Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Cantarella on October 06, 2013, 07:18:11 PM
-
f the present hierarchy of the Church is no hierarchy at all but a gathering of false bishops and priests appointed by anti-popes, where do you take the sacraments, which only the Catholic Church is a dispenser of?
I mean the sacraments on a visible, tangible, and proper form.
If the Seat of Peter has been vacant a half a century ago it means that there a lot of unfortunate "Catholics", myself included, who have not even been baptized and therefore never have been able to acquire valid Sacraments of the Church. All of this leads to an invisible Church, made up of believers "spiritually" subject to the Faith. Quite opposite to what the Catholic Church has always been : visible .
-
Cantarella,
There has never been a time in the history of the world in which the sacraments were available to everyone throughout the world. That is not the point to visibility. What visibility means is the reference to the Catholic faithful who externally profess the one true religion. Their number and/or geographical location are irrelevant.
"Even if Catholics faithful to traditionare reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." St. Athanasius
The Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims Bible provided the following commentary on Apoc. 11:12 stating:
The churches consecrated to the true God, are so much diminished in number, that they are represented by St. john as one church; its ministers officiate at one altar, and all the true faithful are so few, with respect to the bulk of mankind, that the evangelist sees them assembled in one temple, to pay their adorations to the Most High."
"But yet when the Son of man cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"
Your baptism is still valid and without priests we can still make a perfect act of contrition.
-
The Gates of Hell have not prevailed. There are Valid Bishops and Priests through out the world. From them come Valid Sacraments.
The Truth stands on its own merit. No one has to listen to what any Traditional Catholic says.
Eyes are opened by GOD's Grace.
If you want to know the truth - there is simply no shortcut.
Pray the Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary - The Joyful Sorrowful and Glorious Mysteries
Amend your lives and give up sin and vice.
Make perfect acts of contrition.
Offer fastings sacrifices and sufferings for the greater honor and glory of Almighty GOD
These things will Lead you to a TRUE MASS. There you can recieve the SACRAMENTS.
Going to any Church merely because it says Catholic on the sign out Front - isnt going to give you the Peace you seek.
The TRUTH is given to man by GOD not men. If you really want his TRUTH - then Ask HIM.
Pax Vobis
-
The Gates of Hell have not prevailed. There are Valid Bishops and Priests through out the world. From them come Valid Sacraments.
The Truth stands on its own merit. No one has to listen to what any Traditional Catholic says.
Eyes are opened by GOD's Grace.
If you want to know the truth - there is simply no shortcut.
Pray the Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary - The Joyful Sorrowful and Glorious Mysteries
Amend your lives and give up sin and vice.
Make perfect acts of contrition.
Offer fastings sacrifices and sufferings for the greater honor and glory of Almighty GOD
These things will Lead you to a TRUE MASS. There you can recieve the SACRAMENTS.
Going to any Church merely because it says Catholic on the sign out Front - isnt going to give you the Peace you seek.
The TRUTH is given to man by GOD not men. If you really want his TRUTH - then Ask HIM.
Pax Vobis
So you are a believer of the Hierarchy in Exile, then? There is in fact a Hierarchy but it is just hidden?
-
Cantarella,
There has never been a time in the history of the world in which the sacraments were available to everyone throughout the world. That is not the point to visibility. What visibility means is the reference to the Catholic faithful who externally profess the one true religion. Their number and/or geographical location are irrelevant.
"Even if Catholics faithful to traditionare reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." St. Athanasius
The Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims Bible provided the following commentary on Apoc. 11:12 stating:
The churches consecrated to the true God, are so much diminished in number, that they are represented by St. john as one church; its ministers officiate at one altar, and all the true faithful are so few, with respect to the bulk of mankind, that the evangelist sees them assembled in one temple, to pay their adorations to the Most High."
"But yet when the Son of man cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"
Your baptism is still valid and without priests we can still make a perfect act of contrition.
