.





Sedevacantism is analogous to the Arian Heresy






Papal Infallibility: Fact Vs. Falsehood
lecture given to live audience, available on CD from: Oltyn Library Services

by Father Gregory Hesse, S.T.D., J.C.D.




The Sufferings of Christ (from final 15 minutes of his one hour lecture [my comments in brackets])

The Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary are the mysteries of the Church Triumphant
in heaven. The Sorrowful Mysteries are the mysteries of the Church Suffering in
Purgatory. And the Joyful Mysteries are the mysteries of the Church fighting. I am
happy and proud to sit here as one of the officers in that army! That's the Joyful
Mysteries.

But in order to understand the sufferings of Christ you have to meditate on the
Sorrowful Mysteries. And then you have to understand an analogy, an insight --
and if I may allow myself a personal remark -- that only a saint can have, the
insight that I'm going to reveal to you now, that only a saint can have, and
Archbishop Lefebvre had it!

The 29th of June 1982, at the ordinations in Econe, he gave a sermon and he said the following:

Don't get lost because of the sufferings of the Church today.

You see, the major heresies came up because people did not understand the
sufferings of Christ. The Manicheans, I quoted before, the Manicheans and
Pope Liberius -- they could not, somehow, they could not understand the
sufferings of Christ -- and they said: A man who suffered like this cannot
be God. And they went into heresy, and many of them went into hell.

[The Manichaean heresy was a precursor to Arianism. Some scholars claim
that Manichaeanism is a very important ancient religion that was largely
forgotten over time, and ancient texts are lately emerging that give a
renewed interest to our modern discoveries of its long-forgotten historical
significance!]

Two centuries later, under Pope Honorius, they [Monotheist heretics] again
said: These sufferings of Christ on the Cross, are absolutely incomprehensible!
It is impossible that God goes through this, therefore, the sacrifice of the
Cross was only symbolic. Christ is God, but he is not full human being. He
only assumed a human appearance, because it is impossible that God
may suffer like this. They went into heresy, and many of them went into hell.

[The Monotheist heresy persists to this day, principally in Mohammedism.]

And this is what is happening today!

The people cannot understand the suffering of the Church.


And they confuse the two aspects of papacy:

The divine aspect of infallibility,

And the human aspect of sin, error, blasphemy and crime!
 

And again, there are two groups that cannot digest what is going on.

There are the people who say:

It is impossible that somebody who commits crimes like this -- it is impossible that
somebody utters heresies like this -- can possibly be Pope.

It's like saying, one who suffers that much cannot be God -- Arianism

And then you have the others who say: It is impossible that the Pope makes
mistakes like this. The Pope is the Pope is the Pope is the Pope! Whatever he
says cannot be that wrong! They think that he's only God, and they forget
the human side, just like the Monotheists under Honorius.

When in reality, we have to understand, this Pope [speaking of JPII] is a human being.
He has a social background that was horrible. He never had a chance to study
theology the way I did! He grew up in heresy. He grew up in total confusion of
philosophy. He's a phenomenologist. For him, this is a glass of wine if it has wine
in it; it is an ash tray if I use it as an ash tray. Saint Thomas would say this is a
glass of wine, even if I use it as an ash tray. That's realism.

This pope never had realism.

Long before the Council (V. II) he said, we have to have religious liberty.
Long before the Council he said, the truth depends on how you see it.
This is his background. This is the human background.

And you believe that the Holy Spirit is ASLEEP??
The Holy Spirit made sure that Vatican II never became obligatory.
Maybe it never even was a council!

The Holy Spirit made sure there is no, single, one papal signature under a
docuмent that says the I have to use the new missal. There is a
"Notification of the Congregation" [with tone of sarcasm!] that says I must
use the new missal.

The Holy Spirit made sure that this pope in 20 years of pontificate, only once he
said, in virtue of my apostolic authority, I herewith define, declare, decree, that
no woman can ever become a priest and this has to be believed forever.

[JPII did not use those exact words, but he did use words generally to that same effect]


I agree with this! That is the only time he used the terminology of infallibility.

And this is exactly the reason why, to me, the question if he's really Pope or not,
in a certain sense, is academic.

