Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Sneakyticks on July 03, 2014, 06:23:23 PM
-
There Ladislaus, here is the new thread.
-
I've explained it before. I have come to the conclusion that there's serious doubt about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants, and I consider it highly likely that the Holy See is vacant. But I stop short of asserting this as anything more than my personal opinion and defer to the authority of the Church. I do not have the right to make a definitive determination regarding the matter.
Just what are you in doubt of?
-
When and how long where you a SV?
I became a Traditional Catholic in about 1989.
I think it was in 1991 that I became a sedevacantist. I started to pull back in 1993 and went back towards sedeplenism in 1996. I have since gradually gone ended up at sede-doubtism.
And what were you before 1989?
-
When and how long where you a SV?
I became a Traditional Catholic in about 1989.
I think it was in 1991 that I became a sedevacantist. I started to pull back in 1993 and went back towards sedeplenism in 1996. I have since gradually gone ended up at sede-doubtism.
And what were you before 1989?
I was Novus Ordo until then.
I'll rejoin tomorrow. I had to be out for several hours this evening.
-
You appear online now.
Maybe you could tell me if you think the Novus Ordo is the real Church.
-
You appear online now.
Maybe you could tell me if you think the Novus Ordo is the real Church.
How could it be?
-
You appear online now.
Maybe you could tell me if you think the Novus Ordo is the real Church.
How could it be?
Of course it isn't but that is what these people HAVE to say if they will not admit sedevacantism.
Their position is sort of a nothing position, a sort of foolish limbo.
-
You appear online now.
Maybe you could tell me if you think the Novus Ordo is the real Church.
How could it be?
Of course it isn't but that is what these people HAVE to say if they will not admit sedevacantism.
Their position is sort of a nothing position, a sort of foolish limbo.
:applause:
-
Where did you go Ladislaus?
Why dont you explain what you mean here:
the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith. Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.
-
Where did you go Ladislaus?
I've been away all day visiting relatives.
Why dont you explain what you mean here:
the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith. Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.
I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
-
Why dont you explain what you mean here:
the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith. Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.
I've explained this many times. Theologians
Hold it right there.
What business do you have saying what theologians teach when you reject them all when it comes to bod-bob-eens-etc. and you believe we can do away with their unanimous/commonly held teachings with impunity?
classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
You are just regurgitating what Szijarto has said elsewhere.
Cekada already dealt with all this nonsense a long time ago.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=42&catname=10
-
You are just regurgitating what Szijarto has said elsewhere.
:roll-laugh1:
-
Where did you go Ladislaus?
I've been away all day visiting relatives.
Why dont you explain what you mean here:
the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith. Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.
I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
This pushes the false idea that sedevacantism is only about heretical popes. Considering the number of threads you have taken part in, etc. you know that this is not true. So why do you use this as an example? This analogy just doesn't work.
-
What business do you have saying what theologians teach ...
You're clearly not honestly seeking the truth, and so I'm not going to waste my time debating this with you.
You asked me what dogmatic fact was, and so I was defining it based on what theologians teach about dogmatic fact. If I'm not allowed to do this, then there's no point in further discussion. You're just a bitter, angry person who's filled with spite towards those in the Novus Ordo and there's nothing that I can write that'll change your attitude. Father Jenkins articulates the position I have taken very well. Someone here posted a video of his exposition of the subject. If you're interested in the truth (though it doesn't appear that you are), just search this forum for that video. I've got better things to do (such as clean my toilet) than to argue with the likes of you.
-
Nishant made a good point about universal acceptance of a Pope being the criterion for legitimacy. It make sense as the a priori establishment of the dogmatic fact of legitimacy. I think about this often and haven't come to a final resolution on the subject.
Let's say that a Pius XIII came along and declared BoD to be heretical. You, I suspect, would just reject Pius XIII as a heretic and thus refuse his dogmatic teaching. If this hypothetical Pius XIII came along and delcared BoD to be dogma, then I would immediately reject my former opinion and accept the teaching. Thus the difference between sedevacantism and sededoubtism. With straight sedevacantism established as permissible you couldn't have any a priori guarantee of the truth of any dogmatic papal teaching.
By the way, Sneaky, if you were to convince me that Suprema Haec represents true Catholic teaching, then I would immediately cease to be a Traditonal Catholic and would accept Vatican II as substantially free form error. Every error and heresy that can be attributed the the V2 papal claimants can be traced back to and logically follows from the Suprema Haec ecclesiology.
-
This pushes the false idea that sedevacantism is only about heretical popes.
By very definition sedevacantism involves the subject of heretical popes, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
-
Nishant made a good point about universal acceptance of a Pope being the criterion for legitimacy. It make sense as the a priori establishment of the dogmatic fact of legitimacy. I think about this often and haven't come to a final resolution on the subject.
Let's say that a Pius XIII came along and declared BoD to be heretical. You, I suspect, would just reject Pius XIII as a heretic and thus refuse his dogmatic teaching. If this hypothetical Pius XIII came along and delcared BoD to be dogma, then I would immediately reject my former opinion and accept the teaching. Thus the difference between sedevacantism and sededoubtism. With straight sedevacantism established as permissible you couldn't have any a priori guarantee of the truth of any dogmatic papal teaching.
By the way, Sneaky, if you were to convince me that Suprema Haec represents true Catholic teaching, then I would immediately cease to be a Traditonal Catholic and would accept Vatican II as substantially free form error. Every error and heresy that can be attributed the the V2 papal claimants can be traced back to and logically follows from the Suprema Haec ecclesiology.
Does Pius XIII also state Vatican II was heretical?
-
This pushes the false idea that sedevacantism is only about heretical popes.
By very definition sedevacantism involves the subject of heretical popes, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
It involves it but the main issue is Vatican II.
-
This pushes the false idea that sedevacantism is only about heretical popes.
By very definition sedevacantism involves the subject of heretical popes, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
It involves it but the main issue is Vatican II.
But that ties back ultimately to papal legitimacy. Councils only have force to the extent that they are approved by papal authority.
-
Nishant made a good point about universal acceptance of a Pope being the criterion for legitimacy. It make sense as the a priori establishment of the dogmatic fact of legitimacy. I think about this often and haven't come to a final resolution on the subject.
Let's say that a Pius XIII came along and declared BoD to be heretical. You, I suspect, would just reject Pius XIII as a heretic and thus refuse his dogmatic teaching. If this hypothetical Pius XIII came along and delcared BoD to be dogma, then I would immediately reject my former opinion and accept the teaching. Thus the difference between sedevacantism and sededoubtism. With straight sedevacantism established as permissible you couldn't have any a priori guarantee of the truth of any dogmatic papal teaching.
By the way, Sneaky, if you were to convince me that Suprema Haec represents true Catholic teaching, then I would immediately cease to be a Traditonal Catholic and would accept Vatican II as substantially free form error. Every error and heresy that can be attributed the the V2 papal claimants can be traced back to and logically follows from the Suprema Haec ecclesiology.
Does Pius XIII also state Vatican II was heretical?
Let's just say that he either did that or else rescinded it or whatever, essentially rolling the Church back to the state that it was in the 1950s.
For you, let's say that he rolled everything back but still considered the V2 popes to have been legitimate (albeit corrupt and scandalous and sinful), would you accept him then, if he appeared to be orthodox in ever other respect, and was universally accepted by all Catholics, if he did not validate sedevacantism and the illegitimacy of the V2 popes?
-
Nishant made a good point about universal acceptance of a Pope being the criterion for legitimacy. It make sense as the a priori establishment of the dogmatic fact of legitimacy. I think about this often and haven't come to a final resolution on the subject.
Let's say that a Pius XIII came along and declared BoD to be heretical. You, I suspect, would just reject Pius XIII as a heretic and thus refuse his dogmatic teaching. If this hypothetical Pius XIII came along and delcared BoD to be dogma, then I would immediately reject my former opinion and accept the teaching. Thus the difference between sedevacantism and sededoubtism. With straight sedevacantism established as permissible you couldn't have any a priori guarantee of the truth of any dogmatic papal teaching.
By the way, Sneaky, if you were to convince me that Suprema Haec represents true Catholic teaching, then I would immediately cease to be a Traditonal Catholic and would accept Vatican II as substantially free form error. Every error and heresy that can be attributed the the V2 papal claimants can be traced back to and logically follows from the Suprema Haec ecclesiology.
Does Pius XIII also state Vatican II was heretical?
Let's just say that he either did that or else rescinded it or whatever, essentially rolling the Church back to the state that it was in the 1950s.
For you, let's say that he rolled everything back but still considered the V2 popes to have been legitimate (albeit corrupt and scandalous and sinful), would you accept him then, if he appeared to be orthodox in ever other respect, and was universally accepted by all Catholics, if he did not validate sedevacantism and the illegitimacy of the V2 popes?
I could probably accept that. I would hope that he would explain why he would still consider them legitimate while still promoting Vatican II (which he would clearly not....not promote VII that is).
-
I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
This pushes the false idea that sedevacantism is only about heretical popes. Considering the number of threads you have taken part in, etc. you know that this is not true. So why do you use this as an example? This analogy just doesn't work.
This.
These people think that the heretical pope issue is the ONLY thing.
I already told Ladislaus that SV can be proved from MANY different angles, without even getting into the heretical pope issue.
Did he care about that? No, he just keeps on harping with the heretical pope issue (in which he is dead wrong anyways) because he is a hypocrite and HE is the one who doesn't care about the truth.
-
Sedevacantism absolutely reduces to the heretical pope issue ... BY DEFINITION. Unless you're a Siri theorist (like I am actually). But the issue remains the same. You can't speak about sedevacantism without addressing the question of how we can know who is and who is not a legitimate pope. That's what sedevacantism IS.
-
I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
Since you've entirely ignored this argument, I'll quote myself.
In the example given above, please explain why it would have been wrong for that person to reject Pius IX as a heretic based on the belief that infallibility was heretical (some people did in fact believe that, by the way).
-
I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
Since you've entirely ignored this argument, I'll quote myself.
In the example given above, please explain why it would have been wrong for that person to reject Pius IX as a heretic based on the belief that infallibility was heretical (some people did in fact believe that, by the way).
Was Vatican I the first time the Church taught papal infallibility? Was 1854 the first time the Church taught the Immaculate Conception? Did these teachings contradict prior Church teachings? I have never heard that they did.
-
What business do you have saying what theologians teach ...
You're clearly not honestly seeking the truth, and so I'm not going to waste my time debating this with you.
YOU are the one who is not honestly seeking the truth. You are a complete phony and a fraud.
I had written a message saying that i just don't take you seriously at all because you're just a phony, but i did not post it.
Funny that now YOU say the same to me!
You asked me what dogmatic fact was, and so I was defining it based on what theologians teach about dogmatic fact.
I asked no such thing. I asked what your point was in saying what you said.
If I'm not allowed to do this, then there's no point in further discussion.
I caught you red-handed as the hypocrite that you are, using theologians when you reject what they unanimously/commonly teach, exposed you, and now you cry out foul.
Pathetic!
You didn't even bother to answer to that! How you reject their teachings but quote them when it is convenient for you. Well of course you didn't answer, because you're a phony and you have no answer!
There's no point in further discussion with the likes of you ANYWAYS, because you're just a phoney baloney.
You're just a bitter, angry person who's filled with spite towards those in the Novus Ordo and there's nothing that I can write that'll change your attitude.
Cry me a river, hypocrite. You know nothing about me. I have told you i don't tolerate phony baloney people like you, liars, and dishonest to the core. I don't tolerate your baloney, false and already refuted arguments and never will, and this makes you think i am "bitter and angry".
You, on the other hand, have no problem tolerating lies and false arguments and breathing that fetid air 24/7. You have no problem living in that environment. You are an indifferentist. It's all the same to you what anyone believes as long as they don't touch your heretical opinions. As long as somebody is a "traditionalist" and "agrees to disagree" with you, you don't care one bit about SV or r&r.
I find your opinionism repulsive, and rightly so, since it is heretical and destroys the Church, and being the soft indifferentist that you are you find this shocking. Yes, because you don't care a whiff about the truth.
Filled with spite towards those in the Novus Ordo? What do you even mean by this?
If you're interested in the truth (though it doesn't appear that you are),
You just condemn yourself out of your own mouth everytime you say that.
I've got better things to do (such as clean my toilet)
More like keep on rambling about bod/bob/eens/etc. here with the same old people.
How much time do you waste here each day?
-
By the way, Sneaky, if you were to convince me that Suprema Haec represents true Catholic teaching, then I would immediately cease to be a Traditonal Catholic and would accept Vatican II as substantially free form error. Every error and heresy that can be attributed the the V2 papal claimants can be traced back to and logically follows from the Suprema Haec ecclesiology.
You're out of your mind. I have already said the Novus Ordo is in a whole other dimension when it comes to EENS.
They even reject what is said in the Protocol itself, which is what is repeated also in Lumen Gentium. They all reject that, the part about "therefore, those who know the Catholic Church to be the true Church but reject it will be condemned".
They are complete religious indifferentists. They believe all religions AS SUCH lead to Heaven. They make no account of invincible ignorance. They don't even believe in ORIGINAL SIN, hence they believe unbaptized babies go straight to Heaven. They do not believe people NEED to convert to the Church. No, they don't. They believe they will all meet in Heaven, Protestant, Hindu, Jew whatever.
How could you say what you say?
Because you are a madman who will say anything to reject bod/bob and the teaching en EENS.
-
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.
-
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.
I already explained it to you, but you dont care.
You are at a point where it doesnt even register in your mind.
-
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.
I'm sorry, but this excuse grows old. There are so many sedes who post charitably or at least try to.
And let's be honest here: non-sedes aren't always the most charitable either.
-
I caught you red-handed as the hypocrite that you are, using theologians when you reject what they unanimously/commonly teach, exposed you, and now you cry out foul.
I have to admit that I think you made an excellent point regarding using theologians. From what i have read, theologians are not good enough to the anti-BOD crowd.
-
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.
Discernment of the Spirits by St. Ignatius
The fourth: Of Spiritual Desolation. I call desolation all the contrary of the third rule (Consolation), such as darkness of soul, disturbance in it, movement to things low and earthly, the unquiet of different agitations and temptations, moving to want of confidence, without hope, without love, when one finds oneself all lazy, tepid, sad, and as if separated from his Creator and Lord. Because, as consolation is contrary to desolation, in the same way the thoughts which come from consolation are contrary to the thoughts which come from desolation.
http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/making-good-decisions/discernment-of-spirits/rules-for-discernment/
-
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.
It seems you stopped being a sedevacantist due to some gripe or problem with some sedevacantist, since this is your #1 excuse against it.
I have always noticed this, people who reject sedevacantism due to PERSONAL things or because they had some problem with somebody or because they deem sedevacantists "bitter and angry" and whatnot.
NOT, if you pay attention, because it is FALSE or untrue, but because of PERSONAL problems.
What happened to your quest for the truth?
All sedevacantists could be immoral, scandalous, "bad people" etc, but that wouldn't mean sedevacantism itself is false, because as you should know, the truth is the truth no matter what.
On the contrary, you could have people who appear to be "happy" all the time and never fight nor argue with anyone, but they could all be dead wrong.
This is ridiculous. Since when has truth been measured by such things?
-
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.
Discernment of the Spirits by St. Ignatius
The fourth: Of Spiritual Desolation. I call desolation all the contrary of the third rule (Consolation), such as darkness of soul, disturbance in it, movement to things low and earthly, the unquiet of different agitations and temptations, moving to want of confidence, without hope, without love, when one finds oneself all lazy, tepid, sad, and as if separated from his Creator and Lord. Because, as consolation is contrary to desolation, in the same way the thoughts which come from consolation are contrary to the thoughts which come from desolation.
Rejecting bod/bob is a mortal sin.
You are in mortal sin.
You should be the last one speaking about discerning spirits since you presently belong to the Devil.
-
Rejecting bod/bob is a mortal sin.
You are in mortal sin.
You should be the last one speaking about discerning spirits since you presently belong to the Devil.
Here Sneakyticks:
This is my ultimate response to every single one of your "not worth a second read" posts, so please do not waste your time:
:read-paper:
-
Rejecting bod/bob is a mortal sin.
You are in mortal sin.
You should be the last one speaking about discerning spirits since you presently belong to the Devil.
Here Sneakyticks:
This is my ultimate response to every single one of your "not worth a second read" posts, so please do not waste your time:
:read-paper:
You think this is a joke? You think you can reject official Church teaching just like that and get away with it?
You people are faithless is what you are.
This is where rejecting sedevacantism takes you, to sheer Protestantism, since you all have different opinions on a number of things.
-
You think this is a joke? You think you can reject official Church teaching just like that and get away with it?
You people are faithless is what you are.
This is where rejecting sedevacantism takes you, to sheer Protestantism, since you all have different opinions on a number of things.
:read-paper:
-
You think this is a joke? You think you can reject official Church teaching just like that and get away with it?
You people are faithless is what you are.
This is where rejecting sedevacantism takes you, to sheer Protestantism, since you all have different opinions on a number of things.
:read-paper:
You ended up reading it anyways. If you really intended not to read any of my posts you would have put me on ignore.
-
Where did you go Ladislaus?
I've been away all day visiting relatives.
Why dont you explain what you mean here:
the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith. Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.
I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
But what if the person elected was never a Catholic in the first place, but a Communist or Freemason or even an apostate. AND the persons elected this said person were of the same ilk.
At the time of Vatican I, we had Catholics that were elected therefore if anyone said Pius IX was a heretic it would be at their possible damnation. They could find no evidence against him, however today the evidence against the conciLIAR leaders is so obvious to everyone, even the laity are scratching their heads.
:scratchchin:
Why do you suppose Our Lady said in one of her approved visions,"the Church should be more careful before allowing just anyone into the seminaries." (paraphrasing)
Also the Siri thesis falls under the teaching..."A doubtful pope is no pope"
Sedevacantism is the only logical point of view, not saying others are condemned who will not embrace it. Only God knows, and He will judge them.
-
You think this is a joke? You think you can reject official Church teaching just like that and get away with it?
You people are faithless is what you are.
This is where rejecting sedevacantism takes you, to sheer Protestantism, since you all have different opinions on a number of things.
:read-paper:
You ended up reading it anyways. If you really intended not to read any of my posts you would have put me on ignore.
Soon she'll have all of us sedevacantists on ignore (ie. the proverbial fingers in one's ears).
-
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.
It seems you stopped being a sedevacantist due to some gripe or problem with some sedevacantist, since this is your #1 excuse against it.
Not with A sedevacantist, but with sedevacantists in general. There's very bad spiritual fruit there, pretty much everywhere I looked, and it's an application of Our Lord's "by their fruits you shall know them". You prove this yet again.
-
I find it quite telling that the most wickedly bitter and arrogant sedevacantists are all the most vocal proponents of BoD. That tells me a lot.
-
I find it quite telling that the most wickedly bitter and arrogant sedevacantists are all the most vocal proponents of BoD. That tells me a lot.
And some of the most vocal anti-BOD'ers are not bitter and arrogant?
mmmkay.
Why don't we all admit that every group has got its own special bitterness and arrogance.
And move on.
-
Why don't we all admit that every group has got its own special bitterness and arrogance.
No, there's a unique, dark, and distinct bitterness present among nearly all sedevacantists. I know it well. Sneakyticks is basically foaming at the mouth to an extent that's borderline diabolical.
-
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.
It seems you stopped being a sedevacantist due to some gripe or problem with some sedevacantist, since this is your #1 excuse against it.
Not with A sedevacantist, but with sedevacantists in general. There's very bad spiritual fruit there, pretty much everywhere I looked, and it's an application of Our Lord's "by their fruits you shall know them". You prove this yet again.
You mean they defend without end, what they know to be the teaching of the Church?
Just like any politician if you agree, they are of good will, no matter how rude, if you disagree they are just of bad will, plain and simple. :sad:
-
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.
It seems you stopped being a sedevacantist due to some gripe or problem with some sedevacantist, since this is your #1 excuse against it.
Not with A sedevacantist, but with sedevacantists in general. There's very bad spiritual fruit there, pretty much everywhere I looked, and it's an application of Our Lord's "by their fruits you shall know them". You prove this yet again.
That axiom about fruits refers to doctrine.
Not that dispositions can't be indicative of one thing or another, but it's usually personality that is indicated by outward dispositions. Who knows, maybe you just have bad timing?
-
Father Jenkins articulates the position I have taken very well. Someone here posted a video of his exposition of the subject.
"I don't say that he's not the pope - I just can't see how he can be one"
-
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.
It seems you stopped being a sedevacantist due to some gripe or problem with some sedevacantist, since this is your #1 excuse against it.
Not with A sedevacantist, but with sedevacantists in general. There's very bad spiritual fruit there, pretty much everywhere I looked, and it's an application of Our Lord's "by their fruits you shall know them". You prove this yet again.
You mean they defend without end, what they know to be the teaching of the Church?
Just like any politician if you agree, they are of good will, no matter how rude, if you disagree they are just of bad will, plain and simple. :sad:
This.
I have already said Ladislaus mistakes intransigence and intolerance towards error and heresy, which should be the norm for any real Catholic anyways, for "bitterness, darkness of soul, angry" etc.