:shocked: So you are saying that sacraments nor priests are really necessary in Catholicism? Faith alone suffices, "sola fide"? With all due respect, Jerry, that sounds like protestant thinking at its best.
Can someone cite where in the Infallible Magisterium of The Holy Mother Church says that Catholics can be saved by Faith alone without the sacraments?
-
I am a believer in how Heresy causes the Truth to be obscured. I am not a Catholic who laments the State of the World. The Church consists of the Church Triumphant the Church Suffering and the Church Militant. Ours is a living Church with millions of Members who have lived for two thousand years. If in Our Age - Heresy has obscured Truth for some - the answer is the same as in all AGES. Be Catholic. We are in the world but we are not of the world. Therefore , Our Faith should always be joyful.
Since our Church is two thousand years old - Its Truths and Dogmas are firmly established. They do not change nor do they evolve. Those beliefs are rooted in hegelian philosophic thought. The Catholic Church is thomistic in philosophic thought. The attacks on Holy Mother the Church exists in not merely the visible but in the invisible understandings of the truth itself.
But Our Lord clearly stated in Scripture - "Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words shall never pass away. "
When you see the current hierarchy - all they ever do is talk about Vatican II. Because they embraced Heresy with Vatican II - Evolution - New age philosophy- the tenets of masonry - et al. It is no longer Catholic.
There is no way around that.
It says in Scripture , " Whereever the Body is there will the eagles be gathered. "
Traditional Catholics didnt leave the Church the Modernists led the Church away from Catholicism.
As History progresses Heresies come and heresies go but the Will of GOD is served in all ages by men of good will.
The Holy Mass and Sacraments are available. Heretics cannot dispense them.
-
No, that is not what I said. I do not ascribe to the Sola Fide argument. Although it seems that is what you may have preferred that I say.
I stated that the Baptism is still valid. That is hardly a news bulletin and is the position of all traditional orders. It is also commonly known that in an emergency even the laity can Baptize.
Of course it is preferable to have a legit priest for confession and particularly for extreme unction. But it has been the long standing teaching of the Church that a perfect act of contrition is acceptable to God. That does not diminish the sacraments, it is what the Church has always taught.
-
No, that is not what I said. I do not ascribe to the Sola Fide argument. Although it seems that is what you may have preferred that I say.
I stated that the Baptism is still valid. That is hardly a news bulletin and is the position of all traditional orders. It is also commonly known that in an emergency even the laity can Baptize.
Of course it is preferable to have a legit priest for confession and particularly for extreme unction. But it has been the long standing teaching of the Church that a perfect act of contrition is acceptable to God. That does not diminish the sacraments, it is what the Church has always taught.
Ok, what about Holy Communion for example? Where do sedevacantists can take a visible, tangible, physical host if there are not valid priests anywhere?
Do we agree that the physical host for the Catholic means Our Lord Himself. Not in spirit but in actual matter? Do we agree that you need to take this Eucharist in order to be saved? And actual host administered by a valid priest?
"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" John 6:53
What I am seeing here is that Malleus01 thinks that The Holy Mass and Sacraments are still available. Please PM and tell me where exactly can I find them. I am on the position that I definitely need the sacraments in order to be saved, only dispensed by the Holy Catholic Church.
Jerry seems to be more of the position that it is "preferable" to have valid Sacraments but if not, it is not a big deal, given that one holds the true Faith in their hearts. Again, that creates an invisible Church of only souls but not bodies, because there are not tangible sacraments.
-
Bishop Sanborn brought up the faith that many faithful in Japan kept and passed down the faith (e.g. the rosary and other devotions) without priests for years until the missionaries were able to return. If you have souls that are sincere and faithful, they will persevere.
-
There are many instances where Catholics have been cut off from the sacraments, sometimes even generations have lived with only baptism and marriage, as those can be confected without a priest.
