Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)  (Read 1046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Reputation: +829/-139
  • Gender: Male
Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
« on: January 18, 2020, 01:31:24 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1484/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
    « Reply #1 on: January 18, 2020, 05:06:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Sungenis' argument that he (or we) don't have the authority to make a judgment about the status of George Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is a red herring.  We are not deposing a pope.  We are making a judgment on the identity of the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  In days past that judgment might have been as easy as reading a sign out in front of a building -- Roman Catholic Church.  But the basis for someone claiming that they are Catholic is that they believe and profess the truths which the Catholic Church teaches because God has revealed them, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.  These truths are the same truths which Jesus Christ taught to the apostles who in turn passed them on through the legitimate pastors of the Church down to our own time. When we see that some man claiming to be a priest or bishop of the Catholic Church is openly denying these very same truths, we conclude that they are liars and that they are not actually members of the Church and therefore they cannot legitimately claim any ecclesiastical office in the Church.  In the case of George Bergoglio, we knew he wasn't Catholic even before he started claiming the papacy. If Justin Welby was elected to be the Bishop of Rome by Anglican bishops, would anyone in their right mind, believe it?  How is it that we believe a bunch of heretic "cardinals" electing one of their own heretics to be the bishop of Rome?  In the end, we, each one of us individually, are responsible for identifying the correct Catholic Church.  Getting it wrong, while not a mortal sin, can have dire consequences on the prospects for your own salvation.  We had saints on all sides of the Great Western Schism but all the papal claimants were actually Catholic.  In our present time, if you are following a non-Catholic authority you may very well be lead down to hell.  If on the other hand you are following a hierarchy which does profess the Catholic faith and has valid orders, then even if you are wrong about the theological details of the crisis, you still have an excellent chance of saving your soul.
    Logged

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 3481
    • Reputation: +2007/-447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
    « Reply #2 on: January 18, 2020, 05:11:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • St. Paul said the following to a bunch of laypeople: I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another: only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41908
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
    « Reply #3 on: January 18, 2020, 06:13:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on January 18, 2020, 05:06:17 PM
    Sungenis' argument that he (or we) don't have the authority to make a judgment about the status of George Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is a red herring.

    I have long agreed that we don't have the authority, and that is part of the rationale for my so-called "sede-doubtist" position.

    We entertain grave positive doubts regarding their legitimacy.

    It is on those grounds that we refuse subjection to them.

    ... as quoted by Quo on the other thread.

    Quote
    F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

    Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948

    De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-)
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
    « Reply #4 on: January 18, 2020, 07:40:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    In the end, we, each one of us individually, are responsible for identifying the correct Catholic Church.  Getting it wrong, while not a mortal sin, can have dire consequences on the prospects for your own salvation. 

    I disagree with your "dire consequences" of the prospects of salvation on "getting it wrong." If one seeks the kingdom of heaven with one's heart, before all things, one won't get it wrong. I think there are such seekers in the Novus Ordo camp, in the R & R, and among the Sedevacantists. Obviously one of those groups will have "gotten it wrong" on the pope, since their positions are contradictory and they can't both be right on that issue. 

    Which suggests to me that that issue is not dispositive and one can "get that issue wrong." Saints during the Great Western Schism "got that issue wrong." I believe one who is to be saved will be given the grace of knowing that the Catholic Church is the true Church and that they will submit to its truths in all known particulars, and be willing to submit on all the particulars not known. They may commit errors of fact regarding the legal status of someone sitting on the throne of Peter, but that is not being wrong on a matter of faith, or indicate the lack of the true faith.

    Dr. Sungenis says at one point - I'm paraphrasing - that he believes Gerry has an informed conscience, is of good faith, and will be ok with God. I was not posting the post because I necessarily agree with Dr. Sungenis's conclusions on the pope question, but because his responses regarding a brother who disagrees with him, who "gets it wrong," about the issue of the pope is not imperiled eternally thereby. 

    More and more I am coming to the view of a "pox on both your houses" - both the dogmatic Sedevacantist and the dogmatic R & R. 