I will admit I have gone over the top, but only because I just can't believe how someone who knows better still keeps making the same old false arguments against sedevacantism.
If I believe what you say is poppycock, which it is, what do you expect me to do? Slowly move my head up and down with my mouth open in utter amazement? Say that I "respect" what you say and believe, which I don't and can't?
-
Why don't we all admit that every group has got its own special bitterness and arrogance.
No, there's a unique, dark, and distinct bitterness present among nearly all sedevacantists. I know it well. Sneakyticks is basically foaming at the mouth to an extent that's borderline diabolical.
Do you know what righteous anger/indignation is? Did you know Saint Anthony Marie Claret had a seizure when he heard of all the heresies that were floating around during Vatican I? How was that?
Were the Saints who destroyed idols and pagan templates all foaming at the mouth too? Will you call them "hotheads" like the Ratman did?
Actually, I have thought of getting a big hammer to destroy rocks because I get so upset when I read the heresies of the novus ordo or of any of the antipopes or any other heretic apostate in the "hierarchy" or even my family members. I feel like destroying things whenever I read or hear about those things.
But you're a soft indifferentist.
-
Father Jenkins articulates the position I have taken very well. Someone here posted a video of his exposition of the subject.
"I don't say that he's not the pope - I just can't see how he can be one"
Ladislaus, should the sede-doubtist priest omit the name of the doubtful pope in the Canon?
-
Why don't we all admit that every group has got its own special bitterness and arrogance.
No, there's a unique, dark, and distinct bitterness present among nearly all sedevacantists. I know it well. Sneakyticks is basically foaming at the mouth to an extent that's borderline diabolical.
Yes, you do know it well. You see it in the anti-BOD posts as well. Some of the hardline anti-BODers are some of the most bitter, arrogant, nasty posters, but in that case you don't call it out.
-
I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
Since you've entirely ignored this argument, I'll quote myself.
In the example given above, please explain why it would have been wrong for that person to reject Pius IX as a heretic based on the belief that infallibility was heretical (some people did in fact believe that, by the way).
Was Vatican I the first time the Church taught papal infallibility? Was 1854 the first time the Church taught the Immaculate Conception? Did these teachings contradict prior Church teachings? I have never heard that they did.
Are there answers to these questions?
-
The goal of the liberals is to turn men into doubting Thomas, sede-doubtism is a branch of masonry just like the sanhedrin. Doubting has nothing in common with faith.
If you believe Francis is the pope and the novus ordo is the Catholic Church you need to get back in there right now or you are no different then the Pharisee high priests and Jєωιѕн scribes & layman that believed in Christ but resisted or doubted Him for whatever reasons they had.
Someone in another post said acknowledge and resisting is like Protestantism I agree with that, protesting and resisting are the same things. Protestants hold up a bible and say these are the words of God and resist the Catholic Church that gave it to them while acknowledge and resist groups say "that man is the pope and that is the Catholic Church" but protest against Her.
-
I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
Since you've entirely ignored this argument, I'll quote myself.
In the example given above, please explain why it would have been wrong for that person to reject Pius IX as a heretic based on the belief that infallibility was heretical (some people did in fact believe that, by the way).
Was Vatican I the first time the Church taught papal infallibility? Was 1854 the first time the Church taught the Immaculate Conception? Did these teachings contradict prior Church teachings? I have never heard that they did.
Are there answers to these questions?
Both of those definitions are taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Very few bishops were against the defining of papal infallibility, in fact the majority of the those who opposed it's definition only opposed it at that particular time for political reasons. Cowardly and self-serving, but not actually heretical. Very few actually opposed it on a "doctrinal level" and those who did are who we've come to know as the "Old Catholics."
Ladislaus poses a point that has some truth to it, but I don't think it's a difficulty for the sede vacante position. We accept the faith on the authority of God, and the Church he founded. So, morally speaking, it is necessary to know the identity of those who comprise the hierarchy, and at this time we (or at least, myself and everyone I know!) is unaware of who and where they are. God provides, of course-- it's no accident that this crisis comes at a time when certainly legitimate authorities (although dead) are available so easily.
St. Paul says that if he, or even an angel from Heaven teaches a foreign gospel, let him be anathema. We reject the Novus Ordo program because it is contrary to what we have already received and believed on the authority of the Church. And we also know that such an instance (being proposed a false faith by one who appears to be an authority) is possible based on this.
Anyways, back to the immediate point, both of those doctrines are taught by the OUM so one who would deny the legitimacy of Pius IX on the grounds Ladislaus describes is not following St. Paul's instruction where traditionalists are.
-
I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
Since you've entirely ignored this argument, I'll quote myself.
In the example given above, please explain why it would have been wrong for that person to reject Pius IX as a heretic based on the belief that infallibility was heretical (some people did in fact believe that, by the way).
Was Vatican I the first time the Church taught papal infallibility? Was 1854 the first time the Church taught the Immaculate Conception? Did these teachings contradict prior Church teachings? I have never heard that they did.
Are there answers to these questions?
Both of those definitions are taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Very few bishops were against the defining of papal infallibility, in fact the majority of the those who opposed it's definition only opposed it at that particular time for political reasons. Cowardly and self-serving, but not actually heretical. Very few actually opposed it on a "doctrinal level" and those who did are who we've come to know as the "Old Catholics."
Ladislaus poses a point that has some truth to it, but I don't think it's a difficulty for the sede vacante position. We accept the faith on the authority of God, and the Church he founded. So, morally speaking, it is necessary to know the identity of those who comprise the hierarchy, and at this time we (or at least, myself and everyone I know!) is unaware of who and where they are. God provides, of course-- it's no accident that this crisis comes at a time when certainly legitimate authorities (although dead) are available so easily.
St. Paul says that if he, or even an angel from Heaven teaches a foreign gospel, let him be anathema. We reject the Novus Ordo program because it is contrary to what we have already received and believed on the authority of the Church. And we also know that such an instance (being proposed a false faith by one who appears to be an authority) is possible based on this.
Anyways, back to the immediate point, both of those doctrines are taught by the OUM so one who would deny the legitimacy of Pius IX on the grounds Ladislaus describes is not following St. Paul's instruction where traditionalists are.
I guess my point is were these teachings out of the blue? I highly doubt that. There has got to be papal quotes, saint quotes, theologian comments/teachings that supported these "new" definitions at the time.
If I am correct, then it is inappropriate to use them as analogies for responses to Vatican II and its hierarchy.
-
Was Vatican I the first time the Church taught papal infallibility? Was 1854 the first time the Church taught the Immaculate Conception? Did these teachings contradict prior Church teachings? I have never heard that they did.
Are there answers to these questions?
I guess my point is were these teachings out of the blue? I highly doubt that. There has got to be papal quotes, saint quotes, theologian comments/teachings that supported these "new" definitions at the time.
I. Infallibility
Fourth council of Constantinople/ Second council of Lyons/ Council of Florence session 6 from "Decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils Volume II" pg. 815
II. on I.C.
Pope Sixtus IV recognized feast of the Immaculate Conception in a papal bull issued in 1476 from "Renovatio Urbis: Architecture, Urbanism and Ceremony in the Rome of Julius II" pg. 182
*I'm sure there's plenty of other Papal/ councils but I got run off to Mass
(Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus and Ubi Primum may have some stuff in there??)
-
I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
Since you've entirely ignored this argument, I'll quote myself.
In the example given above, please explain why it would have been wrong for that person to reject Pius IX as a heretic based on the belief that infallibility was heretical (some people did in fact believe that, by the way).
Was Vatican I the first time the Church taught papal infallibility? Was 1854 the first time the Church taught the Immaculate Conception? Did these teachings contradict prior Church teachings? I have never heard that they did.
Are there answers to these questions?
Both of those definitions are taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Very few bishops were against the defining of papal infallibility, in fact the majority of the those who opposed it's definition only opposed it at that particular time for political reasons. Cowardly and self-serving, but not actually heretical. Very few actually opposed it on a "doctrinal level" and those who did are who we've come to know as the "Old Catholics."
Ladislaus poses a point that has some truth to it, but I don't think it's a difficulty for the sede vacante position. We accept the faith on the authority of God, and the Church he founded. So, morally speaking, it is necessary to know the identity of those who comprise the hierarchy, and at this time we (or at least, myself and everyone I know!) is unaware of who and where they are. God provides, of course-- it's no accident that this crisis comes at a time when certainly legitimate authorities (although dead) are available so easily.
St. Paul says that if he, or even an angel from Heaven teaches a foreign gospel, let him be anathema. We reject the Novus Ordo program because it is contrary to what we have already received and believed on the authority of the Church. And we also know that such an instance (being proposed a false faith by one who appears to be an authority) is possible based on this.
Anyways, back to the immediate point, both of those doctrines are taught by the OUM so one who would deny the legitimacy of Pius IX on the grounds Ladislaus describes is not following St. Paul's instruction where traditionalists are.
I guess my point is were these teachings out of the blue? I highly doubt that. There has got to be papal quotes, saint quotes, theologian comments/teachings that supported these "new" definitions at the time.
If I am correct, then it is inappropriate to use them as analogies for responses to Vatican II and its hierarchy.
They definitely didn't come out of the blue.
Even if they had ("come out of the blue"), inasmuch as it is possible for a given doctrine to enjoy a more implicit expression for decades or even centuries before it begins to be expressed in an explicit manner, it still would be radically different from Vatican II, which elevated (or at least, flirted with) condemned (and solemnly condemned) errors.
As you say, it's an inappropriate analogy.
-
Why don't we all admit that every group has got its own special bitterness and arrogance.
No, there's a unique, dark, and distinct bitterness present among nearly all sedevacantists. I know it well. Sneakyticks is basically foaming at the mouth to an extent that's borderline diabolical.
Yes, you do know it well. You see it in the anti-BOD posts as well. Some of the hardline anti-BODers are some of the most bitter, arrogant, nasty posters, but in that case you don't call it out.
Yes, he himself has called people here heretics and insulted them. This man is just a deluded hypocrite.
-
This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.
This kind of "argument" is pure nonsense and these are the things that make me really upset.
You're not a serious person.
What you say here is so annoying it doesn't even deserve an answer since it is so manifestly false, a strawman and hypocritical.
-
Concerning the legitimacy of a Papal election being a dogmatic fact, once it is accepted by the Church, it is indeed the unanimous theological teaching. You'll find it in any manual, or explanation of theological notes, this is universally taught. All theologians and canonists, even those who speak of the possibility of subsequent loss of office ipso facto affirm that we know by faith that the universal acceptance of a given Pope is a "sign and infallible effect of a valid election" and therefore proves all conditions required for validity were fulfilled. For e.g.
In respect to a doubtful Pope, it is necessary to make it very clear here that the peaceful acceptance of a Pope by the whole Church is “a sign and an infallible effect of a valid election”.
Wernz-Vidal, Ius Can. II, p. 437, note 170. - The expression “infallible effect” does not indicate here an effect which infallibly follows from its cause. But it indicates something which, if it occurs, can only have been produced by such a cause, of which therefore it is, beyond a shadow of doubt, an effect - that is, an “infallible effect”. See the exposition of this specific point in Suarez, De Fide, disp.X. sect. V., n. 8, p. 315.
It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled. ) Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq.
-
We accept the faith on the authority of God, and the Church he founded. So, morally speaking, it is necessary to know the identity of those who comprise the hierarchy, and at this time we (or at least, myself and everyone I know!) is unaware of who and where they are. God provides, of course-- it's no accident that this crisis comes at a time when certainly legitimate authorities (although dead) are available so easily.
St. Paul says that if he, or even an angel from Heaven teaches a foreign gospel, let him be anathema. We reject the Novus Ordo program because it is contrary to what we have already received and believed on the authority of the Church. And we also know that such an instance (being proposed a false faith by one who appears to be an authority) is possible based on this.
Our Lord Jesus Christ promised the visible magisterium to exist forever, that visible magisterium supplies jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Roman Pontiff and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums, these Bishops must be visible, they cannot be invisible, that's heresy, so where are they?
Which Bishops are currently holding the authority to supply the jurisdiction?
What visible magisterium is doing the supplying? Protestants as well as sedevacantists both believe the visible magisterium does not exist. The concept of an invisible Church supplying jurisdiction is simply not Catholic.
The whole sede proposition is a logical fallacy.
The mystery of the Incarnation is the signature of God’s dealings with man. Everything in the True Faith comes to us in visible, tangible, flesh-and-blood terms. Authentic Christianity is incarnational.
-
:sleep: same ole same ole arguments that don't prove SVism is wrong.
-
We accept the faith on the authority of God, and the Church he founded. So, morally speaking, it is necessary to know the identity of those who comprise the hierarchy, and at this time we (or at least, myself and everyone I know!) is unaware of who and where they are. God provides, of course-- it's no accident that this crisis comes at a time when certainly legitimate authorities (although dead) are available so easily.
St. Paul says that if he, or even an angel from Heaven teaches a foreign gospel, let him be anathema. We reject the Novus Ordo program because it is contrary to what we have already received and believed on the authority of the Church. And we also know that such an instance (being proposed a false faith by one who appears to be an authority) is possible based on this.
Our Lord Jesus Christ promised the visible magisterium to exist forever, that visible magisterium supplies jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Roman Pontiff and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums, these Bishops must be visible, they cannot be invisible, that's heresy, so where are they?
Which Bishops are currently holding the authority to supply the jurisdiction?
What visible magisterium is doing the supplying? Protestants as well as sedevacantists both believe the visible magisterium does not exist. The concept of an invisible Church supplying jurisdiction is simply not Catholic.
The whole sede proposition is a logical fallacy.
The mystery of the Incarnation is the signature of God’s dealings with man. Everything in the True Faith comes to us in visible, tangible, flesh-and-blood terms. Authentic Christianity is incarnational.
You hypocrite, ARE YOU IN UNION WITH YOUR LOCAL NOVUS ORDO "BISHOP"???
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
-
Cantarella you base your entire faith on what others say, instead of trusting God.
The definition of "visible" is: Something that can be seen or noticed, or someone or something that is well-known or in the public eye.
Everyone here at least sees, reads and believes the Catholic teachings as taught, well at least most Catholic here.
We have the Deposit of Faith and writings of all the past popes. THEY ARE seen and NOTICED, by those who are seeking Truth.
St Augustine says, even if only a few people in the entire world have the Faith, there is the Church.
If, however, you prefer to believe that the Church magisterium is compiled of heretics, that alone is a heresy, you are saying right there, that God failed.
Just because heretics and MODERNISTS possess the buildings, are you saying they are the Church?
This era is the age of FAITH, we must Trust in God and have Faith that He is the Head, as He has always been, not the Modernists, just because they possess the property of the Church, the property is not more important than the teachings. That is what SSPX is starting to believe.
It is Protestantism to believe as SSPX, because they can't even agree on the fasting laws for the reception of Communion, some SSPX chapels say it is three hours, and some say it is one hours. Proof that there is NO POPE, to unite them.
-
:sleep: same ole same ole arguments that don't prove SVism is wrong.
Quite a thing isn't it?
Never before in my life had I known about such dishonesty and obstinacy, unit I found out what was happening.
And from people who SUPPOSEDLY believe in God.
-
Cantarella you base your entire faith on what others say, instead of trusting God.
The definition of "visible" is: Something that can be seen or noticed, or someone or something that is well-known or in the public eye.
Everyone here at least sees, reads and believes the Catholic teachings as taught, well at least most Catholic here.
We have the Deposit of Faith and writings of all the past popes. THEY ARE seen and NOTICED, by those who are seeking Truth.
St Augustine says, even if only a few people in the entire world have the Faith, there is the Church.
If, however, you prefer to believe that the Church magisterium is compiled of heretics, that alone is a heresy, you are saying right there, that God failed.
Just because heretics and MODERNISTS possess the buildings, are you saying they are the Church?
This era is the age of FAITH, we must Trust in God and have Faith that He is the Head, as He has always been, not the Modernists, just because they possess the property of the Church, the property is not more important than the teachings. That is what SSPX is starting to believe.
It is Protestantism to believe as SSPX, because they can't even agree on the fasting laws for the reception of Communion, some SSPX chapels say it is three hours, and some say it is one hours. Proof that there is NO POPE, to unite them.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. - St Athanasius
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
What?! :shocked:
All this time I thought she was at least a traditionalist.
:laugh2:
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
What?! :shocked:
All this time I thought she was at least a traditionalist.
:laugh2:
I'm gathering this from other posts she has made here and elsewhere. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Others have questioned the obvious contradiction in this as well.
-
Cantarella you base your entire faith on what others say, instead of trusting God.
The definition of "visible" is: Something that can be seen or noticed, or someone or something that is well-known or in the public eye.
Everyone here at least sees, reads and believes the Catholic teachings as taught, well at least most Catholic here.
We have the Deposit of Faith and writings of all the past popes. THEY ARE seen and NOTICED, by those who are seeking Truth.
St Augustine says, even if only a few people in the entire world have the Faith, there is the Church.
If, however, you prefer to believe that the Church magisterium is compiled of heretics, that alone is a heresy, you are saying right there, that God failed.
Just because heretics and MODERNISTS possess the buildings, are you saying they are the Church?
This era is the age of FAITH, we must Trust in God and have Faith that He is the Head, as He has always been, not the Modernists, just because they possess the property of the Church, the property is not more important than the teachings. That is what SSPX is starting to believe.
It is Protestantism to believe as SSPX, because they can't even agree on the fasting laws for the reception of Communion, some SSPX chapels say it is three hours, and some say it is one hours. Proof that there is NO POPE, to unite them.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. - St Athanasius
Thank you, that is the quote I was thinking of, at least I knew it was from a saint with the letter "A".
-
What is Cantarella doing in this forum then? Shouldn't she be with her novus ordo "brethren" over at Hindu Answers?
Did you go to the recent Wicked Youth Day in Brazil to be with "Your Holiness" Sinagoglio and gain a "plenary indulgence"?
-
Here a thought for those good willed souls happening to read this thread:
There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to heresy, schism, and therefore, Hell. History attests to this obvious fact.
No man can be separated from the Pontiff and attain salvation, and if Peter is not therein the Church is not therein.
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
What?! :shocked:
All this time I thought she was at least a traditionalist.
:laugh2:
I'm gathering this from other posts she has made here and elsewhere. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Others have questioned the obvious contradiction in this as well.
Sounds right. She's free to correct the impression she's given, of course-- but she won't, I'm sure.
Novus Ordo Feeneyites are a strange bunch.
-
Here a thought for those good willed souls happening to read this thread:
There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to heresy, schism, and therefore, Hell. History attests to this obvious fact.
No man can be separated from the Pontiff and attain salvation, and if Peter is not therein the Church is not therein.
You show good will and answer the following:
Do you go to the New Mass?
Do you believe in and practice Ecuмenism?
Do you believe in Religious Liberty?
For that matter, do you accept every single docuмent and teaching of Vatican 2?
Do you believe in evolution?
Do you wear pants and dress immodestly?
-
So in the first place, as Fr. Hunter puts it, "there are certain matters of fact concerning which the Church can judge with infallible certainty. These are called by many writers dogmatic facts ... if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right".
But beside this, when we come to the allegation of a 55+year ongoing interregnum, it is de fide from Vatican I, as all theologians teach, that there will always be bishops in the Church who are pastors and teachers, sent just as the Apostles were sent. This means bishops in office, with a canonical mission from the Pope. But if Pius XII was the last Pope, then this isn't true, because there are only 13 bishops still alive (as of last year) who were appointed by Pope Pius XII, and all of them are Emeritus. Where, then, is the teaching Church? An indefinitely extended interregnum will inevitably lead to problems of this sort.
The correct understanding of the interrelation between the Petrine succession and the Apostolic succession precludes such a theory. It is de fide that Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy, and the consequence of an indefinitely extended interregnum would be that the Catholic Church would cease to be Apostolic - when all bishops appointed by the last Pope die. Therefore, the dogma pre-empts the possibility that an interregnum can be extended beyond that point. This, then, is a second and independent reason that sedevacantism is not the correct explanation of the crisis in the Church. Both come down to the question of the hierarchy, which Catholic dogma informs us will always exist.
In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter. For, since the primacy is the crown of the Apostolate, the Church which possesses the primacy must needs be Apostolic ... Hence that Church, and that Church only, which can trace its rulers to the first primate, namely, St. Peter, is in fact and by right Apostolic in every sense.
-
on a side note; to those who feel unsure on how to articulate where they stand at their local Parish without feeling ostracized or to make an appeal to a reference to avoid local drama may want to look into (assuming individual prudence): Ad beatissimi Apostolorum "Appealing for Peace" Encyclical given on November 1, 1914 by Pope Benedict XV.
#24 The Integrity of Faith (from the "The Papal Encyclicals 1903-1939")
It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations (nicknames, designations--added) which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics.... There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic is my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." pg. 148,149
For further Context: online sources
Ad beatissimi Apostolorum (vatican source)/ here (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_01111914_ad-beatissimi-apostolorum_en.html)
Papal Encyclicals online (here) (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15adbea.htm)
-
on a side note; to those who feel unsure on how to articulate where they stand at their local Parish without feeling ostracized or to make an appeal to a reference to avoid local drama may want to look into (assuming individual prudence): Ad beatissimi Apostolorum "Appealing for Peace" Encyclical given on November 1, 1914 by Pope Benedict XV.
#24 The Integrity of Faith (from the "The Papal Encyclicals 1903-1939")
It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations (nicknames, designations--added) which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics.... There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic is my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." pg. 148,149
For further Context: online sources
Ad beatissimi Apostolorum (vatican source)/ here (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_01111914_ad-beatissimi-apostolorum_en.html)
Papal Encyclicals online (here) (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15adbea.htm)
Are you another novus ordoite?
-
on a side note; to those who feel unsure on how to articulate where they stand at their local Parish without feeling ostracized or to make an appeal to a reference to avoid local drama may want to look into (assuming individual prudence): Ad beatissimi Apostolorum "Appealing for Peace" Encyclical given on November 1, 1914 by Pope Benedict XV.
#24 The Integrity of Faith (from the "The Papal Encyclicals 1903-1939")
It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations (nicknames, designations--added) which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics.... There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic is my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." pg. 148,149
For further Context: online sources
Ad beatissimi Apostolorum (vatican source)/ here (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_01111914_ad-beatissimi-apostolorum_en.html)
Papal Encyclicals online (here) (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15adbea.htm)
Are you another novus ordoite?
Nope...
Christian is my name and Catholic is my surname!
-
The word "Sedevacantist" or "Sedevantism" in and of itself is being used as a trigger to incite hate amongst fellow Catholics.
I just had in my mind's eye if a person had an ecclesiological breakdown that a third party would consider "Sede" but that person just wants to live their life without a label and to receive valid Sacraments (confession/ Eucharist) at a non-Sede Chapel -- that he/she could do so without having to wait 1 month or travel to another state.
In particular to avoid burning the proverbial bridge at a local non-sede Chapel with valid sacraments...
Sure some may consider it a dodge, but to prevent a circuмstance leading to not feeling welcome at a chapel; then prudentially (at least to me) I would take valid reception of Sacraments (in particular confession) as priority; in particular if an emergency arose that was time dependent.
-
0
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
What?! :shocked:
All this time I thought she was at least a traditionalist.
:laugh2:
I'm gathering this from other posts she has made here and elsewhere. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Others have questioned the obvious contradiction in this as well.
Sounds right. She's free to correct the impression she's given, of course-- but she won't, I'm sure.
Novus Ordo Feeneyites are a strange bunch.
Thanks for corroborating. I was starting to feel badly that I jumped the gun on that characterization.
The fact that she does not correct the impression, makes it abundantly clear that it is spot on.
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
Is she Novus Ordo? I never noticed that from reading her postings. This is the one of the last places I would expect to find Novus Ordo people frequently responding.
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
Is she Novus Ordo? I never noticed that from reading her postings. This is the one of the last places I would expect to find Novus Ordo people frequently responding.
Why do you think they don't answer when you question them on this?
I mean, they can read the posts and see what people are saying and not say a peep just like that.
I have never been able to do that.
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
Is she Novus Ordo? I never noticed that from reading her postings. This is the one of the last places I would expect to find Novus Ordo people frequently responding.
Read the last few pages of this thread where there is discussion of the St Benedict Center in NH:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Depressed
-
If it looks like a heretic, acts like a communist, and talks like a Modernist, it no doubt is the Great Apostasy.
-
Sneaky keeps attacking me as if I were an R&Rer. I am not. I agree that most of the sedevacantist arguments against R&R are quite valid. I am of the opinion that the Holy See is most likely vacant at this time.
But here's the catch. It's a very crucial distinction. You might argue that it's semantics, but it's not. It makes all the difference in the world.
I adopt a posture of humility. I concede that I might be wrong about this, admit that I arrived at my conclusions based on my private judgment, and defer to the judgment of the Holy Catholic Church on the subject, because only the Catholic Church can decide who is pope and who is not. This makes all the difference in the world because Catholics CANNOT go around determining papal legitimacy based on private judgment. Papal legitimacy is something that must be known with the certainty of faith, and that can NEVER happen when it's rooted in private judgment. In my Pius IX infallibility example, the logical conclusion of sedevacantism proper is to say that it's OK to Pope-Sift, i.e. to reject the teaching of a Pius IX due to allegations of illegitimacy. No, the legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith a priori to the dogmatic definition. Based on that certainty of faith, then, I must accept the dogmatic teaching regarding papal infallibility and change my mind on the subject. There were several catechisms out there before Vatican I that rejected the idea of papal infallibility. After Vatican I, however, these were all changed and a lot of critics of the idea humbly accepted the teaching of the Church. Then there were the Old Catholics, who considered papal infallibility to be a heretical novelty. Sedevacantism would vindicate their stance.
That's where Bishop Sanborn gets it completely wrong in his condemnation of "opinionism". He doesn't realize that there can be certainty and then there can be certainty, meaning that one can have a certainty that's arrived through the natural intellect and one can have the certainty of faith, and that these are two different certainties.
-
You would have to say the same thing regarding Vatican II and the New Mass - it would only be a personal opinion that they're not Catholic.
Those conclusions are also arrived at based on private judgment.
-
You would have to say the same thing regarding Vatican II and the New Mass - it would only be a personal opinion that they're not Catholic.
Those conclusions are also arrived at based on private judgment.
But you and other non-sedes make this private judgment. Why is this private judgment a.o.k?
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
Is she Novus Ordo? I never noticed that from reading her postings. This is the one of the last places I would expect to find Novus Ordo people frequently responding.
Please do not listen to the calumnies and rumors spread by clearly bad willed individuals.
Slander against one's neighbor is a sin, a sure sign of reprobate souls.
-
You would have to say the same thing regarding Vatican II and the New Mass - it would only be a personal opinion that they're not Catholic.
Those conclusions are also arrived at based on private judgment.
But you and other non-sedes make this private judgment. Why is this private judgment a.o.k?
I never said that private judgment is not permitted, just that it can never rise to the sufficient level of certainty (certainty of faith) required for making a definitive conclusion about papal legitimacy. In case case of Vatican II, the private judgment about its content is intertwined with the private judgment about the papal legitimacy. If St. Pius X had presided over Vatican II then I would have accepted Vatican II without any hesitation whatsoever and worked feverishly to show how it reconciled with Tradition. But when you have the V2 papacies as tainted as they are with Communist / Masonic / Jєωιѕн connections and dots, and the whole Siri election doubt, etc. When you put all the dots together, both extrinisic and instrinsic to Vatican II, that's when it rises to the level of positive doubt.
-
Please do not listen to the calumnies and rumors spread by clearly bad willed individuals.
Slander is a sure sign of reprobate souls.
So you are a traditionalist then. That's good.
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
Is she Novus Ordo? I never noticed that from reading her postings. This is the one of the last places I would expect to find Novus Ordo people frequently responding.
Please do not listen to the calumnies and rumors spread by clearly bad willed individuals.
Slander against one's neighbor is a sin, a sure sign of reprobate souls.
So you only attend the traditional Latin Mass? You do not attend the Novus Ordo? Is that what you're saying? It shouldn't be difficult to get someone on a board for traditional Catholics to answer this question, but for someone reason you're very evasive about it.
-
I don't usually agree with Cantarella about BOD, however judging by her PM's to me, I can vouch for her that she is a Traditionalist, not attending the Novus Ordo.
-
It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.
Go figure.
Is she Novus Ordo? I never noticed that from reading her postings. This is the one of the last places I would expect to find Novus Ordo people frequently responding.
Please do not listen to the calumnies and rumors spread by clearly bad willed individuals.
Slander against one's neighbor is a sin, a sure sign of reprobate souls.
In my experience, those who tend to use the term "bad willed" about others should look to themselves first.
-
I don't usually agree with Cantarella about BOD, however judging by her PM's to me, I can vouch for her that she is a Traditionalist, not attending the Novus Ordo.
That's not the only way one can be "Novus Ordo".
-
I don't usually agree with Cantarella about BOD, however judging by her PM's to me, I can vouch for her that she is a Traditionalist, not attending the Novus Ordo.
That's not the only way one can be "Novus Ordo".
You are correct in the sense that she believes the pope to be a true pope, but so do the SSPX people; are they also "Novus Ordo"? I didn't think so, but what is an accurate definition of "Novus Ordoism" here on this forum? Honest question here.
-
I don't usually agree with Cantarella about BOD, however judging by her PM's to me, I can vouch for her that she is a Traditionalist, not attending the Novus Ordo.
That's not the only way one can be "Novus Ordo".
You are correct in the sense that she believes the pope to be a true pope, but so do the SSPX people; are they also "Novus Ordo"? I didn't think so, but what is an accurate definition of "Novus Ordoism" here on this forum? Honest question here.
All I know is that St Benedict Center is part of the Novus Ordo Church, approved by their local diocese. And it appeared to me that she was singing their praises in the thread I linked earlier. In that thread others made comments re: Novus Ordo Feeneyites and she did not say that this was an incorrect description. Even here she does not say this is not true, but rather shifts focus onto the so-called "bad willed" posters with "reprobate souls".
I am most certainly willing to admit I am wrong if I am wrong.
-
I don't usually agree with Cantarella about BOD, however judging by her PM's to me, I can vouch for her that she is a Traditionalist, not attending the Novus Ordo.
That's not the only way one can be "Novus Ordo".
You are correct in the sense that she believes the pope to be a true pope, but so do the SSPX people; are they also "Novus Ordo"? I didn't think so, but what is an accurate definition of "Novus Ordoism" here on this forum? Honest question here.
Myrna,
There are some here that believe that if one is not a sedevacantist then one automatically is a Novus Ordo who will burn eternally in Hell.
For those wounded souls that believe this lunacy, let me remind you that the second way of becoming a schismatic (therefore, outside of the Church, unable to acquire salvation) is to refuse communion with other Catholics.
-
If Cantarella says that she doesn't attend the Novus Ordo, I'll take her word for it.
The only reason I thought otherwise is that she never answers the question. She's been asked before and always avoids answering. She is fond of the Novus Ordo SBC, and talks about traditionalists having dubious holy orders and has also expressed a not-so-subtle anxiety about being in schism with Francis.
Combine all the above behaviors with someone who will never unequivocally answer the question "do you attend the N.O./do you exclusively attend the TLM?" and it's hardly a stretch of the imagination for one to be left with the impression that the person fitting this description is a Novus Ordite (even if a conservative one). That is miles away from calumny. Besides, calumny is stating something one knows is false about another-- nothing was really stated, and what was said was essentially in question form, due to the elusiveness of Cantarella on this issue.
-
The Saint Benedict Center is an orthodox traditional organization. They celebrate the traditional Latin Mass exclusively. They oppose interfaith. They work tirelessly to instruct the ignorant on the important Catholic Dogma, EENS. In their bookstore they only sell pre Vatican 2 Catechisms and the Douay Rheims Bible. They even sell The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita in their store. I have bought pamphlets from the Saint Benedict Center and they sent me some of their newspapers for free which I found very edifying. They have written beautiful poetry and seem to include a prayer for the conversion of America in every paper, which is wonderful.
-
The Saint Benedict Center is an orthodox traditional organization. They celebrate the traditional Latin Mass exclusively. They oppose interfaith. They work tirelessly to instruct the ignorant on the important Catholic Dogma, EENS. In their bookstore they only sell pre Vatican 2 Catechisms and the Douay Rheims Bible. They even sell The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita in their store. I have bought pamphlets from the Saint Benedict Center and they sent me some of their newspapers for free which I found very edifying. They have written beautiful poetry and seem to include a prayer for the conversion of America in every paper, which is wonderful.
If the SBC is doing the Lord's work, makes the SSPX Resistance seem pretty vain, don't you think?
-
Please do not listen to the calumnies and rumors spread by clearly bad willed individuals.
Slander is a sure sign of reprobate souls.
So you are a traditionalist then. That's good.
I exclusively attend the Tridentine Latin Mass. However, the Traditionalist order I am member of, emphasizes the restoration of heavenly dogma, more than the liturgy itself (which differs from the SSPX approach) as the only way of rebuilding Christendom.
-
I don't usually agree with Cantarella about BOD, however judging by her PM's to me, I can vouch for her that she is a Traditionalist, not attending the Novus Ordo.
That's not the only way one can be "Novus Ordo".
You are correct in the sense that she believes the pope to be a true pope, but so do the SSPX people; are they also "Novus Ordo"? I didn't think so, but what is an accurate definition of "Novus Ordoism" here on this forum? Honest question here.
Myrna,
There are some here that believe that if one is not a sedevacantist then one automatically is a Novus Ordo who will burn eternally in Hell.
For those wounded souls that believe this lunacy, let me remind you that the second way of becoming a schismatic (therefore, outside of the Church, unable to acquire salvation) is to refuse communion with other Catholics.
:laugh2:
-
I never said that private judgment is not permitted,
How could anyone ever think that. I mean, you only engage in private judgment like, 24/7.
just that it can never rise to the sufficient level of certainty (certainty of faith) required for making a definitive conclusion about papal legitimacy.
Are you saying that determining whether a Papal pretender is a public/manifest heretic has to be determined with such certainty?
In case case of Vatican II, the private judgment about its content is intertwined with the private judgment about the papal legitimacy.
Same thing here. Are you saying that for anyone to know or determine whether Vatican 2 has error/heresy/etc. certainty of faith is required?
If St. Pius X had presided over Vatican II then I would have accepted Vatican II without any hesitation whatsoever and worked feverishly to show how it reconciled with Tradition. But when you have the V2 papacies as tainted as they are with Communist / Masonic / Jєωιѕн connections and dots, and the whole Siri election doubt, etc. When you put all the dots together, both extrinisic and instrinsic to Vatican II, that's when it rises to the level of positive doubt.
Yes, and this makes your example of Vatican I and infallibility invalid and baseless.
You refute yourself.
-
Sneaky keeps attacking me as if I were an R&Rer. I am not. I agree that most of the sedevacantist arguments against R&R are quite valid.
Very well.
I am of the opinion that the Holy See is most likely vacant at this time.
But here's the catch. It's a very crucial distinction. You might argue that it's semantics, but it's not. It makes all the difference in the world.
I adopt a posture of humility. I concede that I might be wrong about this, admit that I arrived at my conclusions based on my private judgment, and defer to the judgment of the Holy Catholic Church on the subject, because only the Catholic Church can decide who is pope and who is not. This makes all the difference in the world because Catholics CANNOT go around determining papal legitimacy based on private judgment.
What about not going to the New Mass? What about being separated from the Novus Ordo? What about rejecting Vatican 2? What about not engaging in dialogue, ecuмenism?
Convenient! Where is your humility in rejecting all of that?
Where is your humility in rejecting bod/bob and EENS?
"only the Catholic Church can decide who is pope and who is not", but YOU get to decide everything else???
:dancing-banana:
Papal legitimacy is something that must be known with the certainty of faith, and that can NEVER happen when it's rooted in private judgment.
Show me 1 thing saying that this means determining whether a Papal pretender is a manifest/public heretic falls under the same level of certainty.
In my Pius IX infallibility example, the logical conclusion of sedevacantism proper is to say that it's OK to Pope-Sift, i.e. to reject the teaching of a Pius IX due to allegations of illegitimacy.
You mock and insult all the Popes that have lived.
THEY WERE ALL CATHOLICS. They all belonged to the Catholic religion and defended it.
These v-2 monkeys are a joke. Even non-Catholics know they are bogus. They are even worse than Luther!
You should be ashamed of yourself, comparing true and valid Popes with these v-2 antichrists.
No, the legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith a priori to the dogmatic definition. Based on that certainty of faith, then, I must accept the dogmatic teaching regarding papal infallibility and change my mind on the subject.
What in the world are you doing being a traditionalist then.
Heed your own advice, "change your mind" about V-2, gobble it all up, start going to your local parish and get on with the program.
Or admit that you refute yourself, you have no idea what you're saying, and that SV is the only answer.
There were several catechisms out there before Vatican I that rejected the idea of papal infallibility. After Vatican I, however, these were all changed and a lot of critics of the idea humbly accepted the teaching of the Church.
Evidence please.
Then there were the Old Catholics, who considered papal infallibility to be a heretical novelty. Sedevacantism would vindicate their stance.
There will come a day when you will not be able to get away with saying things like this.
You might as well say SV would vindicate any heretic in history.
The fact that you do indeed say that just shows again how you are just plain bad willed and dishonest because you know that is false.
-
Then there were the Old Catholics, who considered papal infallibility to be a heretical novelty. Sedevacantism would vindicate their stance.
The very moment you concede that we are in an unprecedented situation, which you, the SSPX, all the other false traditionalists and neo cons do, this argument gets blown out of the water, you shoot yourself in the foot and eat your own words.
If you paid any attention and reflected and thought about this a little, which you don't, and what you said was true, then you would be doing the exact same thing as the Old Catholics you mention here.
They considered papal infallibility to be a heretical novelty, and so do you, the SSPX and the rest think of V2.
Why are we even in a so-called "unprecedented" situation? Because you allege the same thing the Old Catholics do: that these v-2 "Popes" have come out with heretical novelties.
In fact you people allege more than the Old Catholics, way way more.
Sedevacantism merely gives you the WHY of all this, but you already knew this.
So why do you say what you say?
Why do you constantly and obstinately lie and misrepresent Sedevacantism?
-
And then it is legitimate then to blow up your balloons and dress up in your clown suit - if that was someone's personal opinion on the matter.
Catholicism gets reduced to personal taste and preference.
Indeed. Let's see if he will address this.
He already plays Pope with bod/bob, eens and the whole Vatican 2 program so his "humility" in "only" saying he can't say for sure if they're real Popes or not is nothing less than hilarious.
-
...the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II...The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council...It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.[/u]
...the binding character of the Second Vatican Council...
...Bishops...feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question.
...the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite...
...the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.
The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.
Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
Do you believe in and accept all that, Ladislaus?
Or do you say, "No thanks Pope, I will directly defy you and I prefer and will follow MY own judgment rather than YOURS, but don't worry, because I am humble and will say that you are still the Pope, even though I could care less what you say and will act as though you never even said all this. As a matter of fact I think you're a Modernist and are dead wrong here. But don't forget: I will say that you are the Pope to my dying breath. Because I am so humble."
-
If Cantarella says that she doesn't attend the Novus Ordo, I'll take her word for it.
The only reason I thought otherwise is that she never answers the question. She's been asked before and always avoids answering. She is fond of the Novus Ordo SBC, and talks about traditionalists having dubious holy orders and has also expressed a not-so-subtle anxiety about being in schism with Francis.
Combine all the above behaviors with someone who will never unequivocally answer the question "do you attend the N.O./do you exclusively attend the TLM?" and it's hardly a stretch of the imagination for one to be left with the impression that the person fitting this description is a Novus Ordite (even if a conservative one). That is miles away from calumny. Besides, calumny is stating something one knows is false about another-- nothing was really stated, and what was said was essentially in question form, due to the elusiveness of Cantarella on this issue.
You mean like stating this:
There are [some] here that believe that if one is not a sedevacantist then one automatically is a Novus Ordo who will burn eternally in Hell.
in a response to Myrna who was communicating with me?
Or was that just evasive enough to let her off the hook?
-
Since you are clearly not receptive to anything I might have to say on this subject, instead of wasting time posting answers to all of your objections, I'll say a prayer for you ... so that my time would be better spent.
-
Since you are clearly not receptive to anything I might have to say on this subject, instead of wasting time posting answers to all of your objections, I'll say a prayer for you ... so that my time would be better spent.
Answer this one thing at least, Mr. Humble:
What about not going to the New Mass? What about being separated from the Novus Ordo? What about rejecting Vatican 2? What about not engaging in dialogue, ecuмenism?
Convenient! Where is your humility in rejecting all of that?
Where is your humility in rejecting bod/bob and EENS?
"only the Catholic Church can decide who is pope and who is not", but YOU get to decide everything else???
-
Mr Humble?
I know you're online right now.
-
Since you are clearly not receptive to anything I might have to say on this subject, instead of wasting time posting answers to all of your objections, I'll say a prayer for you ... so that my time would be better spent.
Answer this one thing at least, Mr. Humble:
What about not going to the New Mass? What about being separated from the Novus Ordo? What about rejecting Vatican 2? What about not engaging in dialogue, ecuмenism?
Convenient! Where is your humility in rejecting all of that?
You keep addressing me as if I believed that the V2 Papal Claimants are actually the popes. I don't. But the point is that I'm not 100% certain, knowing that my private judgment is fallible and that I might be missing something. If I had to put a number on it, I would say that I'm 90% sure that the V2 Papal Claimants have been Antipopes. But I'm not 100% certain, much less do I have the requisite certainty of faith about the matter. Then my rejection of the V2 stuff comes from the application of the principle, Papa dubius papa nullus. -- "a doubtful pope is no pope." So, in the practical order, I treat them as if they have no authority. If, however, I had no positive doubt about the legitimacy of these men, then, you are correct, I would have to accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass.
Where is your humility in rejecting bod/bob and EENS?
Uhm, no, I do not reject EENS. It is my contention that you do. And my posture here is precisely the same. I am not 100% regarding my opinion on the question of BoD/BoB, much less do I have the certainty of faith regarding the issue. That's where I have gotten into arguments with the Dimonds. I have a theological opinion on the matter that's subject to correction by the Church. I do not believe that BoD/BoB have been universally taught by the Church's magisterium. I don't want to digress into the arguments about why, since that would sidetrack the issue. But I am consistent here also. I have adopted a theological opinion about which I am not 100% certain, and concerning which I would always submit to the judgment of the Church. During normal times, with an unquestionably valid hierarchy, I would submit my theological problems to the Holy Father and would go through the proper channels to have the matter resolved.
There's no need to continue derisively referring to me as "Mr. Humble". I am upholding humility as a virtue and not claiming that I personal have the virtue of humility. I am talking about the need for humility, deference, and obedience IN PRINCIPLE and not making any claims about my own personal virtue.
-
Mr Humble?
I know you're online right now.
This isn't the only thread I look at, and it took me a little time to write the response. As I said earlier, it's not my top priority to keep answering you, since you are not at all receptive to anything I have to say.
-
You keep addressing me as if I believed that the V2 Papal Claimants are actually the popes. I don't. But the point is that I'm not 100% certain, knowing that my private judgment is fallible and that I might be missing something. If I had to put a number on it, I would say that I'm 90% sure that the V2 Papal Claimants have been Antipopes. But I'm not 100% certain, much less do I have the requisite certainty of faith about the matter.
This is why i asked you, WHERE does it say that you have to have this level of certainty when determining whether someone is a public/manifest heretic or not.
Do you believe you need to have more certainty than even absolute certainty?
Then my rejection of the V2 stuff comes from the application of the principle, Papa dubius papa nullus. -- "a doubtful pope is no pope." So, in the practical order, I treat them as if they have no authority. If, however, I had no positive doubt about the legitimacy of these men, then, you are correct, I would have to accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass.
The problem for you is that the Church has never taught that you can throw the whole Church and the Magisterium out the window and go solo following your own judgment on everything, on account of some "positive doubt".
The Church has never taught you can be your own Pope, which is what you do.
Uhm, no, I do not reject EENS. It is my contention that you do.
What I mean by that is that you reject implicit bod and the things you deem heresy against EENS.
Sadly for you bod/bob are settled matters and your rejection of them is mortal sin.
What you allege can be alleged by any other sinner with any other sin.
Submission and authority would be meaningless if anyone could just simply say "Ah well I don't think that's clear or established" and avoid sin just like that.
-
The problem for you is that the Church has never taught that you can throw the whole Church and the Magisterium out the window and go solo following your own judgment on everything, on account of some "positive doubt".
That's absolutely untrue. Theologians commonly teach the principle I enunciated above that a Doubtful Pope is No Pope -- papa dubius nullus papa.
This will be my last post on the subject.
-
I personally think Ladislaus' position, though I don't agree with it entirely, is a quite reasonable one. It is universally taught a doubtful Pope, a doubtful law, a doubtful command cannot oblige one's conscience, if there are solid and objective foundations for this doubt. Some theologians think all Popes during the Great Schism were doubtful, hence there would have been no sin or schism in choosing one or the other, or even being personally suspicious of all, so long as one was ready to submit to any after his uncontested acceptance became an indisputable fact. As a matter of fact, according to John of St. Thomas and several others, if a universally accepted Papal election has not been completed, the election is regarded as still going on, and the Church has it in Her power to do whatever is necessary to allay the remaining doubts and bring the matter to a conclusion. But that brings us back to , after a universally accepted election is manifest, all theologians teach that such doubts can no longer remain.
I would ask Ladislaus, supposing it is true that the See is vacant, then that doubt could be resolved by a later judgment of the Church, so that all may have infallible certainty after that.
But what if the See was not vacant? What set of necessary and sufficient conditions would prove this, with the same infallible certainty, according to you? There must be some set of such conditions, otherwise the matter could not be resolved. If you consider this question, I think you'll see the answer, and only answer, can be the acceptance of the Church, the universal episcopate in particular.
The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected. As long as any doubt remains and the tacit consent of the universal Church has not yet remedied the possible flaws in the election, there is no Pope, papa dubius, papa nullus. As a matter of fact, remarks John of St. Thomas, in so far as a peaceful and certain election is not apparent, the election is regarded as still going on. And since the Church has full control, not over a Pope certainly elected, but over the election itself, she can take all measures needed to bring it to a conclusion. The Church can therefore judge a Pope to be doubtful. Thus, says John of St. Thomas, the Council of Constance judged three Popes to be doubtful, of whom two were deposed, and the third renounced the pontificate (loc. cit., a. 3, nos. 10-11; vol. VII, p. 254) ...
But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.
Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq. ).
God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately ... Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic ...
-
This will be my last post on the subject.
Why? I was nice and didn't call you any names or anything but simply asked things.
The problem for you is that the Church has never taught that you can throw the whole Church and the Magisterium out the window and go solo following your own judgment on everything, on account of some "positive doubt".
That's absolutely untrue. Theologians commonly teach the principle I enunciated above that a Doubtful Pope is No Pope -- papa dubius nullus papa.
No, it isn't. You will find NOTHING in favor of your and the SSPX's position of setting up another Church against the Church.
Papa dubius nullus papa has NOTHING to do with SV or with what you and the SSPX do, which is why you still have not answered what I asked.
WHERE does it say that you have to have certainty of faith when determining whether someone is a public/manifest heretic or not.
-
This will be my last post on the subject.
Why? I was nice and didn't call you any names or anything but simply asked things.
This wasn't some kind of vindictive move on my part. As I explained earlier, I don't have the time to post when it's clear that you are not receptive to my views.
You keep saying stuff like:
No, it isn't. You will find NOTHING in favor of your and the SSPX's position of setting up another Church against the Church.
when there's absolutely NOTHING in my position that would set up Church against Church. You are using the canned responses that SVs always throw out there against the R&R position, despite the fact that they do not apply to my position.
WHERE does it say that you have to have certainty of faith when determining whether someone is a public/manifest heretic or not.
You need to have certainty of faith when it comes to papal legitimacy. See Nishant's post above.
-
This will be my last post on the subject.
Why? I was nice and didn't call you any names or anything but simply asked things.
This wasn't some kind of vindictive move on my part. As I explained earlier, I don't have the time to post when it's clear that you are not receptive to my views.
You keep saying stuff like:
No, it isn't. You will find NOTHING in favor of your and the SSPX's position of setting up another Church against the Church.
when there's absolutely NOTHING in my position that would set up Church against Church. You are using the canned responses that SVs always throw out there against the R&R position, despite the fact that they do not apply to my position.
You position is in essence the same as the SSPX. They all boil down to the same thing.
If you don't like digging deep into what you believe or figuring out the consequences and where it all leads to, then that's one thing.
But don't say what i say doesn't apply to you because it does.
WHERE does it say that you have to have certainty of faith when determining whether someone is a public/manifest heretic or not.
You need to have certainty of faith when it comes to papal legitimacy. See Nishant's post above.
When will you get it?
Papal legitimacy is ONE thing, a supposed Pope becoming a manifest/public heretic ANOTHER.
And you accuse me of being non-receptive...
-
But what if the See was not vacant? What set of necessary and sufficient conditions would prove this, with the same infallible certainty, according to you? There must be some set of such conditions, otherwise the matter could not be resolved. If you consider this question, I think you'll see the answer, and only answer, can be the acceptance of the Church, the universal episcopate in particular.
I should think that an undoubtedly-legitimate future pope could authoritatively decide that question as well. He'll have a lot of theological explaining to do ... to unravel the theology of why it's OK to reject Vatican II and under what conditions Catholics might be free to reject other acts of the Magisterium and why now we should regard his opinion on the previous Popes to have any certainty or reliability?
I have given a lot of thought about to the criteria for establishing a priori the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy, but I find myself in a theological Catch-22. Basically the same bishops who would be involved in the "acceptance" of a legitimate pope were the ones who also gave us a defective Ecuмenical Council and a defective/harmful Rite of Mass. If I had to accept the legitimacy of the papal claimants, then I would have no choice but to accept Vatican II and the NOM also as being substantially free from error or potential harm to souls. That's all tied to the indefectibility of the Church. How can we consistently say that, e.g. canonizations are infallible, that universal acceptance in infallible, but that universal discipline (e.g. Novus Ordo Missae) is not infallible and that an Ecuмenical Council can teach grave error to the Church and lead the Church into error?
So I think that the key lies in the illegitimate election. I don't see that such an election can be convalidated by universal acceptance. If Siri had been elected pope, accepted, and resigned under duress (therefore not validly), then Roncalli was put in his place, and unbeknownst to the broader Church (those outside the conclave) was rolled out with the papal regalia so that no one was the wiser. I don't see how, in such a scenario, "universal acceptance" can make it so that Siri / Gregory XVII was not still the pope.
-
You see, Nishant, here's the conundrum; it's based on the indefectibility of the Church that the "entire Church" could not accept an illegitimate pope, but based on the same principle the "entire Church" cannot accept a false Council and harmful / Protestant / bastard Rite of Mass either.
By some accounts, up to 90% of the world's bishops had gone Arian during the time of that crisis. Had these 90% gone and elected an Arian pope, they would all have accepted him, barring the 10% who had kept the faith. To me, these 10%, however, are the majority and it would be THEIR universal consent that would be required, and the 90% Arians are disqualified from factoring into the equation in the first place. Similar forces are at work at Vatican II. Those 90% of bishops who jumped all over the Vatican II band wagon, did they really still have the faith? If not, then what does their acceptance of the V2 Papal Claimants really mean?
Think about this for a second. Imagine that Pope Francis had been elected instead of St. Pius X (back in that era). How long before millions of Catholics would have been up in arms declaring him a heretic and doubting his legitimacy? But the modernist-corrupted pseudo-Catholics of modern times do not have enough faith left to recognize this anymore. So, given their lack of faith, what does their universal acceptance mean? Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope. 85-90% do not believe in the Real Presence, and 95% of the remaining 10% reject some OTHER Catholic dogma. If they do not have enough Catholic discernment to recognize and reject the errors of Vatican II, how do they have enough Catholic discernment to recognize a true of false Pope?
-
You see, Nishant, here's the conundrum; it's based on the indefectibility of the Church that the "entire Church" could not accept an illegitimate pope, but based on the same principle the "entire Church" cannot accept a false Council and harmful / Protestant / bastard Rite of Mass either.
But it has happened before in the history of the Church. The Ecuмenical Council of Constance (1415), for example, taught the heresy of Conciliarism. Such errors of the Council of Constance were disavowed by Pope Martin V and annulled by Pope Sixtus IV. The errors of Constance were reaffirmed and reinforced by the Ecuмenical Council of Basel (1431-1437). This council (at first considered legitimate) would later be declared schismatic and condemned by Pope Eugene IV. Vatican II has not been yet (perhaps never will be) condemned by the legitimate authority, meaning another Pope.
Anyone with some historical background can see that the simplistic idea that everything a Pope or a Council teaches is true and infallible, does not fit with the reality. History just does not attest to that.
-
But it has happened before in the history of the Church. The Ecuмenical Council of Constance (1415), for example, taught the heresy of Conciliarism. Such errors of the Council of Constance were disavowed by Pope Martin V and annulled by Pope Sixtus IV. The errors of Constance were reaffirmed and reinforced by the Ecuмenical Council of Basel (1431-1437). This council (at first considered legitimate) would later be declared schismatic and condemned by Pope Eugene IV. Vatican II has not been yet (perhaps never will be) condemned by the legitimate authority, meaning another Pope.
Anyone with some historical background can see that the simplistic idea that everything a Pope or a Council teaches is true and infallible, does not fit with the reality. History just does not attest to that.
Your understanding of the history of Constance is faulty. Constance was convened by and the heretical Haec Sancta ("Conciliarism") promulgated under Antipope John XXIII. Gregory XII, the true Pope, refused to ratify Haec Sancta. Martin V never ratified Haec Sancta either, declaring the entire first 13 sessions to be null and void. So the error of Conciliarism was never ratified by a legitimate pope.
Ironic isn't it that Roncalli was John XXIII and that Siri reportedly took the name Gregory?
Honestly I must say that I find it shocking that a Catholic could believe that a legitimate Ecuмenical Council could teach error to the Church.
-
The Council of Constance was convoked in 1414 by the Anti-Pope John XXIII, one of three rival claimants to the papal throne, the other two being Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. The Council was called to resolve all doubts as to the true successor of Peter, and end the Great Schism. John agreed to resign if his rivals would do the same, then he fled the city. In the absence of a papal convenor, the Council enacted Haec Sancta (fifth session, 15 April 1415), which purported to subject even papal authority to the authority of the Council. John was brought back and deposed for scandalous conduct. Gregory convoked the Council anew, rejected all its prior proceedings (including Haec Sancta), and then resigned. The Council acquiesced in these actions, passed decrees on reform, condemned the heresies of Hus and Wyclif and, after deposing Benedict, elected Martin V, under whom unity was restored to the Church.
While no council, not even Ecuмenical, has authority to depose a Pope, the two men who were deposed were both Anti-Popes. The true Pope was Gregory XII, who resigned rather than being deposed. He it was who authorized the sessions beginning on 4 July 1415, and declared all previous sessions (the first thirteen) null and void. Martin V ratified the succeeding sessions at the conclusion of the Council.
-
Your understanding of the history of Constance is faulty. Constance was convened by and the heretical Haec Sancta ("Conciliarism") promulgated under Antipope John XXIII. Gregory XII, the true Pope, refused to ratify Haec Sancta. Martin V never ratified Haec Sancta either, declaring the entire first 13 sessions to be null and void. So the error of Conciliarism was never ratified by a legitimate pope.
That is a good point. The true Pope Martin ratified the council, except the decrees which proposed Conciliarism, but notice that it takes a true POPE, (not the common layman) to declare all the erroneous sessions "null and void". The same is true for the Council of Basel, which at first was considered legitimate but later declared schismatic and condemned by Pope Eugene IV.
Basel:
Council of the Roman Catholic church held in Basel, Switz. It addressed the question of ultimate authority in the church and the problem of the Hussite heresy. Its members renewed the decree Sacrosancta (issued by the Council of Constance), which declared the council's authority to be greater than the pope's, and voted to receive most Hussites back into the church on terms opposed by the pope. In 1437 Pope Eugenius IV transferred the council to Ferrara to negotiate reunion with the Orthodox church more effectively, but several members remained in Basel as a rump council and declared Eugenius deposed. They then elected a new pope, Felix V, and the renewed schism cost the council its prestige and popular support. On the death of Eugenius, his successor, Nicholas V, obliged the antipope Felix to abdicate, ended the rump council, and brought the conciliar movement to a close.
Reality is, that the only one in position to declare a Council invalid is another Roman Pontiff. Also, not even an Ecuмenical council can depose the Pope. Again what is the common layman to do during the times of great turbulence? Becoming a schismatic (therefore outside of Christ's Body and unable to enter Heaven) following his own conscience? It is Catholic practice to mistrust one's belief even when there is all evidence and wait for the truth dispensed solely by the Church.
-
And if one believes that the Church suddenly ceased to exist after Vatican II and refers to the Church pre - Vatican II as the real one and the Church post -Vatican II as a counterfeit and furthermore, refuses communion with other Catholics in submission to the visible reigning Pope, one is already a schismatic. Vatican II was the final triumph of Modernism over the Church hierarchy, which had been plaguing the Church long before, as history attests. The Church has been INFILTRATED by Her enemies. But it is the SAME Church that Christ founded more than 2000 years ago. There are not two separate Churches.
-
All i have ever seen and continue to see hurled at SV are strawmans, lies, distortions, ignorantia elenchi etc. In other words, all the dirty tricks in the book.
It's amazing, but then again, it's no surprise, since SV is firmly rooted in Catholic teaching and principles, as opposed to the "R&R" silliness and what the false conservatives in the novus ordo say, which isn't.
Your understanding of the history of Constance is faulty. Constance was convened by and the heretical Haec Sancta ("Conciliarism") promulgated under Antipope John XXIII. Gregory XII, the true Pope, refused to ratify Haec Sancta. Martin V never ratified Haec Sancta either, declaring the entire first 13 sessions to be null and void. So the error of Conciliarism was never ratified by a legitimate pope.
That is a good point.
"Good point"? He just showed how what you said was plain false.
...but notice that it takes a true POPE, (not the common layman) to declare all the erroneous sessions "null and void".
What in the world are you doing rejecting Vatican 2 and the New Mess then?
What in the world are you doing rejecting bod/bob?
It sure doesn't take the declaration of a true POPE to do that but the private judgment of the common layman eh?
Again what is the common layman to do during the times of great turbulence? Becoming a schismatic (therefore outside of Christ's Body and unable to enter Heaven) following his own conscience?
And yet that is exactly what you're doing and then some.
It is Catholic practice to mistrust one's belief even when there is all evidence and wait for the truth dispensed solely by the Church.
Indeed it is so why do you reject bod/bob and Vatican 2 and the New Mess?
Don't you know your "pope emeritus" DECREED the New Mass cannot be excluded nor Vatican 2 be questioned?
And if one believes that the Church suddenly ceased to exist after Vatican II
Yet another strawman and distortion invented by you.
No SV says this.
and refers to the Church pre - Vatican II as the real one and the Church post -Vatican II as a counterfeit and furthermore, refuses communion with other Catholics in submission to the visible reigning Pope, one is already a schismatic.
This is exactly what you demonstrate in practice so you condemn yourself out of your own mouth.
Vatican II was the final triumph of Modernism over the Church hierarchy, which had been plaguing the Church long before, as history attests. The Church has been INFILTRATED by Her enemies. But it is the SAME Church that Christ founded more than 2000 years ago. There are not two separate Churches.
Heretical nonsense. This is to say the Church defected and the Gates of Hell prevailed.
Do yourself a favor and shut your ignorant trap.
Blind hypocrite headed for the ditch.
-
It is a FOUL thing for a woman to speak in the Church. -1 Corinthians 14:35
Let the woman learn in SILENCE, with all subjection. But I suffer NOT a woman to teach, NOR to use authority over the man: but to be in SILENCE. -1 Timothy 2:11
Cantarella: Shut up already.
-
It is a FOUL thing for a woman to speak in the Church. -1 Corinthians 14:35
Let the woman learn in SILENCE, with all subjection. But I suffer NOT a woman to teach, NOR to use authority over the man: but to be in SILENCE. -1 Timothy 2:11
Cantarella: Shut up already.
You have a foul mouth. It must be charity. :smoke-pot:
-
It is a FOUL thing for a woman to speak in the Church. -1 Corinthians 14:35
Let the woman learn in SILENCE, with all subjection. But I suffer NOT a woman to teach, NOR to use authority over the man: but to be in SILENCE. -1 Timothy 2:11
Cantarella: Shut up already.
You have a foul mouth. It must be charity. :smoke-pot:
From which things some going astray, are turned aside unto vain babbling: [7] Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm. [8] But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully: [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine. -1 Timothy 1
Be not liars against the truth. -James 3:14
Thou canst not bear them that are evil, and thou hast tried them, who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars. -Apocalypse 2:2
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, AND ALL LIARS, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. -Apocalypse 21:8
Treat not with the dishonest of honesty. -Ecclesiasticus 37:37
The Lord hateth all abomination of error, and they that fear Him shall not love it. -Ecclesiasticus 15:13
Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth: ...a lying tongue...A deceitful witness that uttereth lies. -Proverbs 6:16
The fear of the Lord hateth evil: I hate a mouth with a double tongue. -Proverbs 8:13
That all applies to what Cantarella says against SV.
-
Although I wouldn't use the words Sneaky is using, I do think he is making a good point. On the one hand the non-sedes (whether R&R or somewhere in-between) continue to state that we must have a pope to decide whether previous popes are illegitimate; as a result, they do not make this judgment. Some go even farther and condemn the SV's for making such a judgment.
And yet, they continue to judge Vatican II, the New Mass etc, etc without a pope making the judgment first. In fact, the pope that they say is true says just the opposite about these things. Unless of course some of them really don't think there is anything wrong with Vatican II, the New Mass, etc. If they didn't, then at least that would be consistent.
And Sneaky, although I disagree with Cantarella, I am also a woman. I'm pretty sure you don't mind my posts.
-
Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope.
And you would have to say that you're not 100% certain that she's not pope.
Uhm, no.
-
[Reality is, that the only one in position to declare a Council invalid is another Roman Pontiff.
Constance actually teaches us that the infallibility of an Ecuмenical Council derives from the papacy.
-
And if one believes that the Church suddenly ceased to exist after Vatican II
Yet another strawman and distortion invented by you.
No SV says this.
She's making the case that the disruption of papal succession for well over 50 years now would constitute a defection of the hierarchy. It's certainly an issue that has to be addressed by the SV thesis and can't be just blown off as a "strawman" because you don't want to deal with it. Most of the other SVs on this board have tried to grapple with the subject, but you ignore it ... which demonstrates intellectual dishonesty on your part. I struggle with this one myself.