As for me, I go to CMRI and those who were ordained through the lines of Abp. Lefebrve. There are other valid priests out there, some I choose to avoid, others I live too far away from to research. I'd go to an elderly priest ordained in the old rite, if one were available, he would be my first choice. Actually, there are situations like that out there, sent, valid clergy are still saying the mass.
-
There are many instances where Catholics have been cut off from the sacraments, sometimes even generations have lived with only baptism and marriage, as those can be confected without a priest.
As for me, I go to CMRI and those who were ordained through the lines of Abp. Lefebrve. There are other valid priests out there, some I choose to avoid, others I live too far away from to research. I'd go to an elderly priest ordained in the old rite, if one were available, he would be my first choice. Actually, there are situations like that out there, sent, valid clergy are still saying the mass.
So how a sedevacantist would judge who is a valid priest?
If the Church in fact has been leaded by anti-popes for half a century, thus producing invalid sacraments, a false priesthood and an flawed ecclesiastical structure, how do you know who is a valid priest? charisma?
If the Holy Catholic Church is now constituted of individual priests in their respective chapels, none of whom have valid jurisdiction, nor report to anyone higher than themselves, this leads to a cultish protestant Church. Not Catholic.
-
A valid priest is a priest ordained in an undoubtedly Catholic rite by an undoubtedly Catholic bishop. This means that a priest is ordained in the old rite of ordination, by a bishop who was consecrated in the old rite of episcopal consecration. All of the traditional orders can boast to have valid priests, and there are certainly some left in the NO, though. I have heard claims that there are NO priests operating in the SSPX who were not conditionally ordained, but I have never heard more than claims-- I have yet to see any evidence presented to support this belief.
When dealing with Novus Ordo priests, the general rule of thumb is to avoid them if they were ordained after 1969, and in particular if the ordination was done by a bishop consecrated after 1968.
By the way, this isn't really a sedevacantist issue. In better days, all traditional Catholics were wary of the new rites of Holy Orders. Archbishop Lefebvre was.
-
These are all great questions Cantarella and I do believe they are sincere (as opposed to some of the more recent threads I have seen which are only meant to put SV's on the defensive and to prove the OP's intellectual and spiritual prowess). I think the main objection I have is when sedes are called Protestants. However, I do understand this thinking because I once thought the same thing because I was ignorant of the position.
Protestants opposed the Catholic Faith. Sedes oppose the VII Faith (which is not the Catholic Faith) and defend the Catholic Faith. This is not the 1500's. This is a whole different set of circuмstances.
I don't think anyone has the answer to this crisis because it is unprecedented. The fact that it is unprecedented is the reason why it is such a crisis. We can't look back on church history and say, yep, that's what we do; that's what we believe; that's how we respond.
-
These are all great questions Cantarella and I do believe they are sincere (as opposed to some of the more recent threads I have seen which are only meant to put SV's on the defensive and to prove the OP's intellectual and spiritual prowess). I think the main objection I have is when sedes are called Protestants. However, I do understand this thinking because I once thought the same thing because I was ignorant of the position.
Protestants opposed the Catholic Faith. Sedes oppose the VII Faith (which is not the Catholic Faith) and defend the Catholic Faith. This is not the 1500's. This is a whole different set of circuмstances.
I don't think anyone has the answer to this crisis because it is unprecedented. The fact that it is unprecedented is the reason why it is such a crisis. We can't look back on church history and say, yep, that's what we do; that's what we believe; that's how we respond.
Very well stated 2Vermont.
-
These are all great questions Cantarella and I do believe they are sincere (as opposed to some of the more recent threads I have seen which are only meant to put SV's on the defensive and to prove the OP's intellectual and spiritual prowess). I think the main objection I have is when sedes are called Protestants. However, I do understand this thinking because I once thought the same thing because I was ignorant of the position.