    I believe in a God who chooses, in individual election to glory without regard to merits and solely by the gratuitous selection of undeserving individuals by God, but to posit that the elect will "get it right" on this question throws the free will of man, of men in good faith who are striving to know God through Christ and His established Church according to His revealed truths without denying a single one, into total irrelevance if a man can be damned for "getting the question" of the pope wrong in these damned, confused times of the Church's troubles. 

    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7611
    • Reputation: +617/-404
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
    « Reply #5 on: January 18, 2020, 07:52:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on January 18, 2020, 05:06:17 PM
    Sungenis' argument that he (or we) don't have the authority to make a judgment about the status of George Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is a red herring.   In the case of George Bergoglio, we knew he wasn't Catholic even before he started claiming the papacy. 

      We had saints on all sides of the Great Western Schism but all the papal claimants were actually Catholic. 
    This is correct as there were no heretics or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs during  GWS.  Catholics are allowed to recognise either Fr or It papal claimants at that time. This is why( unlike today) there were no anti-popes on either side of Schism. :incense:
    Logged
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1484/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
    « Reply #6 on: January 18, 2020, 07:59:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Decem, You totally missed the point.  Didn't I just say that it is NOT a mortal sin to get the pope question wrong?  Why don't you re-read my post?
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
    « Reply #7 on: January 18, 2020, 08:09:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on January 18, 2020, 07:59:34 PM
    Decem, You totally missed the point.  Didn't I just say that it is NOT a mortal sin to get the pope question wrong?  Why don't you re-read my post?
    Yes, I read your post. You said:

    Getting it wrong, while not a mortal sin, can have dire consequences on the prospects for your own salvation.  We had saints on all sides of the Great Western Schism but all the papal claimants were actually Catholic.  In our present time, if you are following a non-Catholic authority you may very well be lead down to hell.  If on the other hand you are following a hierarchy which does profess the Catholic faith and has valid orders, then even if you are wrong about the theological details of the crisis, you still have an excellent chance of saving your soul.



    I don't consider any consequence that does not involve a mortal sin "dire," nor how one can be "lead to hell" without mortal sin. Yet you say one can be wrong about the pope without mortal sin and yet somehow be exposed to "dire" consequences which "may very well . . . lead down to hell."

    It seems you're trying to blow up the "pope question" to a level of consequence for the individual salvation seeker which it doesn't bear. You both recognize this and yet deny it at the same time by implying "dire consequences" and the possibility of being lead to hell by being wrong on the pope question.  

    If one is led to hell, they sin mortally. 

    I guess you just need to clarify your thought for me. 

    DR
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1484/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
    « Reply #8 on: January 18, 2020, 10:02:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • So if one is following Francis and he starts believing that sodomy isn't sinful and he engages in sodomy, is he not being lead down to hell?  It's not enough to "recognize" the pope.  You have to allow yourself to be formed by him.  If you, like John Vennari, can't allow yourself or your children to be formed by the pope, there is a big problem.  There are a few different ways of explaining how that situation could happen.  It isn't a sin to get the details of it wrong but if one decides that Francis really is the pope, who could fault him for allowing himself to be formed by the pope's doctrine?  What Catholic law or doctrine could you fault someone for if they follow the example of the "pope" and the "cardinals"?   So he ends up believing that sodomy and adultery are no big deal.  He accepts objectively doubtful sacraments.  He accepts sacrilegious syncretist pagan ceremonies in his church.  Do you really think those people are sincere and that their salvation is not in danger?  Maybe you think that only the liberal novus ordo people are in danger but most people around here are familiar with the Fisheaters moderator situation.  And it's no secret that there are a lot of tradition-loving ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs running around.  Did they just innocently get a doctrine wrong?  Are they excused because they were just following the lead of the Conciliar hierarchy?  98% of Catholics have used contraception at one time or another.  75% don't believe in the Real Presence.  The vast majority of Catholics see nothing wrong with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior.  The vast majority think ѕυιcιdєs will go to heaven.  Are they mostly sincere?  Are they excused because they were following the doctrine of the Conciliar hierarchy?

    I don't think r&r people are being sincere when they say they "recognize" Francis.  Because they act like he's not the pope.  They say he is the pope but they ignore him.  That's not how Catholics act towards a true pope.  You also don't negotiate doctrinal agreements with the pope, the Vicar of Christ.