And I struggle with the angle that Nishant takes regarding the fact that it's the Universal Acceptance by the Church which establishes the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy. It's a point well taken.
I just see that there's a big difference between the time of, say, St. Pius X, or Pius XI, or Pius XII where you had everyone universally accepting them as Popes and when there was peace in the Church and a state like today where you have almost universal apostasy, where 95% of all self-proclaimed Catholics are in fact heretics (based on polls which indicate that they reject one Church dogma or another), where there's massive confusion, upheaval, turmoil, decay, etc.
-
It is a FOUL thing for a woman to speak in the Church. -1 Corinthians 14:35
Let the woman learn in SILENCE, with all subjection. But I suffer NOT a woman to teach, NOR to use authority over the man: but to be in SILENCE. -1 Timothy 2:11
Cantarella: Shut up already.
Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. This first quote from St. Paul refers to female participation in the liturgy and the second to exercising any official teaching capacity in the Church ... which, on a side note, is why designating women (or laymen) as Doctors of the Church is completely wrong. Who are these women supposed to "learn" from, the likes of YOU?
Nevertheless, this is an internet FORUM, for crying out loud. Women have souls and intellects as well and are not to be excluded from the same kinds of discussions that you and I engage in. Neither YOU nor I are in any way part of the Ecclesia Docens (Church teaching) so if you require her to shut up, then you need to shut up also. As for me, I am quite happy that St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Theresa of Avila, and St. Catherine of Siena, among others, did not shut up. Would you dare tell Our Blessed Mother to "shut up" when she comes to teach us at Fatima? In the order of grace there is no male or female, as St. Paul teaches elsewhere. When we die and, God willing, enter the Kingdom of Heaven, we shall find many women exalted above us and in a greater degree of glory and more pleasing to God.
Not to mention that your tone and attitude are degrading to women and also makes Traditional Catholics look bad. I often think that Francis has some valid criticisms of what passes for Traditional Catholicism these days.
-
Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm
By your own post are you condemned. You have made it quite clear that you understand not the things you say.
-
And Sneaky, although I disagree with Cantarella, I am also a woman. I'm pretty sure you don't mind my posts.
Yes, selective application of principle.
2Vermont, the point I'm making is not about not judging or not having private judgment at all. That's what has been lost on the Sneak as well. It's simply an acknowledgement, in deference to the authority of the Church, that it is in fact a private judgment and lacks the certainty of faith requisite to establish papal legitimacy. As I've pointed out, I have come to the conclusion that the Holy See is most likely vacant, just as you have. Difference is that I acknowledge that I could be wrong and defer to the ultimate judgment of the Church. But it's a very crucial distinction, and it's the refusal of some SVs to acknowledge this (Father Jenkins for instance does acknowledge it) that leads to the bad fruits and, to be quite frank, schismatic attitudes (and accompanying dark, bitter zeal) prevalent among sedevacantists.
And it's the same mindset that haunts the Dimonds. I have criticized them for it, and they in turn ripped me. Unlike the Dimonds, I recognize that my opinion regarding BoD/BoB is based on my private judgment and I cannot go around declaring anyone who believes in BoD to be heretics (like they themselves do). I could be mistaken in my opinion. My issue vis-a-vis BoD more involves the implications for EENS when BoD is extended beyond the application made by the Doctors of the Church. Dimonds, however, consider themselves to be absolutely infallible and they lack humility, and it's destroying them by causing a dark infection of bitter zeal in their souls. [I'll probably get another e-mail from them attacking me for writing this.]
-
I'm not sure why Ladislaus is getting hammered in this thread for his position. There is nothing unreasonable or un-Catholic about the 'sede-doubtist' position, I say this as someone who holds the sedevacantist position. Let's not loose sight of the bigger picture. Whether you are 'R&R', 'doubtist' or full sede, the whole point of this exercise is to stay out of the grasp of the false, soul-killing conciliar religion. How you get there is far less important than that you simply get there and stay there out of the clutches of the modernist usurpers.
In fact I hope Ladislaus and others promote their position of doubt, I think traditionalists as a whole would be in a much better and safer position with a healthy dose of doubts regarding the conciliar popes. The apparent legitimacy of the conciliar popes/sect is the single source of power the modernists have had to spread their faith-killing mischief. Once a Catholic doubts their legitimacy, their power evaporates and it is very unlikely that Catholics will obey the modernists at the expense of their faith. With a healthy dose of doubt, another benefit that comes to mind, would be that we wouldn't have to endure a repeat of the 2011/2012 debacle in the SSPX/Rome reconciliation saga.
Fortunately for us, Francis seems to be going out of his way to make all the remaining Catholics doubt his legitimacy and drive the remaining Catholics out of the false conciliar sect, every time he opens his mouth. I will take that as a silver lining to this cloud that is this terrible and mysterious crisis befallen the Mystical Body of Christ, that IS (not subsist in ;) ) the Catholic Church.
-
I'm not sure why Ladislaus is getting hammered in this thread for his position.
It's coming from the so-called "dogmatic" sedevacantists. Father Jenkins articulates the position I hold much better than I do, and Father Jenkins is no lightweight; he's a brilliant man.
-
I'm not sure why Ladislaus is getting hammered in this thread for his position.
It's coming from the so-called "dogmatic" sedevacantists. Father Jenkins articulates the position I hold much better than I do, and Father Jenkins is no lightweight; he's a brilliant man.
I've heard the name but I'm not really familiar with Fr Jenkins, is he SSPV ?
-
And Sneaky, although I disagree with Cantarella, I am also a woman. I'm pretty sure you don't mind my posts.
Yes, selective application of principle.
2Vermont, the point I'm making is not about not judging or not having private judgment at all. That's what has been lost on the Sneak as well. It's simply an acknowledgement, in deference to the authority of the Church, that it is in fact a private judgment and lacks the certainty of faith requisite to establish papal legitimacy. As I've pointed out, I have come to the conclusion that the Holy See is most likely vacant, just as you have. Difference is that I acknowledge that I could be wrong and defer to the ultimate judgment of the Church. But it's a very crucial distinction, and it's the refusal of some SVs to acknowledge this (Father Jenkins for instance does acknowledge it) that leads to the bad fruits and, to be quite frank, schismatic attitudes (and accompanying dark, bitter zeal) prevalent among sedevacantists.
And it's the same mindset that haunts the Dimonds. I have criticized them for it, and they in turn ripped me. Unlike the Dimonds, I recognize that my opinion regarding BoD/BoB is based on my private judgment and I cannot go around declaring anyone who believes in BoD to be heretics (like they themselves do). I could be mistaken in my opinion. My issue vis-a-vis BoD more involves the implications for EENS when BoD is extended beyond the application made by the Doctors of the Church. Dimonds, however, consider themselves to be absolutely infallible and they lack humility, and it's destroying them by causing a dark infection of bitter zeal in their souls. [I'll probably get another e-mail from them attacking me for writing this.]
I do understand your distinction and I think I'm closer to where you are than you think. The difference is I act more like a sede than a so-called sededoubtist. Because I can't live my life in limbo. I can't live my life in doubt. I have to be as certain as I humanly can when it comes to this issue. It's too important to waver incessantly.
-
I'm not sure why Ladislaus is getting hammered in this thread for his position.
It's coming from the so-called "dogmatic" sedevacantists. Father Jenkins articulates the position I hold much better than I do, and Father Jenkins is no lightweight; he's a brilliant man.
I've heard the name but I'm not really familiar with Fr Jenkins, is he SSPV ?
Yes, although I heard that he and Bishop Kelly have had a bit of a falling out lately.
-
I do understand your distinction and I think I'm closer to where you are than you think. The difference is I act more like a sede than a so-called sededoubtist. Because I can't live my life in limbo. I can't live my life in doubt. I have to be as certain as I humanly can when it comes to this issue. It's too important to waver incessantly.
Well, I think that unless you are of the opinion that one cannot go to an "una cuм" Mass, then the practical implications are very few. Either I'm 100% sure or I'm not 100% sure, and wanting to be 100% sure doesn't change that fact.
-
I'm not sure why Ladislaus is getting hammered in this thread for his position.
It's coming from the so-called "dogmatic" sedevacantists. Father Jenkins articulates the position I hold much better than I do, and Father Jenkins is no lightweight; he's a brilliant man.
I've heard the name but I'm not really familiar with Fr Jenkins, is he SSPV ?
Yes, although I heard that he and Bishop Kelly have had a bit of a falling out lately.
But I thought SSPV was sdevacantist.
-
[Reality is, that the only one in position to declare a Council invalid is another Roman Pontiff.
Constance actually teaches us that the infallibility of an Ecuмenical Council derives from the papacy.
It has long been recognized that not everything that emanates from the highest authority in the Church (Pope, or Council) is of the same doctrinal certitude.
But before being bound to give such an ["absolute and irrevocable"] assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences – unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
Not all teachings emanating from a pope or an ecuмenical council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II (except where it is citing previous infallible definitions, which is in itself infallible). Paul VI himself said that the Council was of the ordinary magisterium. Officially, "Infallibility" is given to a "Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church[/i]". But Vatican II was not even a dogmatic Council, but pastoral. (the Holy Ghost was very much present in Vatican II when the Church had been infiltrated by Modernists: There was no dogma defined and no heresy condemned).
-
If the specific novel teachings of Vatican II (Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty) are not infallible, that means that they are subject to error, and more importantly, open to revision, reform, and a later clarification by the Church.
Besides, nothing new was actually said in Vatican II. The Religious Liberty / Ecuмenism decrees were based on the denial of EENS and Invincible Ignorance which were already rampant in the Church and came before Vatican II. All the liberal and Modernist ideas had already been infiltrated.
-
Here is the authority of the Council itself about it:
Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation. [/i
-
if the Catholic Church is in eclipse how is it visible like some of yous say?
-
When we speak about certain things in Conciliar docuмents not being infallible, we're usually talking about what theologians refer to as obiter dicta ... things said offhand. But when teaching a point of doctrine, an Ecuмenical Council cannot err. When a Council ASSERTS a point of doctrine, such as when declaring that human beings have a right to religious liberty, it cannot err. This wasn't just an offhand explanatory remark in a long narrative. Vatican II asserted various points of doctrine which are in error.
Regardless, I think that you're missing the forest for the trees. It isn't just one isolated statement here or there. It's a completely novel re-orientation of the entire Magisterium based on an underlying denial of EENS. It's also about the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church vis-a-vis the Novus Ordo Mass. At the end of the day, the Magisterium cannot have defected like this on so great a scale. Vatican II crosses a line where the very indefectibility of the Church would have to be called into question.
-
And Sneaky, although I disagree with Cantarella, I am also a woman. I'm pretty sure you don't mind my posts.
The difference is that you're not spouting lies and heresies as she is always doing.
-
0
-
And if one believes that the Church suddenly ceased to exist after Vatican II
Yet another strawman and distortion invented by you.
No SV says this.
She's making the case that the disruption of papal succession for well over 50 years now would constitute a defection of the hierarchy. It's certainly an issue that has to be addressed by the SV thesis and can't be just blown off as a "strawman" because you don't want to deal with it. Most of the other SVs on this board have tried to grapple with the subject, but you ignore it ... which demonstrates intellectual dishonesty on your part. I struggle with this one myself.
I don't ignore it. SV's have already addressed it countless times.
You see what im saying? You both are making statements and questions as if they have never been answered by SV's and as if they constitute an argument against it when they have all been answered and refuted decades ago.
Fr. O'Reilley would say otherwise.
You even know all this having been a SV yourself.
Or did you forget about everything and ever since you un-converted, you have never read anything SV ever since?
I assume she has read the response against this and that she in turn blows it off, showing her intellectual dishonesty.
This is simple in my view.
What good are heretical, apostate, modernist antichrists posing as the Hierarchy?
No good at all, and this is proven by the fact that ALL OF YOU run away from and have nothing to do with them.
So what if decades pass. The Church has never set a time frame for these things, not for an interregnum, not for how long an office/see can be vacant.
Better a vacant see/office than one being USURPED by an antichrist heretical modernist.
And I struggle with the angle that Nishant takes regarding the fact that it's the Universal Acceptance by the Church which establishes the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy. It's a point well taken.
Why do you keep repeating this if you know that there was no such "Universal Acceptance by the Church" starting with Paul 6?
He was NOT "universally accepted". You know this already.
-
And Sneaky, although I disagree with Cantarella, I am also a woman. I'm pretty sure you don't mind my posts.
The difference is that you're not spouting lies and heresies as she is always doing.
Matthew should start a sub-forum for "Men Only" for these guys that are afraid to see what we have to post.
Cantarella, and to any others who constantly post quotes of regulations, remember these laws are truthful, but these persons who in lawful authority created them did not have in mind this Great Apostasy.
Are you the type of person as an example, were in a torn up town from a bomb or some other mishap, and no one was alive except you, but by some miracle the street lights were all working, would you stop at every red light you came upon.
I think you would, but I would not, because my common sense would say, the law does not apply anymore because the need for it is gone.
-
And Sneaky, although I disagree with Cantarella, I am also a woman. I'm pretty sure you don't mind my posts.
The difference is that you're not spouting lies and heresies as she is always doing.
Matthew should start a sub-forum for "Men Only" for these guys that are afraid to see what we have to post.
He beat you to it.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=forum&f=23
-
Why do you keep repeating this if you know that there was no such "Universal Acceptance by the Church" starting with Paul 6?
He was NOT "universally accepted". You know this already.
How many Catholics did not accept Paul VI and the Popes after him? Less than one tenth of one percent of those who claim to be Catholics. That's pretty close to universal acceptance.
-
Why do you keep repeating this if you know that there was no such "Universal Acceptance by the Church" starting with Paul 6?
He was NOT "universally accepted". You know this already.
How many Catholics did not accept Paul VI and the Popes after him? Less than one tenth of one percent of those who claim to be Catholics. That's pretty close to universal acceptance.
Matto,
The problem with this argument (Nishant and I have hashed this out before) is that universal acceptance refers to being accepted by Catholics. What a moral unanimity of Novus Ordo clerics and and laypeople accept is not indicative of anything other than a current trend in a false religion, since these people are not Catholics. They've gone along with heresy in some way or another for the most part. True enough that there are faithful Catholics left mired in the Novus Ordo, and there might even be a few bishops who are not heretics, but we speak of this type of person as an exception. When one considers the Novus Ordo hierarchy as a body, there is no possible way in which one could consider this body to be a moral representation of all the bishops who make up the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and Nishant's argument rests on these men representing a moral unanimity of the Church-- they don't represent that.
As such, the argument is revealed to be very weak. It is essentially no different than saying that it is an infallible sign of papal legitimacy that the secular press recognizes Beroglio as the Vicar of Christ. It's a non-sequitur.
As far as applying this argument to Paul VI, I don't think it would apply because even though there were many more Catholic bishops, one has to consider just what exactly the theologians mean by "accept." They don't mean just that the election is unchallenged, they mean that a moral unanimity of Catholics treat "the pope" as the pope. This means learning the faith from him, abiding by his laws and treating him as what he is, the proximate rule of faith. There was resistance throughout Vatican II from the council fathers, and resistance all throughout Paul VI's reign-- Archbishop Lefebvre, de Castro Meyer, the Ottaviani intervention (and those who approved of it) and others. Something I've been hoping to research more lately are the amount of orthodox prelates who resigned, at least chronologically speaking, immediately after or around the promulgation of the N.O.M. Among these would be Bishop Cicognani-- at the moment only a correlation between the promulgation of the N.O.M. and his resignation can be discerned, but I think that further research might reveal the resignation of other good bishops at the same time, and I hardly think it's a stretch to assume that they may have not just resigned because they were getting old.
In summary: To argue that the VII popes were universally accepted and therefore must be popes both misrepresents what is necessary to determine universal acceptance, and misses the mark on what it means to accept in the first place. A moral unanimity of the hierarchy (and possibly the Catholic faithful, but at least the hierarchy) is necessary for an acceptance to be "universal." The Novus Ordo bishops who have lost the faith (i.e., most of them, certainly many of them) are not the Catholic hierarchy, ergo any VII pope who was universally accepted by them would not be protected by the doctrine of universal acceptance, since they are not a measure of acceptance any more than a moral unanimity of Islamic Imams. Secondly, to accept is to peacefully learn from, and no one has peacefully learned the faith from the Novus Ordo popes-- in fact, even the Novus Ordo bishops don't do that. You'll recall that the Novus Ordo Church still teaches, "officially" that birth control and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity are evils-- does a moral unanimity of N.O. bishops teach that? Certainly not.
-
There is your answer Matto.
Not even the SSPX accepts these antipopes.
They think LIP SERVICE means true acceptance?
Hypocrites, a thousand times hypocrites!
NOBODY accepts these antipopes.
-
There is your answer Matto.
Not even the SSPX accepts these antipopes.
They think LIP SERVICE means true acceptance?
Hypocrites, a thousand times hypocrites!
NOBODY accepts these antipopes.
It's true. Once you poll Novus Ordo Catholics on birth control, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, the Real Presence and "mass" attendance, you're left with only about twenty percent of self professed "Catholic" who aren't separated from the Church by doubting or denying one of hese these four very basic things alone.
Not sure what the percentage would be, but you'll find a similar phenomenon among Novus Ordo bishops, especially with respect to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
Point? Not even the Novus Ordites accept the Novus Ordo popes, who, for all their equivocating, still "officially" teach that birth control and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity are wrong (with the possible exception of Bergoglio, I suppose).
Of course, their being not accepted doesn't mean they're anti-popes, it just means that one can't saying "they're universally accepted, ergo they are popes."
-
There is your answer Matto.
Not even the SSPX accepts these antipopes.
They think LIP SERVICE means true acceptance?
Hypocrites, a thousand times hypocrites!
NOBODY accepts these antipopes.
It's true. Once you poll Novus Ordo Catholics on birth control, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, the Real Presence and "mass" attendance, you're left with only about twenty percent of self professed "Catholic" who aren't separated from the Church by doubting or denying one of hese these four very basic things alone.
Not sure what the percentage would be, but you'll find a similar phenomenon among Novus Ordo bishops, especially with respect to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
Point? Not even the Novus Ordites accept the Novus Ordo popes, who, for all their equivocating, still "officially" teach that birth control and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity are wrong (with the possible exception of Bergoglio, I suppose).
Of course, their being not accepted doesn't mean they're anti-popes, it just means that one can't saying "they're universally accepted, ergo they are popes."
But even the alleged 20% accept other heresies like salvation outside the Church and religious indifferetism.
-
Nishant's basic principles are indeed correct. I too however question what this acceptance means when 95% of Novus Ordo "Catholics" ... based on various polls ... reject one dogma or another, and therefore are not Catholcs. So, given that, what does Universal Acceptance really mean? When the Church had gone 90% Arian, I'm sure that you would have had a 90% "Universal Acceptance" of an Arian pope.
-
There is your answer Matto.
Not even the SSPX accepts these antipopes.
They think LIP SERVICE means true acceptance?
Hypocrites, a thousand times hypocrites!
NOBODY accepts these antipopes.
If you dig deep enough, I agree that most Traditional Catholics at the end of the day do indeed have some doubts about who these men are.
I wouldn't call it hypocrisy. It's a state of contradiction due to cognitive dissonance.
You see, Catholics without a Pope to be subject to are, in a manner of speaking, like fish out of water. Our very sensus fidei demands that we be subject to the Pope. Yes, yes, I know that putting up a picture of Francis in the vestibule doesn't count, but as I said, it's their way of dealing with a situation that's almost unbearable for a Catholic.
There's also a "benefit of the doubt" mindset, and they resolve this doubt in favor of their legitimacy because the consequences of breaking from a legitimate pope seem to outweigh the consequences of accepting someone who it would turn out isn't the true pope.
There's a lot going on and it isn't just hypocrisy.
But the dialogue between R&R and sedevacantism isn't helped when both sides radicalize and polarize and feed into a cycle of increasing distrust and mutual recriminations. As with everything, you tend to oversimplify.
I believe that it was John Lane who wrote an excellent article about the R&R mindset and psychology.
-
Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope.
And you would have to say that you're not 100% certain that she's not pope.
Uhm, no.
If Francis died today and a conclave elected Nancy Peℓσѕι in a few weeks time you would have to say - she's not the pope but I can't be 100% certain.
If you disagree please explain why. And please explain why you would be 100% certain that Peℓσѕι wouldn't be pope but you are not 100% certain about Bergoglio.
Because Nancy Peℓσѕι isn't even legitimate "matter" to be the Pope. She couldn't even be materially pope, much less formally. What requires the intervention of Church authority is when there are allegations that an actual MATERIAL pope has formally lost the office. Peℓσѕι can't even be material pope. It's really not that hard, Heremenegild.
-
Nishant's basic principles are indeed correct. I too however question what this acceptance means when 95% of Novus Ordo "Catholics" ... based on various polls ... reject one dogma or another, and therefore are not Catholcs. So, given that, what does Universal Acceptance really mean? When the Church had gone 90% Arian, I'm sure that you would have had a 90% "Universal Acceptance" of an Arian pope.