Protestants opposed the Catholic Faith. Sedes oppose the VII Faith (which is not the Catholic Faith) and defend the Catholic Faith. This is not the 1500's. This is a whole different set of circuмstances.
I don't think anyone has the answer to this crisis because it is unprecedented. The fact that it is unprecedented is the reason why it is such a crisis. We can't look back on church history and say, yep, that's what we do; that's what we believe; that's how we respond.
Very well stated 2Vermont.
Well I thank ya because I posted that at around 5:30 in the morning.
-
These are all great questions Cantarella and I do believe they are sincere (as opposed to some of the more recent threads I have seen which are only meant to put SV's on the defensive and to prove the OP's intellectual and spiritual prowess). I think the main objection I have is when sedes are called Protestants. However, I do understand this thinking because I once thought the same thing because I was ignorant of the position.
Protestants opposed the Catholic Faith. Sedes oppose the VII Faith (which is not the Catholic Faith) and defend the Catholic Faith. This is not the 1500's. This is a whole different set of circuмstances.
I don't think anyone has the answer to this crisis because it is unprecedented. The fact that it is unprecedented is the reason why it is such a crisis. We can't look back on church history and say, yep, that's what we do; that's what we believe; that's how we respond.
The foundation of the visible Supreme Pontiff is the glue that has hold Catholics together and has been so 2000 years ago. Casting off the visible pope, is accepting that the Church has defected which cannot be. That is precisely the origin of all schisms: The denial of a well established Catholic hierarchy and ecclesiastic authority over the layman. Eastern Orthodox did it as well as Protestants.
-
These are all great questions Cantarella and I do believe they are sincere (as opposed to some of the more recent threads I have seen which are only meant to put SV's on the defensive and to prove the OP's intellectual and spiritual prowess). I think the main objection I have is when sedes are called Protestants. However, I do understand this thinking because I once thought the same thing because I was ignorant of the position.
Protestants opposed the Catholic Faith. Sedes oppose the VII Faith (which is not the Catholic Faith) and defend the Catholic Faith. This is not the 1500's. This is a whole different set of circuмstances.
I don't think anyone has the answer to this crisis because it is unprecedented. The fact that it is unprecedented is the reason why it is such a crisis. We can't look back on church history and say, yep, that's what we do; that's what we believe; that's how we respond.
The foundation of the visible Supreme Pontiff is the glue that has hold Catholics together and has been so 2000 years ago. Casting off the visible pope, is accepting that the Church has defected which cannot be. That is precisely the origin of all schisms: The denial of a well established Catholic hierarchy and ecclesiastic authority over the layman. Eastern Orthodox did it as well as Protestants.
Charlamagne responded to the question of visibility in one of the other SV threads:
If the visibility of the Church is tied to the visibility of the Pope, what happens when a Pope dies? The seat is vacant, obviously, but the office endures ("in perpetuity"). Does a Pope's death, therefore, make the Church invisible or without a head (Who is, after all, Christ Himself)? I would argue that Her visibility is tied to the office of the Papacy and to the Faithful. "When the Son of Man returneth, will He, think ye, find faith on earth?"
This makes sense to me....it at least makes more sense than accepting a heretical pope as a true pope. We are just in a longer period of sede vacante.
-
Yes, the Seat of Peter is vacant in between Pope elections and for the legitimate reasons but half century of sedevacantism in account of "heretical" conciliar popes, judged by the simple layman? Impossible.
All of sedevacantists I know of fall into these positions:
1. The Church Hierarchy is there, but it is just hidden. I actually have an acquaintance who incessantly tries to prove to me that there is in fact a "Hierarchy in Exile" somewhere hidden from the Jєωs and masons.
2. The See of Rome is currently vacant and has been for half a century, which leads to an invisible Church, protestant style, in which the faithful end up taking the sacraments from self appointed not valid priests who responds to no one but themselves.