    Yes, I do believe there are consequences to getting it wrong.  Is it a mortal sin to get the theology wrong?  No.  Are you just as likely to save your soul no matter what you decide?  No, if you believe a manifest heretic is the pope, sooner or later you may very well start down the wide path to hell.  How can you not be tempted to follow the "Vicar of Christ" into one sin or another?  That is the blasphemous dilemma that r&r people face.
    Logged

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1893/-1750
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
    « Reply #9 on: January 19, 2020, 04:25:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Decem Rationis
    I believe in a God who chooses, in individual election to glory without regard to merits and solely by the gratuitous selection of undeserving individuals by God,
    Yes, and those who thus believe in Catholic and Thomistic Predestination know that God will bring those who desire to be Catholic but are not, and who strive to sincerely seek the Truth, to become Catholics and become subject to the Roman Pontiff before they die. We know this because dogma teaches it, and doctrine, and dogmatic facts, confirm it. If it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and if all receive sufficient grace to be saved, it follows that all receive sufficient grace to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

    Quote
    but to posit that the elect will "get it right" on this question throws the free will of man,

    A strawman. It is Catholic teaching that all men receive Sufficient Grace to be saved. And if Sufficient Grace leads a good-willed Muslim to Jesus Christ our Lord without affecting his free will, but empowering it efficaciously and supernaturally, that he may be saved, in like manner, it will lead a Sede-vacantist or an Old Catholic, who each deny several Popes or Councils, to be Catholic and be saved.


    Quote
    of men in good faith who are striving to know God through Christ and His established Church according to His revealed truths without denying a single one, into total irrelevance if a man can be damned for "getting the question" of the pope wrong in these damned, confused times of the Church's troubles.

    There is no confusion in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. There is only confusion from ordinary laymen, who are confused and confusing others, for they do not understand that when the OUM testifies that the Pope is the Pope, that is the Church's infalllible declaration. This matter was not studied properly until relatively recently, but it has now become widely known; and the best we can do, just as we do to even Protestants and Orthodox, let alone non Christians, is first and foremost to believe that Truth, and secondly to preach it.

    Pope Boniface: "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

    Pope Pelagius: "I am greatly astonished at your separation from the rest of the Church and I cannot equably endure it ... Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time"
    Logged
    "We wish also to make amends for the insults to which Your Vicar on earth and Your Priests are everywhere subjected [above all by schismatic sedevacantists - Nishant Xavier], for the profanation, by conscious neglect or Terrible Acts of Sacrilege, of the very Sacrament of Your Divine Love; and lastly for the Public Crimes of Nations who resist the Rights and The Teaching Authority of the Church which You have founded." - Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Lord Jesus.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41908
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Robert Sungenis on Sedevacantism (and Gerry Matatics)
    « Reply #10 on: January 19, 2020, 08:47:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on January 18, 2020, 10:02:43 PM
    I don't think r&r people are being sincere when they say they "recognize" Francis.  Because they act like he's not the pope.  They say he is the pope but they ignore him.  That's not how Catholics act towards a true pope.  You also don't negotiate doctrinal agreements with the pope, the Vicar of Christ.

    Ah, this is a very key point.  When theologians discuss the notion of Universal Acceptance, they justify it on the grounds that the Church could never accept a false RULE OF FAITH.  But how many R&R actually accept Francis Bergoglio (or any of the V2 papal claimants) as a RULE OF FAITH?  Practically none of them.  In fact, how many Conciliarists accept Bergoglio as a rule of faith?  Very few.  95% of Conciliarists are cafeteria Catholics, where they feel that they are entitled to and in fact do reject whatever Catholic teachings they do not agree with ... by THEIR OWN POLLS.  So how can those who do not believe in principle that Catholic doctrine and papal teaching in particular are rules of faith or that any rules of faith exist other than their own judgment, how can THESE be said to universally accept Bergoglio as some rule of faith.  It's utterly absurd.

    Billot:
    Quote
    ’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows.

    So those in R&R follow Bergoglio as a "living rule of faith"?   :laugh1:

    Most of us know that Bergoglio is practically a living rule of heresy.  NOBODY follows this guy as a "living rule of faith".  Even the vast majority of those in the Novus Ordo who happen to follow him only follow him because they HAPPEN to agree with him, and not because they feel that they must.
    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »