The point I think they make on Novus Ordo Watch are:
1. It is Divine Law that a Public heretic cannot be Pope.
2. One who maintains, V2, the new Sacraments, the new Mass, the new Canon Law and the new "saints" cannot be Pope.
3. Bergolio does all the above. Therefore . . .
The idea that we all are trying to be Catholics but can be confused, I am sure, has not slipped past whoever runs the NOW site IMO.
It is a dogma that we must obey a valid Pope on all the things he binds on the Church. Number 2 is bound on the Church if Bergolio is Pope.
I'm speaking in the objective realm here.
All will agree that Bergolio is either Pope or not. He can't both be Pope and not a Pope. So objectively there is no "opinion" he is either Pope or not. All who know what the Catholic Church teaches on the Papacy will agree that, objectively, our salvation depends on whether we accept what a valid Pope binds on the Church, which includes Councils, Sacraments, Liturgy, Canon Law and Saints. If one who purports to be a valid Pope binds on the Church that which cannot be bound by a valid Pope he cannot be a valid Pope. Those are not just words but are objective facts. They cannot be denied by those familiar with the teaching on the Papacy, especially since the Vatican Council [Vatican I].
Now some in fact are not familiar with the teaching on the papacy and are not culpably ignorant of that teaching, so everything else being equal they would be true Catholics. Who ever runs the site is obviously more knowledgeable than I am so I am sure he does not miss that fact. I believe he has a contact on his site where he or they can be contacted directly. Ask him.
Regarding the question of "you cannot bind the conscience to SV" etc. Here too distinctions are necessary. NO ONE is saying, "I bind your conscience to SV -- you have to be SV because I say so." Show me where he says that on his site. That would be binding someone's conscience through non-existent authority. Of course that's wrong and cannot be done, but I also don't know of anyone doing it.
However, this doesn't mean that SV itself isn't binding on one's conscience. It is very much binding OF ITSELF as soon as one realizes its truth, just like any other fact is binding once it is understood. (Do you understand this point? There is a true conclusion on the topic. If we have the means to do the research and the intellectual capacity to accept the conclusion and ability to make proper distinctions, this last is sorely lacking among many common Catholics, then it becomes binding. Once we no longer can be excused with inculpable ignorance it is binding. This point should be readily granted.)
The binding nature of SV arises not from some authoritative pronouncement by NOW or SSPX, but from the fact that IT ALONE can reconcile the empirical facts with Catholic teaching. Again we are speaking in the objective realm. Subjectively some may not get it through no fault of their own. In other words, the absence of any other theologically sound solution is what renders sedevacantism binding on the conscience objectively (and subjectively to all who understand the facts and the position).
Lastly, regarding "leaving it in suspense". One can indeed say, "I do not know if Francis is Pope, I cannot decide." OK, that is possible, but only in theory. In practice, you MUST decide. That is simply the nature of the law of non-contradiction: you either adhere to the pre-V2 or the post-V2 teachings. You either go to an "approved Mass" (of the V2 church) or you don't (subjectively one could be ignorant of the fact that one cannot go to a Mass not approved by the Pope I grant). But apart from that, one way or another, in the practical order, you ARE making a decision.
So, while suspending judgment is possible, in theory, it is not possible to not act. One way or another, you ARE acting. Some might in good conscience go to both the new and the true Mass. But again we are talking in the subjective realm and in regards to ignorance. All good Catholics on this forum want the truth and are willing to act accordingly. Whether a purported pope is Pope or not is not a matter of indifference. Whether, in the objective realm, we are damned for disobeying what a valid Pope binds on the Church or not is not a matter of indifference.
In many, perhaps most, cases, the R&Rs basically ignore (disbelieve) Catholic teaching on the papacy and the Magisterium. While one can sympathize with the struggle each one of us goes through in trying to make sense of this mess, that does not mean that one can cease to profess the true Faith and still be a member of the Church. But even more so, the sin of schism. It would seem (in the objective realm, I hope the potential objectors are making this distinction) that one who accepts one as Pope but refuses to submit to him has a schismatic attitude. One cannot separate the question of the Pope from the Faith, certainly not since Vatican I, since submission to the Pope is a dogma and necessary for salvation.
The idea (think 1910 or any time in Catholic history when a valid Pope was unquestionably ruling as is maintained by the R&R's now) of "we just keep the Faith and let God sort out the Pope issue" (it doesn't matter whether Pope Pius X is Pope or not) seems like an unCatholic attitude for one who understands the theology behind the Papacy.
I could see where that would make sense. On the other hand I believe you could keep the Faith and still be Catholic while not being sure. Also not being sure one way or the other through no fault of your own is far different than insisting that he is Pope while acting as if he is not, which while subjectively not preventing one from being Catholic, objectively seems like a very unCatholic attitude. I still have not heard a convincing argument as to how "He is definitely the Pope but I am not going to submit to him" manifests a Catholic attitude.
I keep stating that this is the case for one who understands the Papacy as their is a distinction to be made between a bad Pope giving a command to an individual or group and what he binds on the whole Church. Of course the people unable or unwilling to make this distinction as is if there is no difference between the two scenarios and who quote Bellarmine against himself as if he does not understand what he says or means in the two distinct instances will object but objections do not untruth the truth.
For the Catholic it matters very much whether a purported Pope is an actual Pope or not as our salvation depends on submitting to what a valid Pope binds on the Church. Subjectively, of course, and I believe NOW will readily grant, that one can err in good faith on the issue. If one has proof that NOW denies this point I would like to see it and I will contact the site myself and speak to the person. Of course the basic minimum one must believe, and profess, in order to have the Faith is the existence of God, that He rewards and punishes, and possibly the Incarnation and Holy Trinity. But objectively one cannot be Catholic if he knows Papal theology and rejects it, and or knows a valid Pope must be obeyed in regards to what he binds on the Church and refuses to obey one he believes is a valid Pope. If one realizes he is disobeying what has been bound on the Church by one he believes is a valid Pope one must rectify the issue one way or the other to the degree it is possible for one to do so. One cannot just avoid the issue and hope it works out, for fear of the answer and how this might change their life and knock them out of their comfort zone. (All should readily agree with that).
I don't think he (I keep saying "he" here because I am not politically correct, plus I doubt it is a woman anyway) denies one can keep the Faith if one sincerely does not know whether he is Pope or not or sincerely thinks he is through no fault of his own. It would be a good question to ask him. It is incuмbent on us to try to resolve the issue to the degree our state in life allows IMO.
But the real thing, I believe, is that we have encountered anti-SVs who are intellectually dishonest. They simply do not want admit SV can be true, Divine Law be damned. Why? Any number of reasons I guess, money, many children with only the SSPX available, the possibility of being kicked out of the SSPX if you go public with your opinion. But it is those types I believe he calls semi-trads and not really Catholics. Because they KNOW divine law teaches that a public heretic cannot be Pope. They know that a valid Pope cannot bind on earth what cannot be bound in Heaven. In discussions they do not respond to or grant these points but simply move to other objections. Some writers in anti-SV publications are CLEARLY biased and willfully blind on the topic. They will have to answer for in regards to themselves and those they mislead. Others are afraid of the answer and willfully keep themselves in suspense.
I do not think he is talking about those sincerely confused, through no fault of their own, or who err on this topic, through no fault of their own. But it would be good to contact the site and ask him. It is so easy to make conclusions about people based upon feelings but if you asked him directly your conclusion about the views of the site owner could end up being quite different.
A lot of this comes down to sincerity and whether one is culpably ignorant of things pertaining to the Papacy or not. Then we can apply this to alot of things such as what if one sincerely does not believe in the Immaculate Conception through no fault of his own? The Resurrection? Infants and those with extreme mental disabilities aside. How far do we reduce these hypotheticals? How ignorant can a trained Priest in the SSPX or a lawyer who has the undeniable teaching on the papacy presented to him be?
The very sad fact of the matter is, and my wife can vouch for this, is that R&Rs do not believe in (or even know about, thanks to the SSPX) true Catholic teaching on the papacy. They believe the Pope is not much different from the protestant pastor - when he says something that's true and useful, you agree; when he doesn't, you ignore or resist. That's it.
Say it was 1910. Could one be a Catholic if they did not accept the Vatican (1) Council, the Sacraments, Mass, Canon Law, Saints under Pius X? Could we decide we cannot, should not or will not (or it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to) accept the 1917 Code of Canon Law for one reason or another or a Saint canonized by Pius X?
Topic: Novus Ordo Watch (Read 7196 times)