3. Those who are called conclavists who make attempts to appoint their own Pope according to their own liking.
4. Those who believe that as long as you hold the "true faith" in their hearts, there is no necessity of sacraments. This has created the phenomenon of "home alone" on Sundays. From all of these positions, this last one is the more disturbing to my Catholic ears. If you think that faith alone will save you, you are in the wrong Church. You may as well join a protestant sect.
Council of Trent, Seventh Session, canon IV
ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL
CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacramnets of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that these seven sacraments are in such wise equal to each other, as that one is not in any way more worthy than another; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.
-
Cantarella wrote:
Yes, there is sedevacantism in between Pope elections and for the legitimate reasons but half century of sedevacantism in account of "heretical" conciliar popes, judged by the simple layman? Impossible.
The fact remains that such a scenario does not contradict the teaching of the Church. If you think it does, them give a source.
Your alternative to this is to accept open public heretics as the Successors of St. Peter. If you were right, then the papacy would mean nothing, not now, not before, and not for the rest of time.
What good is to have a Supreme Pastor who does not have to be believed or obeyed. The future Catholic Church will work like this: The Pope will promulgate an encyclical, then the clergy and laity will then review his docuмent for any dangers to the Faith, and may agree by consensus to believe it.
-
Yes, the Seat of Peter is vacant in between Pope elections and for the legitimate reasons but half century of sedevacantism in account of "heretical" conciliar popes, judged by the simple layman? Impossible.
All of sedevacantists I know of fall into these positions:
1. The Church Hierarchy is there, but it is just hidden. I actually have an acquaintance who incessantly tries to prove to me that there is in fact a "Hierarchy in Exile" somewhere hidden from the Jєωs and masons.
2. The See of Rome is currently vacant and has been for half a century, which leads to an invisible Church, protestant style, in which the faithful end up taking the sacraments from self appointed not valid priests who responds to no one but themselves.
3. Those who are called conclavists who make attempts to appoint their own Pope according to their own liking.
4. Those who believe that as long as you hold the "true faith" in their hearts, there is no necessity of sacraments. This has created the phenomenon of "home alone" on Sundays. From all of these positions, this last one is the more disturbing to my Catholic ears. If you think that faith alone will save you, you are in the wrong Church. You may as well join a protestant sect.
Council of Trent, Seventh Session, canon IV
ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL
CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacramnets of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that these seven sacraments are in such wise equal to each other, as that one is not in any way more worthy than another; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.
You posted the exact same thing at Archbishop Lefebvre forums ... and received many answers. Were the answers unsatisfactory?
-
Yes, the Seat of Peter is vacant in between Pope elections and for the legitimate reasons but half century of sedevacantism in account of "heretical" conciliar popes, judged by the simple layman? Impossible.
Why do you insist that it is impossible? Just because we find ourselves in unprecedented times does not necessarily mean it is impossible. I wonder if anyone would have thought it possible for a "normal" interregnum to last 3 years in 1268. Probably not.
-
It's just plain silly to say that it's impossible. That's Fellay and NeoSSPX speak. SVism is impossible, give us money so we can build a new seminary and teach our priests that SVism is the greatest threat to Catholic Tradition.
-
Hi Mythrandyland, good to see you! :pop:
If I posted the same thing in the other forum, the question answer itself, no?
And I bet you know what I am going to say next.
-
It's just plain silly to say that it's impossible. That's Fellay and NeoSSPX speak. SVism is impossible, give us money so we can build a new seminary and teach our priests that SVism is the greatest threat to Catholic Tradition.
“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” Archbishop Lefebrve, 1986
It looks like even AL thought it was possible otherwise he wouldn't say that it was not YET time.
-
These are all great questions Cantarella and I do believe they are sincere (as opposed to some of the more recent threads I have seen which are only meant to put SV's on the defensive and to prove the OP's intellectual and spiritual prowess). I think the main objection I have is when sedes are called Protestants. However, I do understand this thinking because I once thought the same thing because I was ignorant of the position.
