to confuse the masses and to promulgate SVism.

No V2 is not "new doctrine"; it is contradiction of "old doctrine". You are still suggesting that what was always taught by the Church was not protected by the Holy Ghost. In addition, you are suggesting that what you recognize as the OUM has promulgated error in its universal teachings throughout the world since V2.

McCork · « **Reply #164 on:** November 28, 2015, 09:05:35 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Catholictrue
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.

This appears to be the anti-sedevacantist go-to when they can't answer a question.

I've seen just such a thing on the bellarmine forums when a staunch sedevacantist was trying to provide the proof that the SSPX has a heretical/blasphemous position and John Lane kept trying to force the discussion to something Fr. Cekada said somewhere else.