But we didn't. And there was never an Arian pope.
Nishant's basic principles aren't event correct. It is true that theologians consider it an infallible sign that a man who is universally elected pope is the pope.
However:
-The universal acceptance must be made by Catholics. Using non-Catholics (or, if you prefer, doubtful Catholics) as a measure of this doesn't achieve the end you're looking for.
-To accept a pope is not merely to say he's pope, but to submit to his laws and teachings. No one does that.
So, if by "basic principles" you mean we were to assume that universal acceptance can be determined by what a bunch of non-Catholics accept, and if your definition of accept doesn't actually require any intellectual submission to what the man teaches or the laws he lays down, then Nishan't basic principles are spot on. :D
Another thing to consider is that Paul IV's cuм ex Apostolatus Officio specifically stated that a man who was a heretic, even if universally accepted, would not be pope. This interesting because a) you have a law which admits not just to the possibility of the "election" of a heretic but also b) that law allows for the possibility of such a man to be universally accepted. Concurrently, I don't think any of the theologians who wrote on this matter had in mind the idea of a heretic pope being universally accepted. Of course, this is merely a corollary since the main problems with applying universal acceptance to these men are listed above.
-
Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope.
And you would have to say that you're not 100% certain that she's not pope.
Uhm, no.
If Francis died today and a conclave elected Nancy Peℓσѕι in a few weeks time you would have to say - she's not the pope but I can't be 100% certain.
If you disagree please explain why. And please explain why you would be 100% certain that Peℓσѕι wouldn't be pope but you are not 100% certain about Bergoglio.
Because Nancy Peℓσѕι isn't even legitimate "matter" to be the Pope. She couldn't even be materially pope, much less formally. What requires the intervention of Church authority is when there are allegations that an actual MATERIAL pope has formally lost the office. Peℓσѕι can't even be material pope. It's really not that hard, Heremenegild.
How are you 100% certain (your term) that Nancy Peℓσѕι is invalid matter for the papacy?
-
Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope.
And you would have to say that you're not 100% certain that she's not pope.
Uhm, no.
If Francis died today and a conclave elected Nancy Peℓσѕι in a few weeks time you would have to say - she's not the pope but I can't be 100% certain.
If you disagree please explain why. And please explain why you would be 100% certain that Peℓσѕι wouldn't be pope but you are not 100% certain about Bergoglio.
Because Nancy Peℓσѕι isn't even legitimate "matter" to be the Pope. She couldn't even be materially pope, much less formally. What requires the intervention of Church authority is when there are allegations that an actual MATERIAL pope has formally lost the office. Peℓσѕι can't even be material pope. It's really not that hard, Heremenegild.
The qualifications to be a validly elected Pope can be found in the Church Canonical Law. What happens in the case of a heretical pope cannot. Canon 332-1 of the 1983 Code states that one already a bishop (not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop.
That means that the Roman Pontiff must:
1. Be a male and be willing
2. Be Baptized,
3. Be an ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and
4. Have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders
There is simply not consensus as for what to do in the case of the election of an actual heretical Pope. Also, heresy (material or formal) is the pertinent denial of a Catholic dogma. The only doctrine that the conciliar Popes can be guilty of denying is the EENS dogma, as written, which ironically most traditionalist do anyway.
It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church like John XXII who submitted himself to a commission on his heretical teaching of the Beatific Vision.
-
I don't know enough to argue with anyone in this thread...
...but I'm just gonna say that all those Canon Lawyers in the Church Triumphant who do know enough are telling me that you're wrong.
-
Cantarella says ---> "There is simply not consensus as for what to do in the case of the election of an actual heretical Pope. Also, heresy (material or formal) is the pertinent denial of a Catholic dogma. The only doctrine that the conciliar Popes can be guilty of denying is the EENS dogma, as written, which ironically most traditionalist do anyway.
That is not enough for you?
-
Cantarella says ---> "There is simply not consensus as for what to do in the case of the election of an actual heretical Pope. Also, heresy (material or formal) is the pertinent denial of a Catholic dogma. The only doctrine that the conciliar Popes can be guilty of denying is the EENS dogma, as written, which ironically most traditionalist do anyway.
That is not enough for you?
There is not "me" when searching the Truth. The Truth exists independently of you and I so my opinion do not really matter. Church history attests that even in the case of heresy, the pontificate is still valid. Take the example of Pope Honorious, who was condemned at the 2nd Council of Constantinople as a material heretic, (not a formal heretic). Pope Honorious denied nothing less than the Holy Trinity! and however, is still considered a valid, legitimate pontificate, despite teaching such heresy.
Again, no one on earth can depose a Pope but another Pope.
-
Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope.
And you would have to say that you're not 100% certain that she's not pope.
Uhm, no.
If Francis died today and a conclave elected Nancy Peℓσѕι in a few weeks time you would have to say - she's not the pope but I can't be 100% certain.
If you disagree please explain why. And please explain why you would be 100% certain that Peℓσѕι wouldn't be pope but you are not 100% certain about Bergoglio.
Because Nancy Peℓσѕι isn't even legitimate "matter" to be the Pope. She couldn't even be materially pope, much less formally. What requires the intervention of Church authority is when there are allegations that an actual MATERIAL pope has formally lost the office. Peℓσѕι can't even be material pope. It's really not that hard, Heremenegild.
The qualifications to be a validly elected Pope can be found in the Church Canonical Law. What happens in the case of a heretical pope cannot. Canon 332-1 of the 1983 Code states that one already a bishop (not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop.
That means that the Roman Pontiff must:
1. Be a male and be willing
2. Be Baptized,
3. Be an ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and
4. Have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders
There is simply not consensus as for what to do in the case of the election of an actual heretical Pope. Also, heresy (material or formal) is the pertinent denial of a Catholic dogma. The only doctrine that the conciliar Popes can be guilty of denying is the EENS dogma, as written, which ironically most traditionalist do anyway.
It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church like John XXII who submitted himself to a commission on his heretical teaching of the Beatific Vision.
There's no consensus as for what "to do" in the case of a heretic being elected? Or there's no consensus over whether or not such a man can be pope?
The former question is one of practicalities. The latter question indeed has a consensus, and it's that such a man is not pope, he either is invalidly elected (having been a heretic at the time of the election and being invalid matter for the papacy) or, having been validly elected, loses his office by his own action when he exits the Church. There is absolutely a consensus on this, let's not pretend otherwise.
Not that it's immediately relevant, but anyone may rebuke a superior. It is untrue that it must happen "by the Church."
-
There is your answer Matto.
Not even the SSPX accepts these antipopes.
They think LIP SERVICE means true acceptance?
Hypocrites, a thousand times hypocrites!
NOBODY accepts these antipopes.
If you dig deep enough, I agree that most Traditional Catholics at the end of the day do indeed have some doubts about who these men are.
I wouldn't call it hypocrisy. It's a state of contradiction due to cognitive dissonance.
You see, Catholics without a Pope to be subject to are, in a manner of speaking, like fish out of water. Our very sensus fidei demands that we be subject to the Pope. Yes, yes, I know that putting up a picture of Francis in the vestibule doesn't count, but as I said, it's their way of dealing with a situation that's almost unbearable for a Catholic.
There's also a "benefit of the doubt" mindset, and they resolve this doubt in favor of their legitimacy because the consequences of breaking from a legitimate pope seem to outweigh the consequences of accepting someone who it would turn out isn't the true pope.
There's a lot going on and it isn't just hypocrisy.
But the dialogue between R&R and sedevacantism isn't helped when both sides radicalize and polarize and feed into a cycle of increasing distrust and mutual recriminations. As with everything, you tend to oversimplify.
I believe that it was John Lane who wrote an excellent article about the R&R mindset and psychology.
It is one thing to be unsure about what's going on and having your doubts and not knowing what to do etc., that's all fine and the way it goes, but when you go around in public and mislead others, and condemn SV when you have been proven wrong on the matter dozens of times, then we have a problem.
This is what the SSPX and the false traditionalists and people like you have done.
You have all been proven wrong for decades but you STILL insist with the same thing.
You're not sure about something? Fine, but don't mislead others and attack those with guts who dare to dig deep and find the truth.
-
Cantarella says ---> "There is simply not consensus as for what to do in the case of the election of an actual heretical Pope. Also, heresy (material or formal) is the pertinent denial of a Catholic dogma. The only doctrine that the conciliar Popes can be guilty of denying is the EENS dogma, as written, which ironically most traditionalist do anyway.
That is not enough for you?
There is not "me" when searching the Truth. The Truth exists independently of you and I so my opinion do not really matter. Church history attests that even in the case of heresy, the pontificate is still valid. Take the example of Pope Honorious, who was condemned at the 2nd Council of Constantinople as a material heretic, (not a formal heretic). Pope Honorious denied nothing less than the Holy Trinity! and however, is still considered a valid, legitimate pontificate, despite teaching such heresy.
Again, no one on earth can depose a Pope but another Pope.
Do you care at all, to know that this Honorius case IS NOT AS YOU THINK?
Do you care at all that the TRUTH about his case is not comparable to the modern day antichrists?
-
There's no consensus as for what "to do" in the case of a heretic being elected? Or there's no consensus over whether or not such a man can be pope?
The former question is one of practicalities. The latter question indeed has a consensus, and it's that such a man is not pope, he either is invalidly elected (having been a heretic at the time of the election and being invalid matter for the papacy) or, having been validly elected, loses his office by his own action when he exits the Church. There is absolutely a consensus on this, let's not pretend otherwise.
Not that it's immediately relevant, but anyone may rebuke a superior. It is untrue that it must happen "by the Church."
You think someone like her will care to know that she is completely wrong and that what she says is false?
She probably doesn't even READ or CONSIDER or ANALYZE CRITICALLY anything that proves her wrong.
That is some serious bad will.
-
There's no consensus as for what "to do" in the case of a heretic being elected? Or there's no consensus over whether or not such a man can be pope?
The former question is one of practicalities. The latter question indeed has a consensus, and it's that such a man is not pope, he either is invalidly elected (having been a heretic at the time of the election and being invalid matter for the papacy) or, having been validly elected, loses his office by his own action when he exits the Church. There is absolutely a consensus on this, let's not pretend otherwise.
Not that it's immediately relevant, but anyone may rebuke a superior. It is untrue that it must happen "by the Church."
You think someone like her will care to know that she is completely wrong and that what she says is false?
She probably doesn't even READ or CONSIDER or ANALYZE CRITICALLY anything that proves her wrong.
That is some serious bad will.
Oh, I know. But others read the forum as well. Cantarella is a anti-sedevacantism vending machine, she dispenses day in and day out the same old stale, recycled and repackaged crap, calls it an argument ( which would be like calling a Snickers bar dinner)and expects people to eat it up. Point being, she only employs strawmen, completely lacks circuмspection, and couldn't care less what the SV argument actually IS. So, she ends up conveniently representing the entirety of the anti SV position on her own, which would be convenient if it weren't so offensive.
-
Oh, I know. But others read the forum as well. Cantarella is a anti-sedevacantism vending machine, she dispenses day in and day out the same old stale, recycled and repackaged crap, calls it an argument ( which would be like calling a Snickers bar dinner)and expects people to eat it up. Point being, she only employs strawmen, completely lacks circuмspection, and couldn't care less what the SV argument actually IS. So, she ends up conveniently representing the entirety of the anti SV position on her own, which would be convenient if it weren't so offensive.
There is simply no point in arguing with such a dishonest and bad willed person like Cantarella over this in an internet forum, where she can just ignore whatever you say and keep repeating the same old thing over and over again with no consequence.
The only way you could MAYBE do something with such people is if you had them in person, face to face, or in any other situation where she won't be able to just ignore what you say and be forced to answer.
But in here, forget about it. Total waste of time.
-
The point of my last post, which I failed to express, is that I'm not arguing with her, rather I'm offering a reply for readers and lurkers. Not for Cantarella.
-
Thanks to all for this exhibition(ladislaus, 2vermont, mithran, and friends). One can learn a lot reading threads like this.
For example: I did not know that cantarella was SBC.
-
Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope.
And you would have to say that you're not 100% certain that she's not pope.
Uhm, no.
If Francis died today and a conclave elected Nancy Peℓσѕι in a few weeks time you would have to say - she's not the pope but I can't be 100% certain.
If you disagree please explain why. And please explain why you would be 100% certain that Peℓσѕι wouldn't be pope but you are not 100% certain about Bergoglio.
Because Nancy Peℓσѕι isn't even legitimate "matter" to be the Pope. She couldn't even be materially pope, much less formally. What requires the intervention of Church authority is when there are allegations that an actual MATERIAL pope has formally lost the office. Peℓσѕι can't even be material pope. It's really not that hard, Heremenegild.
You are not consistent with your own arguments. You can't be sure that Nancy Peℓσѕι isn't a man because you don't have certainty about this.
I'll give you another example - the Dalai Lama. Could you be 100% certain about him?
This is a great example. This man is clearly non-Catholic. He does not even profess to be Catholic. This man could not be pope.
I can't answer for Ladislaus, but I think my very small percentage of doubt comes from my concern that my opinion of Vatican II popes and of Vatican II itself as non-Catholic could be wrong. But then my common sense seems to kick in and tell that part of myself to get a grip.
-
Unlike the Dimonds, I recognize that my opinion regarding BoD/BoB is based on my private judgment and I cannot go around declaring anyone who believes in BoD to be heretics (like they themselves do).
Not to turn this into a thread about BOD, but I'm pretty sure you have called the BODers here heretics. Your posts, as well as others on that topic, absolutely come across as if the anti-BOD view is not just private judgment.
-
There's no consensus as for what "to do" in the case of a heretic being elected? Or there's no consensus over whether or not such a man can be pope?
The former question is one of practicalities. The latter question indeed has a consensus, and it's that such a man is not pope, he either is invalidly elected (having been a heretic at the time of the election and being invalid matter for the papacy) or, having been validly elected, loses his office by his own action when he exits the Church. There is absolutely a consensus on this, let's not pretend otherwise.
Not that it's immediately relevant, but anyone may rebuke a superior. It is untrue that it must happen "by the Church."
You think someone like her will care to know that she is completely wrong and that what she says is false?
She probably doesn't even READ or CONSIDER or ANALYZE CRITICALLY anything that proves her wrong.
That is some serious bad will.
Oh, I know. But others read the forum as well. Cantarella is a anti-sedevacantism vending machine, she dispenses day in and day out the same old stale, recycled and repackaged crap, calls it an argument ( which would be like calling a Snickers bar dinner)and expects people to eat it up. Point being, she only employs strawmen, completely lacks circuмspection, and couldn't care less what the SV argument actually IS. So, she ends up conveniently representing the entirety of the anti SV position on her own, which would be convenient if it weren't so offensive.
Poor Myth.
It's so hard to defend the indefensible in a forum where you can't be a mod.
The objective error of sedevacantism continues to spread its poison, unabated.
Why? Because it's not a threat.
There are sedevacantist priests in the SSPX and in NovusOrdo dioceses all over the world, and they are not disciplined or expelled or marginalized. Not even Pope Francis is hard on them -- because they are not a threat.
And likewise Myth is not a threat. Poor Myth.
.
-
There's no consensus as for what "to do" in the case of a heretic being elected? Or there's no consensus over whether or not such a man can be pope?
The former question is one of practicalities. The latter question indeed has a consensus, and it's that such a man is not pope, he either is invalidly elected (having been a heretic at the time of the election and being invalid matter for the papacy) or, having been validly elected, loses his office by his own action when he exits the Church. There is absolutely a consensus on this, let's not pretend otherwise.
Not that it's immediately relevant, but anyone may rebuke a superior. It is untrue that it must happen "by the Church."
You think someone like her will care to know that she is completely wrong and that what she says is false?
She probably doesn't even READ or CONSIDER or ANALYZE CRITICALLY anything that proves her wrong.
That is some serious bad will.
Oh, I know. But others read the forum as well. Cantarella is a anti-sedevacantism vending machine, she dispenses day in and day out the same old stale, recycled and repackaged crap, calls it an argument ( which would be like calling a Snickers bar dinner)and expects people to eat it up. Point being, she only employs strawmen, completely lacks circuмspection, and couldn't care less what the SV argument actually IS. So, she ends up conveniently representing the entirety of the anti SV position on her own, which would be convenient if it weren't so offensive.
Poor Myth.
It's so hard to defend the indefensible in a forum where you can't be a mod.
The objective error of sedevacantism continues to spread its poison, unabated.
Why? Because it's not a threat.
There are sedevacantist priests in the SSPX and in NovusOrdo dioceses all over the world, and they are not disciplined or expelled or marginalized. Not even Pope Francis is hard on them -- because they are not a threat.
And likewise Myth is not a threat. Poor Myth.
.
Kinda like the SBC?
-
Unlike the Dimonds, I recognize that my opinion regarding BoD/BoB is based on my private judgment and I cannot go around declaring anyone who believes in BoD to be heretics (like they themselves do).
Not to turn this into a thread about BOD, but I'm pretty sure you have called the BODers here heretics. Your posts, as well as others on that topic, absolutely come across as if the anti-BOD view is not just private judgment.
No, I do not call the opinion of BoD itself heresy. When I used the term heresy, I was referring to people who extend BoD to include people who are outside the Church and not Catholic. That involves a rejection of EENS. In fact, I called out the Dimonds as being schismatic for considering as heretics and outside the Church those who might hold the opinion of BoD in the same sense as it was understood by, say, St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine.
BoD clouds the real issue here, which is denial of EENS and the V2 ecclesiology which results logically from their distorted view of BoD. EENS-deniers tend to hide behind BoD as cover, pretending that they deny EENS on the authority of St. Thomas or St. Robert.
-
It is one thing to be unsure about what's going on and having your doubts and not knowing what to do etc., that's all fine and the way it goes, but when you go around in public and mislead others, and condemn SV when you have been proven wrong on the matter dozens of times, then we have a problem.
What I condemn is dogmatic SV. I have never been proven wrong about my position. Again, you keep pretending that I believe in the principles of R&R, which I do not. R&R is wrong; SV proper is wrong. Sede-doubtism is IMO the correct opinion. Whom am I misleading, you? Nobody cares what I think anyway, especially not sedevacantists. I call out R&R for being incompatible with Traditional Catholic theology all the time.
-
I really really do not understand what is so difficult to understand about my position. I personally think that the Holy See is vacant but acknowledge that I might be wrong about this and that I do not have the authority to make a definitive conclusion on the matter based on my own private judgment. How is it that you take offense at this except that you're a rabid dogmatic sedevacantist? And I believe that this is the only true Catholic position. SVism proper, the dogmatic kind, usurps the authority of the Church and allows people to EFFECTIVELY depose popes based on their private judgment, whereas R&R creates an indefensible caricature of Church authority, submission to the Magisterium, and undermines the Church's indefectibility and infallibility.
-
It is one thing to be unsure about what's going on and having your doubts and not knowing what to do etc., that's all fine and the way it goes, but when you go around in public and mislead others, and condemn SV when you have been proven wrong on the matter dozens of times, then we have a problem.
What I condemn is dogmatic SV. I have never been proven wrong about my position. Again, you keep pretending that I believe in the principles of R&R, which I do not. R&R is wrong; SV proper is wrong. Sede-doubtism is IMO the correct opinion. Whom am I misleading, you? Nobody cares what I think anyway, especially not sedevacantists. I call out R&R for being incompatible with Traditional Catholic theology all the time.
I can vouch for this. When it comes to SV and R&R Ladislaus has offered positive and negative points to both. Every once in awhile he makes a post that makes me wonder, but I think generally he is fair on both accounts.
-
Sede-doubtism is IMO the correct opinion
Are you 100% certain about that?
OK now that made me laugh.
-
Ah, yes, you think you're quite clever, but the answer is, no, I am not sure of this. Since I can find no Church teaching about this matter, as with all other things, I am relying upon my private judgment and on the application of various Catholic theological principles. Consequently, I am liable to be mistaken on this point as well.
It's not about walking through life making a coin-flip or sitting around quivering and incapable of making a decision. It's simply about being humble and acknowledging our place and acknowledging our own fallibility.
And that's where most of you SVs get into trouble spiritually, through your absolute refusal to admit that you COULD be wrong. Although at one point, 2Vermont, you admitted that you did think there was some possibility that you could have gotten something wrong in your analysis. THAT is what I am talking about. Mere acknowledgment of this is HUGE. On the other hand, you see people like Sneaky running around basically foaming at the mouth, an attitude which leads inexorably to dogmatic sedevacantism where you declare as heretics someone who doesn't hold your opinion and you mistake your opinion as having the certainty of faith. If you are wrong, only a radical intervention from the Mercy of God can ever correct your error. So you are in great peril.
-
This is a great example. This man is clearly non-Catholic. He does not even profess to be Catholic. This man could not be pope.