Protestants opposed the Catholic Faith. Sedes oppose the VII Faith (which is not the Catholic Faith) and defend the Catholic Faith. This is not the 1500's. This is a whole different set of circuмstances.
I don't think anyone has the answer to this crisis because it is unprecedented. The fact that it is unprecedented is the reason why it is such a crisis. We can't look back on church history and say, yep, that's what we do; that's what we believe; that's how we respond.
The foundation of the visible Supreme Pontiff is the glue that has hold Catholics together and has been so 2000 years ago. Casting off the visible pope, is accepting that the Church has defected which cannot be. That is precisely the origin of all schisms: The denial of a well established Catholic hierarchy and ecclesiastic authority over the layman. Eastern Orthodox did it as well as Protestants.
Indeed, Sedevacantism makes a bad problem even worse. Schisms are increased instead of decreased. There is more fighting and confusion in the Church because of it. I totally agree with the strong resistance of the Sedes, but they go a step too far. Casting off the visible Pope is not the answer. Hold the traditions, says St. Paul. There is no tradition of laymen and priests etc. deposing a Pope. Good post Cantarella..
-
It's just plain silly to say that it's impossible. That's Fellay and NeoSSPX speak. SVism is impossible, give us money so we can build a new seminary and teach our priests that SVism is the greatest threat to Catholic Tradition.
“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” Archbishop Lefebrve, 1986
It looks like even AL thought it was possible otherwise he wouldn't say that it was not YET time.
nice quote..
here's another
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976: “The Council [Vatican II] turned its back on Tradition and broke with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council… If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope… Because ultimately, since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate, the conscience and faith of all Catholics have been faced with a serious problem. How is it that the pope, the true successor of Peter, who is assured of the help of the Holy Ghost, can officiate at the destruction of the Church – the most radical, rapid, and widespread in her history – something that no heresiarch has ever managed to achieve?”
another
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986: “This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I have not created it. I would die to make it go away! We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope. Because it seems to me initially – I do not yet want to say it solemnly and publicly – that it is impossible for a pope to be publicly and formally heretical.”[15]
-
It's just plain silly to say that it's impossible. That's Fellay and NeoSSPX speak. SVism is impossible, give us money so we can build a new seminary and teach our priests that SVism is the greatest threat to Catholic Tradition.
“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” Archbishop Lefebrve, 1986
It looks like even AL thought it was possible otherwise he wouldn't say that it was not YET time.
nice quote..
here's another
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976: “The Council [Vatican II] turned its back on Tradition and broke with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council… If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope… Because ultimately, since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate, the conscience and faith of all Catholics have been faced with a serious problem. How is it that the pope, the true successor of Peter, who is assured of the help of the Holy Ghost, can officiate at the destruction of the Church – the most radical, rapid, and widespread in her history – something that no heresiarch has ever managed to achieve?”
another
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986: “This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I have not created it. I would die to make it go away! We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope. Because it seems to me initially – I do not yet want to say it solemnly and publicly – that it is impossible for a pope to be publicly and formally heretical.”[15]
Yes, thank you for adding these. I do think this man would be a SV if he were alive today, two heretical popes later.
-
2Vermont wrote:
Yes, thank you for adding these. I do think this man would be a SV if he were alive today, two heretical popes later.
You are absolutely right. The SSPX changed radically after Archbishop Lefebvre's death and dug into its belief that the antipopes are popes, and sedevacantists were schismatics or dangerous to the Faith.
This was not the view of Archbishop Lefebvre. He understood the issues, and the theology which demonstrates that public heretics cannot hold office. He was clearly moving towards the position that John Paul II was a heretic and antipope.
I have no doubt that the Archbishop would be with us on this, or rather that we would be with him, as our leader.
-
2Vermont wrote:
Yes, thank you for adding these. I do think this man would be a SV if he were alive today, two heretical popes later.