The question if the new mass is valid or not is academic; you must not go there anyway.

The question if this pope is pope or not is academic; you can't follow him anyway.

The question if the new mass is a good thing or not is academic. It's against
Divine Law, Canon 13, 7th session of the Council of Trent [which was sealed by
anathema, the binding condemnation of error that invokes the infallible protection
of the Holy Ghost, and without that it would not be infallible], period. It's against
Quo Primum, which is an infallible docuмent [because it is sealed with a
condemnation of error, albeit with different words than Canon 13], by Saint Pius V,
period. That's it.

These are academic, theological, speculative questions, which are highly
interesting -- but not to you!

You have to save your soul. So do I. And everything that I said, whatever I said
and whatever I will say, is of zero, zilch, nixt, nothing value, if you're not in the
state of grace.

Most catechisms, unfortunately, do not follow the Baroque tradition of catechism,
where the first question was the following. This was a sermon -- of 30 seconds:

Question: Why was I born?

Answer: I was born to contribute to the greater glory of God and thus reach heaven. Amen.

Neil Obstat, what authority is there for the opinion that papal pronouncements are only binding and from the Chair of Peter if they have a condemnation or anathema attached to them ?  From where does this theory come ?  What are the papal statements or writings of theologians and canonists to justify you saying it ?

Or is it just your own private theory ?

I am under the impression that anything registered as an Act of the Apostolic See is enjoined with the authority of the Church's teaching office, which, insofar as it pertains to Faith or morals or positive ecclesiastical law, we are obliged to receive with obsequium religiosum.  Furthermore, if the decree intends to settle a question and/or determine the Church's belief from the Rule of Faith, it is irreformable insofar as it pertains to public revelation, and we are obliged to receive it as being of the Catholic Faith as such.  Furthermore, as I understand it, we are obliged to assent to the moral consensus of the Church's approved theologians (pardon my redundancy), since they inform the bishops.  Can anybody show, from some authoritative pontifical or theological source, where I may have misrepresented the truth ?

Neil Obstat, what authority is there for the opinion that papal pronouncements are only binding and from the Chair of Peter if they have a condemnation or anathema attached to them ?  From where does this theory come ?  What are the papal statements or writings of theologians and canonists to justify you saying it ?

Or is it just your own private theory ?

I am under the impression that anything registered as an Act of the Apostolic See is enjoined with the authority of the Church's teaching office, which, insofar as it pertains to Faith or morals or positive ecclesiastical law, we are obliged to receive with obsequium religiosum.  Furthermore, if the decree intends to settle a question and/or determine the Church's belief from the Rule of Faith, it is irreformable insofar as it pertains to public revelation, and we are obliged to receive it as being of the Catholic Faith as such.  Furthermore, as I understand it, we are obliged to assent to the moral consensus of the Church's approved theologians (pardon my redundancy), since they inform the bishops.  Can anybody show, from some authoritative pontifical or theological source, where I may have misrepresented the truth ?

I can only tell you this much.

I have been given this insight by a very holy traditional priest who has given me
some serious signs of God's providence. I am very privileged to be among his
acquaintances and hope to maintain a good relationship with him in the event that
perhaps, God willing, I can be so honored as to assist in the recording of his life
story. He has spent his life in contemplating this mystery of iniquity, and with the
corroboration with other good priests he knows, he has come down to this point
of identifying the "nigger in the woodpile" (not his words, but another friend's) that
has been behind all our woes since the Third Secret was hidden away in 1960.

I do respect your patience, and I will ask his permission to reveal his name to
you if it's really that important. I also respect your reasoned scholarship and your
desire and willingness to read and understand the available teachings of how the
Church applies her rules of obedience in the practice of faith and morals.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: PereJoseph

Neil Obstat, what authority is there for the opinion that papal pronouncements are only binding and from the Chair of Peter if they have a condemnation or anathema attached to them ?  From where does this theory come ?  What are the papal statements or writings of theologians and canonists to justify you saying it ?

Or is it just your own private theory ?