But it's not a great example. Jorge Bergoglio professes to be Catholic and claims to accept Catholic teaching. That's where the whole Dimond argument falls apart. They kept citing Nancy Peℓσѕι who goes around openly rejecting what she KNOWS to be Catholic teaching. That's obvious manifest heresy. Jorge Bergoglio seems to want to accept Church teaching and thinks that his opinions can be reconciled with Church teaching. Apart from the EENS question, Jorge Bergoglio has not openly contradicted any known Catholic dogma. I've asked for the SVs to prove heresy, and they have been unable to do so. And the closest he comes is on the EENS question, but his stance on EENS can be reduced to the very principles that are, ironically, also held by 95% of all Traditional Catholics. I can ABSOLUTELY SQUARE Jorge Bergoglio's attitude towards EENS with Suprema Haec.
Most SVs just throw around the charge of heresy like loose cannons because of their personal contempt for Jorge Bergoglio. But heresy is a serious charge that needs to be proven. Not every error is HERESY. There's a high bar for heresy. Not every wishy-washy touchy-feely sermon or misguided charity or lack of firmness in defending the truth in the interests of not offending someone or participating in a non-Catholic ritual so as to be a nice guy constitute HERESY. Sure they render him SUSPECT of heresy, but that's short of heresy itself. I have yet to see proof that Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic in the strict sense of the term. You operate based on a gut feel and personal dislike and contempt for the things he does, and so the accusation of "heresy" gets flung out there quite freely, but when push comes to shove, the SVs struggle at finding an example of heresy. Just to be honest, I put myself in the position of Bergoglio's "defense lawyer" on one thread and there was not one charge of "heresy" that I couldn't easily refute. I might start a thread dedicated to that subject.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32590&min=10#p4)
Nishant made a good point about universal acceptance of a Pope being the criterion for legitimacy. It make sense as the a priori establishment of the dogmatic fact of legitimacy. I think about this often and haven't come to a final resolution on the subject.
Let's say that a Pius XIII came along and declared BoD to be heretical. You, I suspect, would just reject Pius XIII as a heretic and thus refuse his dogmatic teaching. If this hypothetical Pius XIII came along and delcared BoD to be dogma, then I would immediately reject my former opinion and accept the teaching. Thus the difference between sedevacantism and sededoubtism. With straight sedevacantism established as permissible you couldn't have any a priori guarantee of the truth of any dogmatic papal teaching.
By the way, Sneaky, if you were to convince me that Suprema Haec represents true Catholic teaching, then I would immediately cease to be a Traditional Catholic and would accept Vatican II as substantially free form error. Every error and heresy that can be attributed the the V2 papal claimants can be traced back to and logically follows from the Suprema Haec ecclesiology.
For the sake of reasonableness, I doubt that any future pope will proclaim BoD to be "heretical." What is likely to happen is, it would be made clear what the Church teaches in this regard (which this pernicious letter does not do, even though the quote below says it does), such that no Catholic can henceforth accuse someone of "heresy" for saying that BoD isn't "dogma," as they're doing now.
BoD is a theological speculation for dreamers to muse over, is all, but it has a darker side. It has absolutely no practical application in the real world except to give a hypothetical platform for subtle denial of EENS as the Church has always taught it.
The perennial teaching of the Church regarding EENS has nothing to do with this pernicious private letter of 1949, BTW.
Here is a clip from a well-known commentary on the pernicious private letter between cardinals of 1949:
A year before the appearance of the Humani generis, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office sent to the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston a letter containing explanations on the subject of the dogma that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. This highly important docuмent was approved by Pope Pius XII. Despite the fact that it was sent prior to the issuance of the Humani generis, it was not published until two years after the publication of the encyclical. This Holy Office letter is the Suprema, haec sacra, one of the most important doctrinal statements which appeared during the reign of the late and beloved Sovereign Pontiff [Pope Pius XII].
This docuмent set forth clearly and in detail, and as the authentic teaching of the Holy See, the explanation of the dogma on the necessity of the Catholic Church for the attainment of eternal salvation which had long been presented as common teaching in the theological teaching on the Church itself.
The elements of the exposition contained in the Suprema, haec sacra had, of course, long since been presented to the faithful in previous authoritative statements of the Church's magisterium [sic]. The entire doctrine, however, had never before been synthesized and set forth as clearly and in such scientifically complete detail in any previous docuмent.
It might be worth noting that while "despite the fact that it was sent prior to the issuance of the Humani generis, it was not published until two years after the publication of the encyclical" (Aug. 12, 1950), it was also not published until after the death of its author, Francesco Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani (d. Jan. 1951).
Why do you suppose they waited until he had died before publishing it? For example, one of the obvious consequences of such a plan would be that nobody would be able to ask the author any questions about its composition or purpose, since he was dead.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that this pernicious private letter between cardinals was given a Denzinger number (801) and insidiously inserted into the next edition of Denzinger (which is not an official publication of the Church) by none other than the disreputable Karl Rahner, as if it were some "authentic teaching of the Holy See" (as said in the above quote), even though it doesn't have any AAS number (which all authentic teachings of the Holy See have).
The point is, even though this pernicious private letter between cardinals was in fact no "authentic teaching of the Holy See," it was GIVEN THE APPEARANCE OF HAVING SUCH AUTHORITY, by the likes of Karl Rahner, an acknowledged heretic and Modernist, who had been provided a position of authority in the Church by none other than "our beloved sovereign Pontiff," Pope Pius XII.* And furthermore, such lap-dog lemmings as the quoted author above, would henceforth scamper to the front lines of public awareness via such publications as Homiletic and Pastoral Review to attempt to defend the indefensible, just like sedevacantists do today (read: sedes like 'Sneakyticks').
*Note: this is the same beloved Pontiff who gave Annibale Bugnini his position of power which would effect eventually the Newmass and the worldwide devastation of our beloved churches.
-
This is a great example. This man [referring alternately to Bergoglio or the Dalai Lama] is clearly non-Catholic. He does not even profess to be Catholic. This man could not be pope.
But it's not a great example. Jorge Bergoglio professes to be Catholic and claims to accept Catholic teaching. That's where the whole Dimond argument falls apart. They kept citing Nancy Peℓσѕι who goes around openly rejecting what she KNOWS to be Catholic teaching. That's obvious manifest heresy. Jorge Bergoglio seems to want to accept Church teaching and thinks that his opinions can be reconciled with Church teaching.
Apart from the EENS question, Jorge Bergoglio has not openly contradicted any known Catholic dogma. I've asked for the SVs to prove heresy, and they have been unable to do so. And the closest he comes is on the EENS question, but his stance on EENS can be reduced to the very principles that are, ironically, also held by 95% of all Traditional Catholics. I can ABSOLUTELY SQUARE Jorge Bergoglio's attitude towards EENS with Suprema Haec.
Most SVs just throw around the charge of heresy like loose cannons because of their personal contempt for Jorge Bergoglio. But heresy is a serious charge that needs to be proven. Not every error is HERESY. There's a high bar for heresy. Not every wishy-washy touchy-feely sermon or misguided charity or lack of firmness in defending the truth in the interests of not offending someone or participating in a non-Catholic ritual so as to be a nice guy constitute HERESY.
Sure they render him SUSPECT of heresy, but that's short of heresy itself. I have yet to see proof that Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic in the strict sense of the term. You operate based on a gut feel and personal dislike and contempt for the things he does, and so the accusation of "heresy" gets flung out there quite freely, but when push comes to shove, the SVs struggle at finding an example of heresy.
Just to be honest, I put myself in the position of Bergoglio's "defense lawyer" on one thread and there was not one charge of "heresy" that I couldn't easily refute. I might start a thread dedicated to that subject.
This post, above, could have been part of my preceding post, above this one.
But the ink dried, as usual.
.
-
.
BoD is a theological speculation for dreamers to muse over, is all, but it has a darker side. It has absolutely no practical application in the real world except to give a hypothetical platform for subtle denial of EENS as the Church has always taught it.
Why would any Catholic with any intention for spreading the Faith have any part in BoD, as if concern for the fate of unknown distant "ignorant noble natives" on some far-away island is foremost in mind?
What concern should they have for such remote and hypothetical cases, when they're unable to convert their next door neighbor because he's protestant or Mormon or Moslem or Jew or pagan or atheist?
.
-
The point is, even though this pernicious private letter between cardinals was in fact no "authentic teaching of the Holy See," it was GIVEN THE APPEARANCE OF HAVING SUCH AUTHORITY, by the likes of Karl Rahner, an acknowledged heretic and Modernist, who had been provided a position of authority in the Church by none other than "our beloved sovereign Pontiff," Pope Pius XII.* And furthermore, such lap-dog lemmings as the quoted author above, would henceforth scamper to the front lines of public awareness via such publications as Homiletic and Pastoral Review to attempt to defend the indefensible, just like sedevacantists do today (read: sedes like 'Sneakyticks').
*Note: this is the same beloved Pontiff who gave Annibale Bugnini his position of power which would effect eventually the Newmass and the worldwide devastation of our beloved churches.
Yet, for many sedevacantists Pope Pius XII was the last TRUE Pope. Some could argue though that he actually was the father of Liberal Theology in the Church because he did not correct the heresy present in the infamous Letter of 1949. Perhaps due to political reasons he did not clarify that in the Boston Case it was Cushing who was in heresy for claiming there were known exceptions to EENS and not Fr. Feeney. Perhaps he did want to say in public that all Jews need to convert into the Church visibly for salvation. To this day, nobody wants to upset the leftist Jєωιѕн so better not defend the reality of the EENS dogma, which is the only real dogma that the enemies of the Church cannot live with, since it is exclusive. Thus, the error continues spreading globally in the Church by liberals and "traditionalists" alike.
-
In fact, I called out the Dimonds as being schismatic for considering as heretics and outside the Church those who might hold the opinion of BoD in the same sense as it was understood by, say, St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine.
I wonder if you have ever emailed or called them.
-
It is one thing to be unsure about what's going on and having your doubts and not knowing what to do etc., that's all fine and the way it goes, but when you go around in public and mislead others, and condemn SV when you have been proven wrong on the matter dozens of times, then we have a problem.
What I condemn is dogmatic SV. I have never been proven wrong about my position. Again, you keep pretending that I believe in the principles of R&R, which I do not. R&R is wrong; SV proper is wrong. Sede-doubtism is IMO the correct opinion. Whom am I misleading, you? Nobody cares what I think anyway, especially not sedevacantists. I call out R&R for being incompatible with Traditional Catholic theology all the time.
So, you cannot be a dogmatic SV, but you can be a dogmatic "neutralist"?
Both positions can't be true at the same time. Either one or the other is true but not both at the same time.
You HAVE been proven wrong about your positions dozens of times. The thing is you don't even answer and pretend not answering somehow proves you right.
SV proper is NOT wrong and I already answered to your oh so difficult question but you just keep ignoring it.
You have no integrity or honesty at all.
-
I really really do not understand what is so difficult to understand about my position.
Who says there is any difficulty? I have already answered to you but you keep ignoring it.
I personally think that the Holy See is vacant but acknowledge that I might be wrong about this and that I do not have the authority to make a definitive conclusion on the matter based on my own private judgment. How is it that you take offense at this except that you're a rabid dogmatic sedevacantist?
Because this is false and hypocritical.
You never answered my question (gee how many times have i said that already?):
How come you say that whether or not the Holy See is vacant is the ONE THING you "do not have the authority to make a definitive conclusion on the matter based on my own private judgment" but for all the rest, YOU DO have the authority to make a definitive conclusion on the matter based on my own private judgment?
And I believe that this is the only true Catholic position.
And i believe the moon is pink.
SVism proper, the dogmatic kind, usurps the authority of the Church and allows people to EFFECTIVELY depose popes based on their private judgment,
FALSE, the publicly heretical "pope" is deposed by Divine Law.
whereas R&R creates an indefensible caricature of Church authority, submission to the Magisterium, and undermines the Church's indefectibility and infallibility.
And your "position" does EXACTLY the same thing, but you vainly say it doesn't when it totally does.
-
Ah, yes, you think you're quite clever, but the answer is, no, I am not sure of this. Since I can find no Church teaching about this matter, as with all other things, I am relying upon my private judgment and on the application of various Catholic theological principles. Consequently, I am liable to be mistaken on this point as well.
It's not about walking through life making a coin-flip or sitting around quivering and incapable of making a decision. It's simply about being humble and acknowledging our place and acknowledging our own fallibility.
And that's where most of you SVs get into trouble spiritually, through your absolute refusal to admit that you COULD be wrong. Although at one point, 2Vermont, you admitted that you did think there was some possibility that you could have gotten something wrong in your analysis. THAT is what I am talking about. Mere acknowledgment of this is HUGE. On the other hand, you see people like Sneaky running around basically foaming at the mouth, an attitude which leads inexorably to dogmatic sedevacantism where you declare as heretics someone who doesn't hold your opinion and you mistake your opinion as having the certainty of faith. If you are wrong, only a radical intervention from the Mercy of God can ever correct your error. So you are in great peril.
This guy is unbelievable.
He says here that:
A- He can find no Church teaching supporting his "position",
B- He is relying upon his own private judgment,
C- Applies various Catholic theological principles, when in fact he REJECTS various Catholic theological principles, such as, you don't go against the common/universal teaching of theologians (which is why he rejects BoD/BoB, I.I., manifest public heretics are ipso facto excommunicated without any declaration etc.),
D- Is liable to be mistaken on this point as well.
E- And to top it off calls all this "being humble and acknowledging our place and acknowledging our own fallibility."
Well you bet you are mistaken!
But then he dares to say that SV's "get into trouble spiritually through their absolute refusal to admit that they COULD be wrong", because SV's:
A- Find dozens of Church teaching supporting SV,
B- Rely on what the Popes, Saints, Doctors and theologians have said,
C- CORRECTLY apply various Catholic theological principles, as opposed to Lad here and non-SV who REJECT them.
D- Have no patience for silly and made-up arguments that go against Catholic teaching and principles.
Outrageous.
-
He can find no Church teaching supporting his "position",
Neither can you. Theologians have dealt with the subject of possible SV, but the Church has not pronounced on the matter.
-
I'm done posting on the subject. You may carry on foaming at the mouth without me. I am very happy and at peace in my position; I allow God to lead me where He wants to and put all my trust in Him and not in my own private judgment. I have charity in my heart for all people, without exception, including for Jorge Bergoglio. God loves him too and deeply desires his salvation. If he has lost the faith, then I sincerely pray for his conversion. Similarly for anyone else who might be in error, including yourself. Peace.
I am more drawn to the (at least natural) kindness of a Jorge Bergoglio than I am to the dark bitter zeal exhibited by most sedevacantists. If you read the Gospels, Our Lord reserved His harshes words for the Pharisees, who were by all accounts orthodox in their beliefs but lacked charity, and He spoke gently to heretics like the Sadducees.
-
Every single day, I pray to Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother, something along the lines of "Please teach me the truth and help me always remain a Catholic pleasing to you." I have more confidence in that prayer than I do in my own judgment and man-made syllogisms.
-
He can find no Church teaching supporting his "position",
Neither can you.
This is a plain LIE.
Do you know what the 8th Commandment is?
Theologians have dealt with the subject of possible SV, but the Church has not pronounced on the matter.
The COMMON TEACHING, and the MAJORITY one, backed up by Popes, Doctors and Saints even, is what SV's believe in and hold.
But since you are a heretic who rejects the common teaching of theologians anyways, this isn't enough for you.
-
Charity is to be preferred before all gifts.
[1] If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [3] And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. [4] Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; [5] Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;
-
I'm done posting on the subject. You may carry on foaming at the mouth without me.
Yes, run away.
You proved you can't even answer simple questions against your concocted position.
I am very happy and at peace in my position; I allow God to lead me where He wants to and put all my trust in Him and not in my own private judgment.
So does any Protestant and Novus Ordite believe.
-
Ladislaus - Please explain why Vatican 2 claimants as Vicars of Christ have not taken the Papal Oath. http://www.dailycatholic.org/papaoath.htm
Legitimate popes bless their predecessors. They never contradict nor give new interpretations to what Pontiffs have declared as dogma and doctrine. Do you agree, Ladislaus?
Sedevacantists do not muddy and confuse Sacred Tradition. Sedevacantists defend the Total Deposit of Faith, Ladislaus, without exception!
-
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition", warned Pope Leo XIII in 1896 (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).
And Pope Benedict XV also made clear: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).
-
Sneakyticks it perhaps wouldn't hurt to reevaluate your approach; self-assurance in your convictions is one thing, however the entrenched bitterness is another altogether, one likely to push people away from your position regardless of whether or not the truth is on your side.
-
Sneakyticks it perhaps wouldn't hurt to reevaluate your approach; self-assurance in your convictions is one thing, however the entrenched bitterness is another altogether, one likely to push people away from your position regardless of whether or not the truth is on your side.
You're right.
I have behaved heinously and I promise I will never do it again.
I apologize to Ladislaus and Cantarella and everyone else.
-
I apologize to Ladislaus and Cantarella and everyone else.
Not a problem, Sneakyticks. I'm not easily offended. I just stopped posting because I didn't feel that it was a productive use of my time. It wasn't really going anywhere.
-
Ladislaus - Please explain why Vatican 2 claimants as Vicars of Christ have not taken the Papal Oath. http://www.dailycatholic.org/papaoath.htm
Well, I can't say. I can't read their minds. I have my suspicions, and my suspicions are that the V2 Popes could very well have been infiltrators and sworn enemies of the Catholic Church. But I really couldn't say for sure.
Legitimate popes bless their predecessors. They never contradict nor give new interpretations to what Pontiffs have declared as dogma and doctrine. Do you agree, Ladislaus?
Sedevacantists do not muddy and confuse Sacred Tradition. Sedevacantists defend the Total Deposit of Faith, Ladislaus, without exception!
Again, like Sneakyticks, you seem to confuse me with someone who holds the R&R position. I do not. So I'm not sure where this is going.
-
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition", warned Pope Leo XIII in 1896 (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).
And Pope Benedict XV also made clear: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).
Right. I understand that it only takes one heresy. Which heresy does Jorge Bergoglio hold?
-
I apologize to Ladislaus and Cantarella and everyone else.
Not a problem, Sneakyticks. I'm not easily offended. I just stopped posting because I didn't feel that it was a productive use of my time. It wasn't really going anywhere.
I really do mean it, I'm sorry.
-
While I find the papal coronation oath thing interesting, I have never seen anyone actually produce the real oath, and the "oath" that is available is not 100% verifiable that it even is the real one, so I have never used this as an argument for SV.
I THINK this is what I read, a long time ago.
Not that I need to use that argument anyways.
-
I apologize to Ladislaus and Cantarella and everyone else.
Not a problem, Sneakyticks. I'm not easily offended. I just stopped posting because I didn't feel that it was a productive use of my time. It wasn't really going anywhere.
I really do mean it, I'm sorry.
So do I. It's not a problem.
-
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition", warned Pope Leo XIII in 1896 (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).
And Pope Benedict XV also made clear: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).
Right. I understand that it only takes one heresy. Which heresy does Jorge Bergoglio hold?
Which heresy doesn't he hold would be the question.
-
I am more drawn to the (at least natural) kindness of a Jorge Bergoglio than I am to the dark bitter zeal exhibited by most sedevacantists. If you read the Gospels, Our Lord reserved His harshes words for the Pharisees, who were by all accounts orthodox in their beliefs but lacked charity, and He spoke gently to heretics like the Sadducees.
I actually have the opposite assessment of Jorge Bergoglio than yours Ladislaus. His whole personality strikes me as very contrived, calculating and deceiving, especially his whole humility on display bit. On a natural human level, Ratzinger seems to me much more personable/likable and more genuine, I would actually consider having a [German] beer with him socially, although I think his theology is much worse than Bergoglio's, if that's even possible. But I have met neither guy before or seen them in real life, this is just my impression from watching TV clips, interviews etc. YMMV.
And as to the "dark bitter zeal" thing, I don't think that sedevacantists have a lock on that by any means. It seems to me that that attitude is sadly endemic in many traditionalist of all stripes. We could all work on our charity, especially towards our fellow Catholics.
-
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition", warned Pope Leo XIII in 1896 (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).
And Pope Benedict XV also made clear: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).
Right. I understand that it only takes one heresy. Which heresy does Jorge Bergoglio hold?
Which heresy doesn't he hold would be the question.
FWIW it seems to me that Francesco is all about being ORIGINAL.
This is a bad thing for a pope. The first duty of the Holy Father is to safeguard Sacred Tradition, and he traditionally wears red slippers for this purpose: that he would be willing to shed his blood for the Traditions of Holy Mother Church.
But Francesco has refused the red slippers from DAY ONE, in lieu of Wal*Mart sandals or whatever.
.
-
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition", warned Pope Leo XIII in 1896 (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).
And Pope Benedict XV also made clear: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).
Right. I understand that it only takes one heresy. Which heresy does Jorge Bergoglio hold?
Which heresy doesn't he hold would be the question.
FWIW it seems to me that Francesco is all about being ORIGINAL.
This is a bad thing for a pope. The first duty of the Holy Father is to safeguard Sacred Tradition, and he traditionally wears red slippers for this purpose: that he would be willing to shed his blood for the Traditions of Holy Mother Church.
But Francesco has refused the red slippers from DAY ONE, in lieu of Wal*Mart sandals or whatever.
.
Yes.
That's because he's not the Pope.