You are absolutely right. The SSPX changed radically after Archbishop Lefebvre's death and dug into its belief that the antipopes are popes, and sedevacantists were schismatics or dangerous to the Faith.
This was not the view of Archbishop Lefebvre. He understood the issues, and the theology which demonstrates that public heretics cannot hold office. He was clearly moving towards the position that John Paul II was a heretic and antipope.
I have no doubt that the Archbishop would be with us on this, or rather that we would be with him, as our leader.
when I see Bishop Williamson if I get the chance I will give him these quotes and see what he says,I 'll ask him about his uotes on John Paul 2 being a good man..let me know ifthere are othr questions I should ask him
-
2Vermont wrote:
Yes, thank you for adding these. I do think this man would be a SV if he were alive today, two heretical popes later.
You are absolutely right. The SSPX changed radically after Archbishop Lefebvre's death and dug into its belief that the antipopes are popes, and sedevacantists were schismatics or dangerous to the Faith.
This was not the view of Archbishop Lefebvre. He understood the issues, and the theology which demonstrates that public heretics cannot hold office. He was clearly moving towards the position that John Paul II was a heretic and antipope.
I have no doubt that the Archbishop would be with us on this, or rather that we would be with him, as our leader.
when I see Bishop Williamson if I get the chance I will give him these quotes and see what he says,I 'll ask him about his uotes on John Paul 2 being a good man..let me know ifthere are othr questions I should ask him
Sure, I hope it goes well. The entire 1986 Address of the Archbishop to Seminarians may be worth bringing back to his attention.
The Archbishop laid out clearly his thinking about sedevacantism with very clear and explicit reasoning:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/angeluslefebvre.html
-
Point #2 is an outright LIE!! SV priests are valid and you are a slanderer! May God forgive you!
quote=Cantarella]
2. The See of Rome is currently vacant and has been for half a century, which leads to an invisible Church, protestant style, in which the faithful end up taking the sacraments from self appointed not valid priests who responds to no one but themselves.
. [/i][/quote]
-
Point #2 is an outright LIE!! SV priests are valid and you are a slanderer! May God forgive you!
quote=Cantarella]
2. The See of Rome is currently vacant and has been for half a century, which leads to an invisible Church, protestant style, in which the faithful end up taking the sacraments from self appointed not valid priests who responds to no one but themselves.
. [/i]
[/quote]
John: When you have to recourse to personal attacks, you have already lost all argument sir.
-
Point #2 is an outright LIE!! SV priests are valid and you are a slanderer! May God forgive you!
quote=Cantarella]
2. The See of Rome is currently vacant and has been for half a century, which leads to an invisible Church, protestant style, in which the faithful end up taking the sacraments from self appointed not valid priests who responds to no one but themselves.
. [/i]
John: When you have to recourse to personal attacks, you have already lost all argument sir.[/quote]
protestant style? when you make up nonsense you've already lost the debate..is Francis a heretic? yes or no
Pope Pope Paul IV Papal Bull
that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop,even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff,
has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy
:
(i)
the promotion or elevation, even if itshall have been uncontested and by theunanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless
should I simply ignore this??
-
Point #2 is an outright LIE!! SV priests are valid and you are a slanderer! May God forgive you!
quote=Cantarella]
2. The See of Rome is currently vacant and has been for half a century, which leads to an invisible Church, protestant style, in which the faithful end up taking the sacraments from self appointed not valid priests who responds to no one but themselves.
. [/i]
John: When you have to recourse to personal attacks, you have already lost all argument sir.[/quote]
Cantarella,
If you stop writing incompetent lying slanderous posts, I will stop attacking you. It pretty simple.
Why would you think that you don't have to be responsible for what you write?
It is against the 8th commandment of God. You have no shame. No conscience! And you are not the only one!
At least sedevacantists don't LIE like you do!
Your posts will mislead people and you will be held accountable to God. I pray for you!