I am under the impression that anything registered as an Act of the Apostolic See is enjoined with the authority of the Church's teaching office, which, insofar as it pertains to Faith or morals or positive ecclesiastical law, we are obliged to receive with obsequium religiosum.  Furthermore, if the decree intends to settle a question and/or determine the Church's belief from the Rule of Faith, it is irreformable insofar as it pertains to public revelation, and we are obliged to receive it as being of the Catholic Faith as such.  Furthermore, as I understand it, we are obliged to assent to the moral consensus of the Church's approved theologians (pardon my redundancy), since they inform the bishops.  Can anybody show, from some authoritative pontifical or theological source, where I may have misrepresented the truth ?

I can only tell you this much.

I have been given this insight by a very holy traditional priest who has given me
some serious signs of God's providence. I am very privileged to be among his
acquaintances and hope to maintain a good relationship with him in the event that
perhaps, God willing, I can be so honored as to assist in the recording of his life
story. He has spent his life in contemplating this mystery of iniquity, and with the
corroboration with other good priests he knows, he has come down to this point
of identifying the "nigger in the woodpile" (not his words, but another friend's) that
has been behind all our woes since the Third Secret was hidden away in 1960.

I do respect your patience, and I will ask his permission to reveal his name to
you if it's really that important. I also respect your reasoned scholarship and your
desire and willingness to read and understand the available teachings of how the
Church applies her rules of obedience in the practice of faith and morals.

Neil, he's asking you for an authority, not a reference to an unnamed trad priest, who, whatever his formal training might be (if any), is not and cannot be an authority.

Thank you, SJB.  Neil, SJB made my response for me, but I will repeat it as my own.  What authority (in the actual canonical sense) is there to warrant your statements regarding condemnations and infallibility ?  

As an aside, I would be interested if anybody could show what Canon Hesse had to say about Pius VI and his teaching -- which is the Church's -- that the Church cannot promulgate rites and disciplines that are injurious to the faithful.

Besides, a theologian who recognized the problem in 1960, and was an well established theologian and not fresh out of school with his th.D., would be aged 85 and up now.  

Padre Pio may not count as an authority in the sense mentioned, but he certainly is one in the sense that his eminent sanctity makes it completely reasonable to trust his judgment even more than our own. And he believed Pope Paul VI was Pope.

The First Vatican Council states that the Pope is infallible only when the 4 conditions are met. One of those conditions is that it be binding upon all Catholics regardless of Rite. It must be a universal Law. (Note it does not have to be an anathema, however it must be the final answer to the question)

The Sedevacantist wannabe armchair theologians consulting theological textbooks that were banned for the laity to read pre-vatican 2(because they are not trained in how to interpret them and most heresies come about through theologians private opinions being declared de fide) are not authoritative. If anything they are citing Theological Opinions, which cannot be binding upon the faithful.

Look at Ludvig Ott's book and read what is and is not authoritative and in which way.

FYI, there were some very famous lay theologians prior to Vatican II, such as Orestes Brownson and Ludwig Ott. It's beside the point anyway, because we are merely quoting the theological manualists, such as Scheeben, Tanqurey, Van Noort and others. Also, the manualists classify doctrines as de fide, theologically certain, etc., these are NOT opinions as they are certainties.

Here's an example, fron Van Noort:

Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:
1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
 2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circuмstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ's doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

Corollary

The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true.(17) As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.

15. An example may help to clarify the matter. If the whole Christ were not present under the appearances of bread alone, the law forbidding lay people to drink from the chalice would offend against the faith. Or if the words increase and multiply (Gen. 1:28) constituted an ordinance binding every individual man, then the law of celibacy would be opposed to right morals. The same conclusion would hold if virginal purity were morally impossible for men.

16. The bull Auctorem fidei (DB 1578).

17. See Benedict XIV, De servorum Dei beatificatione, lib. IV, pars II, chap. 13, nos. 7-8. Very many bishops asked the Vatican Council for an appropriate revision of the Breviary on some points “which seem not at all square with established historical fact and sound scriptural exegesis” (Coll. Lac., VII, 874; see VII, 844, 882). There should be nothing surprising about this. At the time the Roman Breviary was edited, the critical apparatus now our disposal was simply not available.