-
This is a great example. This man is clearly non-Catholic. He does not even profess to be Catholic. This man could not be pope.
But it's not a great example. Jorge Bergoglio professes to be Catholic and claims to accept Catholic teaching. That's where the whole Dimond argument falls apart. They kept citing Nancy Peℓσѕι who goes around openly rejecting what she KNOWS to be Catholic teaching. That's obvious manifest heresy. Jorge Bergoglio seems to want to accept Church teaching and thinks that his opinions can be reconciled with Church teaching. Apart from the EENS question, Jorge Bergoglio has not openly contradicted any known Catholic dogma. I've asked for the SVs to prove heresy, and they have been unable to do so. And the closest he comes is on the EENS question, but his stance on EENS can be reduced to the very principles that are, ironically, also held by 95% of all Traditional Catholics. I can ABSOLUTELY SQUARE Jorge Bergoglio's attitude towards EENS with Suprema Haec.
Most SVs just throw around the charge of heresy like loose cannons because of their personal contempt for Jorge Bergoglio. But heresy is a serious charge that needs to be proven. Not every error is HERESY. There's a high bar for heresy. Not every wishy-washy touchy-feely sermon or misguided charity or lack of firmness in defending the truth in the interests of not offending someone or participating in a non-Catholic ritual so as to be a nice guy constitute HERESY. Sure they render him SUSPECT of heresy, but that's short of heresy itself. I have yet to see proof that Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic in the strict sense of the term. You operate based on a gut feel and personal dislike and contempt for the things he does, and so the accusation of "heresy" gets flung out there quite freely, but when push comes to shove, the SVs struggle at finding an example of heresy. Just to be honest, I put myself in the position of Bergoglio's "defense lawyer" on one thread and there was not one charge of "heresy" that I couldn't easily refute. I might start a thread dedicated to that subject.
on Eastern Orthodox interview
"I ask how Pope Francis envisions the future unity of the church in light of this response"
He answers .."we must walk united on our differences, there is no other way to become one. This is the way of Jesus."
to you this statement is not heretical?
-
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition", warned Pope Leo XIII in 1896 (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).
And Pope Benedict XV also made clear: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).
Right. I understand that it only takes one heresy. Which heresy does Jorge Bergoglio hold?
Which heresy doesn't he hold would be the question.
FWIW it seems to me that Francesco is all about being ORIGINAL.
This is a bad thing for a pope. The first duty of the Holy Father is to safeguard Sacred Tradition, and he traditionally wears red slippers for this purpose: that he would be willing to shed his blood for the Traditions of Holy Mother Church.
But Francesco has refused the red slippers from DAY ONE, in lieu of Wal*Mart sandals or whatever.
.
Yes.
That's because he's not the Pope.
How big of you to point out that the reason you think he does this is because A) he's not the pope.
Because if you also say he's not pope because A) he does this (or other such things), that would be a circular argument. And you would never do THAT, would you?
If one concludes that these reforms are heretical, evil, and blasphemous then one must also conclude that these men, despite any and all appearances of authority, are not true Catholic popes.
.
-
...the Roman Catholic Church is spotless in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. So it logically follows that these reforms were not enacted by men who hold authority in anyway [sic]. They are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.
Therefore, for example, the bishop who condemned St. Joan of Ark to be burned alive at the stake :heretic: as a heretic could not have possibly been a real bishop, correct?
And St. Peter, who denied Christ 3 times, therefore could not have been the real pope, correct?
And the accretions in liturgies that had become rampant before Pope Pius V decreed Quo Primum could not have been under the authority of the Church, correct?
And the French Kings (Louis XIV, XV, XVI) who refused to put the Sacred Heart on the French flag could not have been truly Catholic kings, correct?
And the worldliness that had crept into religious orders such as the Carmelites before St. Teresa of Avila introduced her reforms could not have been introduced under the real Holy Mother Church and her authority, correct?
.
-
This is a great example. This man is clearly non-Catholic. He does not even profess to be Catholic. This man could not be pope.
But it's not a great example. Jorge Bergoglio professes to be Catholic and claims to accept Catholic teaching. That's where the whole Dimond argument falls apart. They kept citing Nancy Peℓσѕι who goes around openly rejecting what she KNOWS to be Catholic teaching. That's obvious manifest heresy. Jorge Bergoglio seems to want to accept Church teaching and thinks that his opinions can be reconciled with Church teaching. Apart from the EENS question, Jorge Bergoglio has not openly contradicted any known Catholic dogma. I've asked for the SVs to prove heresy, and they have been unable to do so. And the closest he comes is on the EENS question, but his stance on EENS can be reduced to the very principles that are, ironically, also held by 95% of all Traditional Catholics. I can ABSOLUTELY SQUARE Jorge Bergoglio's attitude towards EENS with Suprema Haec.
Most SVs just throw around the charge of heresy like loose cannons because of their personal contempt for Jorge Bergoglio. But heresy is a serious charge that needs to be proven. Not every error is HERESY. There's a high bar for heresy. Not every wishy-washy touchy-feely sermon or misguided charity or lack of firmness in defending the truth in the interests of not offending someone or participating in a non-Catholic ritual so as to be a nice guy constitute HERESY. Sure they render him SUSPECT of heresy, but that's short of heresy itself. I have yet to see proof that Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic in the strict sense of the term. You operate based on a gut feel and personal dislike and contempt for the things he does, and so the accusation of "heresy" gets flung out there quite freely, but when push comes to shove, the SVs struggle at finding an example of heresy. Just to be honest, I put myself in the position of Bergoglio's "defense lawyer" on one thread and there was not one charge of "heresy" that I couldn't easily refute. I might start a thread dedicated to that subject.
on Eastern Orthodox interview
"I ask how Pope Francis envisions the future unity of the church in light of this response"
He answers .."we must walk united on our differences, there is no other way to become one. This is the way of Jesus."
to you this statement is not heretical?
This sure sounds heretical to me.
-
...the Roman Catholic Church is spotless in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. So it logically follows that these reforms were not enacted by men who hold authority in anyway [sic]. They are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.
Therefore, for example, the bishop who condemned St. Joan of Ark to be burned alive at the stake :heretic: as a heretic could not have possibly been a real bishop, correct?
And St. Peter, who denied Christ 3 times, therefore could not have been the real pope, correct?
And the accretions in liturgies that had become rampant before Pope Pius V decreed Quo Primum could not have been under the authority of the Church, correct?
And the French Kings (Louis XIV, XV, XVI) who refused to put the Sacred Heart on the French flag could not have been truly Catholic kings, correct?
And the worldliness that had crept into religious orders such as the Carmelites before St. Teresa of Avila introduced her reforms could not have been introduced under the real Holy Mother Church and her authority, correct?
.
Oh yeah, sure. The Church isn't spotless - she can lead people astray. Your points don't even relate to my post.
Do you understand the difference between sinful men and a spotless Church?
I agree. Those examples were so not spot-on.
-
How big of you to point out that the reason you think he does this is because A) he's not the pope.
Because if you also say he's not pope because A) he does this (or other such things), that would be a circular argument. And you would never do THAT, would you?
You mentioned that the "first duty of the Holy Father is to safeguard Sacred Tradition", and Synagoglio doesn't do this because he is an antipope.
The rest of his aberrations merely flow from the fact that he is a Modernist, which places him outside the Church ipso facto and without any declaration according to Pope St. Pius X.
Even the "bad Popes" from history all safeguarded Tradition, even Alexander VI.
-
Sedevacantism doesn't primarily argue these men are heretics.
The question is this: Do the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical reforms which have proceeded from Vatican II constitute a substantial alteration of the Catholic Faith?
If one concludes that these reforms are heretical, evil, and blasphemous then one must also conclude that these men, despite any and all appearances of authority, are not true Catholic popes. Why?
Because the Roman Catholic Church is spotless in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. So it logically follows that these reforms were not enacted by men who hold any authority in the Catholic Church. They are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.
Novus Ordo “Catholicism” is a sham. In reality it is a whole new religion.
So after 50+ years, how do non-SV's still don't accept this simple and irrefutable truth?
-
...the Roman Catholic Church is spotless in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. So it logically follows that these reforms were not enacted by men who hold authority in anyway [sic]. They are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.
Therefore, for example, the bishop who condemned St. Joan of Ark to be burned alive at the stake :heretic: as a heretic could not have possibly been a real bishop, correct?
And St. Peter, who denied Christ 3 times, therefore could not have been the real pope, correct?
And the accretions in liturgies that had become rampant before Pope Pius V decreed Quo Primum could not have been under the authority of the Church, correct?
And the French Kings (Louis XIV, XV, XVI) who refused to put the Sacred Heart on the French flag could not have been truly Catholic kings, correct?
And the worldliness that had crept into religious orders such as the Carmelites before St. Teresa of Avila introduced her reforms could not have been introduced under the real Holy Mother Church and her authority, correct?
.
Oh yeah, sure. The Church isn't spotless - she can lead people astray. Your points don't even relate to my post.
Your post said that the Church cannot go wrong ("is spotless") in her liturgical worship.
Therefore, would you be saying that liturgical accretions before St. Pius V had nothing to do with the Church's liturgical worship?
If so, you would be saying that St. Pius V was all wrong when he said and did what he did, isn't this true?
Do you understand the difference between sinful men and a spotless Church?
I agree. Those examples were so not spot-on.
-
...the Roman Catholic Church is spotless in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. So it logically follows that these reforms were not enacted by men who hold authority in anyway [sic]. They are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.
Therefore, for example, the bishop who condemned St. Joan of Ark to be burned alive at the stake :heretic: as a heretic could not have possibly been a real bishop, correct?
And St. Peter, who denied Christ 3 times, therefore could not have been the real pope, correct?
And the accretions in liturgies that had become rampant before Pope Pius V decreed Quo Primum could not have been under the authority of the Church, correct?
And the French Kings (Louis XIV, XV, XVI) who refused to put the Sacred Heart on the French flag could not have been truly Catholic kings, correct?
And the worldliness that had crept into religious orders such as the Carmelites before St. Teresa of Avila introduced her reforms could not have been introduced under the real Holy Mother Church and her authority, correct?
.
Oh yeah, sure. The Church isn't spotless - she can lead people astray. Your points don't even relate to my post.
Your post said that the Church cannot go wrong ("is spotless") in her liturgical worship.
Therefore, would you be saying that liturgical accretions before St. Pius V had nothing to do with the Church's liturgical worship?
If so, you would be saying that St. Pius V was all wrong when he said and did what he did, isn't this true?
Do you understand the difference between sinful men and a spotless Church?
I agree. Those examples were so not spot-on.
Show me more information about what you said of the Mass before St. Pius V.
Other than this, which I'm not familiar with, all your other examples are not comparable at all with Vatican 2 or the New Mess even.
-
The Council of Constance was convoked in 1414 by the Anti-Pope John XXIII, one of three rival claimants to the papal throne, the other two being Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. The Council was called to resolve all doubts as to the true successor of Peter, and end the Great Schism. John agreed to resign if his rivals would do the same, then he fled the city. In the absence of a papal convenor, the Council enacted Haec Sancta (fifth session, 15 April 1415), which purported to subject even papal authority to the authority of the Council. John was brought back and deposed for scandalous conduct. Gregory convoked the Council anew, rejected all its prior proceedings (including Haec Sancta), and then resigned. The Council acquiesced in these actions, passed decrees on reform, condemned the heresies of Hus and Wyclif and, after deposing Benedict, elected Martin V, under whom unity was restored to the Church.
While no council, not even Ecuмenical, has authority to depose a Pope, the two men who were deposed were both Anti-Popes. The true Pope was Gregory XII, who resigned rather than being deposed. He it was who authorized the sessions beginning on 4 July 1415, and declared all previous sessions (the first thirteen) null and void. Martin V ratified the succeeding sessions at the conclusion of the Council.
Acc to both von Pastor & Atwater, the Fr popes of GWS are Not anti-popes---- sorry.
:detective:
-
This is a great example. This man is clearly non-Catholic. He does not even profess to be Catholic. This man could not be pope.
But it's not a great example. Jorge Bergoglio professes to be Catholic and claims to accept Catholic teaching. That's where the whole Dimond argument falls apart. They kept citing Nancy Peℓσѕι who goes around openly rejecting what she KNOWS to be Catholic teaching. That's obvious manifest heresy. Jorge Bergoglio seems to want to accept Church teaching and thinks that his opinions can be reconciled with Church teaching. Apart from the EENS question, Jorge Bergoglio has not openly contradicted any known Catholic dogma. I've asked for the SVs to prove heresy, and they have been unable to do so. And the closest he comes is on the EENS question, but his stance on EENS can be reduced to the very principles that are, ironically, also held by 95% of all Traditional Catholics. I can ABSOLUTELY SQUARE Jorge Bergoglio's attitude towards EENS with Suprema Haec.
Most SVs just throw around the charge of heresy like loose cannons because of their personal contempt for Jorge Bergoglio. But heresy is a serious charge that needs to be proven. Not every error is HERESY. There's a high bar for heresy. Not every wishy-washy touchy-feely sermon or misguided charity or lack of firmness in defending the truth in the interests of not offending someone or participating in a non-Catholic ritual so as to be a nice guy constitute HERESY. Sure they render him SUSPECT of heresy, but that's short of heresy itself. I have yet to see proof that Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic in the strict sense of the term. You operate based on a gut feel and personal dislike and contempt for the things he does, and so the accusation of "heresy" gets flung out there quite freely, but when push comes to shove, the SVs struggle at finding an example of heresy. Just to be honest, I put myself in the position of Bergoglio's "defense lawyer" on one thread and there was not one charge of "heresy" that I couldn't easily refute. I might start a thread dedicated to that subject.
on Eastern Orthodox interview
"I ask how Pope Francis envisions the future unity of the church in light of this response"
He answers .."we must walk united on our differences, there is no other way to become one. This is the way of Jesus."
to you this statement is not heretical?
Ladislaus here's another..
In a recent meeting with a Protestant named Brian Stiller (The Global Ambassador of the World Evangelical Alliance), Antipope Francis stated this: .“I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those. Rather, let’s be about showing the love of Jesus
-
Ladislaus here's another..
I addressed this on the other thread.
-
Well, Ladislaus, you raise many points, which would require a detailed response. Even supposing doubt remains about universal acceptance, (we'll come back to that,) there is a distinct reason, as you noted, and as we've discussed, to think a 55+ year ongoing sede vacante is not possible, about which I think we can have a certainty of faith, or at least certainty proximate to it. After that, concerning Vatican II, the New Mass etc, it is only a matter of determining carefully in what circuмstances a Pope can be resisted, because if there is an independent reason to think such an interregnum is not possible, then it comes down to who is right between traditional Catholic SSPXers and indultarians, sedevacantism being excluded.
1. There are only 13 Ordinaries still alive who were appointed by Pius XII - none of them still in office - and these Ordinaries, according to St. Robert and Cajetan both, are the ones who must pass the necessary juridical judgment in the case of a heretical Pope. After that, the Cardinals or Roman clergy can elect another. Leave aside the doctrinal problem such an inability to perpetuate formal Apostolic Succession without the Petrine Succession poses, what about the practical problem of who the Pope-heretic is to be denounced to?
I believe both the canon on perpetual Petrine succession and a condemned proposition from Constance that "there is nothing to show that the spiritual order requires a head who shall continue to live and endure forever with the Church militant" preclude absolutely the eventuality of such an ongoing interregnum in the current circuмstances.
If I believed it was possible we were in the middle of such an interregnum due to the loss of office for heresy, I would immediately try to write to or contact the existing authorities, and try to convince them of it. For those who hold the opinion of John of St. Thomas or Cajetan, such a decision would be absolutely necessary. Even in the case of St. Robert's opinion, it is necessary, although it would be purely declaratory. Only after this, the Roman clergy can elect a new Pope.
S.B Smith in Elements of Ecclesiastical Law summarizes the state of the question like this, "There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”
Another point of critical importance he mentions elsewhere in the same work, "Laymen are not competent judges in matters of heresy, even as to mere questions of fact".
I think all your instincts are in the right place, because you've yourself mentioned in the other threads that something like this would have to be done, my question to you is - if we're in a 55 year interregnum, how can this be done?
2. Most modern sedevacantists do not believe the Roman clergy can never cease to exist, which the Fathers teach and in particular St. Robert himself believed, which Pope Sixtus IV taught and which following him all theologians teach, as Msgr. Fenton shows in an excellent article on the subject. Most do not believe the hierarchy can never cease to exist, as Vatican I taught "just as He sent Apostles, who He chose out of the world, so also it was His will that in His Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." Theoogians understand this to mean, as it says, bishops with a mission from Christ and through Peter, sent by the Pope and possessed of real governing power, or jurisdiction, will always exist, the CE explains this as well, I will provide some citations if you wish.
There is no problem, no doctrinal problem that is, with 98% of the hierarchy losing their offices, the same for the Roman clergy. But fully 100% of them absolutely cannot, that is impossible. These are the only authority in the Church, through whom the Catholic Church retains formal Apostolic succession and Her Roman link, both of which depend on the Petrine succession, deriving their authority from past Popes.
This brings us to sedeprivationism, which I know you favor, and which is perhaps the best response to a perpetuation of succession, at least material. But whatever may be said the possibility of a "material" Pope possessing only the power to designate but not governing authority or jurisdiction, for the reason mentioned earlier, the same is not possible that in the whole Church, that is, among all bishops together at the same time. The whole Church cannot be in a state of potency without actual power or have all Her bishops deprived of pastoral and governing power at some time, if it has, then the Catholic Church has ceased to be Apostolic, which is impossible.
So I ask - do you believe otherwise, that governing power or jurisdiction, which is the form of Apostolic succession, can cease to exist in the whole Church? And if not, does not indefinitely extended sedevacantism as well as sedeprivationism seem problematic because it leads precisely to that?
3. Finally, we come to another theory I know you favor, sede-impeditism or Sirianism - I understand the attraction of this thesis, but it seems to me Cardinal Siri's "claim" doesn't even rise to the level of a doubt, because it is not even a claim, nor accepted by anyone and according to you was not even accepted by or known to him, and to him would apply in that case "a doubtful Pope is no Pope". The assertion that such a man would remain Pope, because his resignation was made under duress, is precluded by the unanimous teaching of theologians indicating it is impossible that a man can somehow internally retain the pontificate without knowing it while together externally with the Church accepting another man as true Pope. The universal acceptance of the other claimant would mean, at least from the moment it was verified, no further doubts could remain.
I understand you are not convinced of this point, and I actually think you are on the whole much more consistent than a few of your critics on this thread, who castigate you for not holding to the universal teaching of theologians, but then do that themselves. But let me give you a simple proof these theologians give, for why it proves a Pope is infallibly Pope, and not a heretic (at least not a formal heretic) in particular - if the whole ecclesia docens professes communion with a man as Pope, then, if the Pope were outside the Church, the whole ecclesia docens or Church teaching would also be outside the Church, which is absurd. Therefore, the converse is true, that their recogntion of him in this sense proves that he is inside the Church, is the Pope, and not a heretic. The people who don't accept the teaching, on the authority of the theologians, should at least try to address this argument they give as its proof.
That brings us back to what universal acceptance means, and whom it includes. As I said, if 98% of the episcopate has lost their office, the other 2% would be the only ones who would be considered. But that doesn't mean anything, because fully 100% of the ones who can even be considered for this are the ordinaries appointed by the Popes, by Pius XII if you believe he is the last Pope. Canon Law says only the Pope can institute a bishop in a vacant diocese, even if he is designated to the episcopacy by another, therefore the only diocesan bishops or Ordinaries to be considered are those appointed before Pius XII died. And if all of these who still retain their offices accept the Pope as Pope, then the Pope is infallibly the Pope. I can show you the quotes, from John of St. Thomas and others, who say that the universal acceptance of a Pope is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election, and is immediately recognizable as such.
Taken together, these two points prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis in the Church is mistaken.
I will write a critique of the indultarian position later, also relating to Vatican II and the New Mass, since you've said in the past, and also on this thread, that if you were convinced the Pope was the Pope, and that SH was correct, you would be an indultarian, rather than agree with Bp. Fellay and the Society.
-
After that, concerning Vatican II, the New Mass etc, it is only a matter of determining carefully in what circuмstances a Pope can be resisted,
Your whole "resistance" position is not backed up by anything.
(1) Bellarmine is talking about a morally evil pope who gives morally evil commands — not one who, like the post-Vatican II popes, teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws.
(2) The context of the statement is a debate over the errors of Gallicanism, not the case of a heretical pope.
(3) Bellarmine is justifying “resistance” by kings and prelates, not by individual Catholics.
(4) Bellarmine teaches in the next chapter of his work (30) that a heretical pope automatically loses his authority.
In a word, the passage can neither be applied to the present crisis nor invoked against sedevacantism.
You will not be able to show one single thing teaching that any Catholic can "resist" and "pick and choose" and "sift" the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, the official liturgy of the Church, and a Pope's laws, as he pleases.
-
Ladislaus here's another..
I addressed this on the other thread.
you wrote the following on another thread
"Again, I think that he is most likely a heretic for denying EENS"
so I agree with you