Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: John Grace on May 30, 2011, 12:23:58 PM
-
I was reading the Mr Heiner article.
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2011/05/quo-vadis-sspx-part-i-failure-of.html
Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations
This article was originally published as an Op-Ed piece in the May 2011 issue of The Four Marks.
I didn’t come to the Traditional Catholic movement until 1996, long after Archbishop Lefebvre had passed from this world to the next. But, I, like any honest Traditional Catholic, know that without him, there would likely be many fewer Traditional Masses throughout the world. Some say he went too far, some say he didn’t go far enough, but I am grateful for what he did do. What Traditional Catholics need to realize is that the situation is now quite different for Catholics than it was in 1991, when the Archbishop died. The question is not “what the Archbishop/SSPX would do” but rather, “what is the reality of the situation?”
Bishop Fellay recently announced the end of the “negotiations” with the Roman authorities. He seems disappointed, but can he really have expected otherwise? Let us review some facts.
The Society of St. Pius X takes dispute with Vatican II. The Roman authorities consider this to be an ecuмenical council, much like Nicea, Trent, and Vatican I. Its teachings and spirit have permeated the structures of the Catholic Church since 1962 and have destroyed the faith of millions. The Society of St. Pius X adopts a hybrid position in regards to this Council: their bishops and priests and vast majority of the faithful who attend their chapels consider Vatican II to be an “optional” or “questionable” council. They cite terms like “pastoral” in order to make their case, while ignoring that every Vatican II docuмent was signed by Paul VI as, “We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory…(signed) I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”
I once made this point to a friend outside of Mass, asking him by what authority he, or any SSPX bishop or priest, questioned the authority of Vatican II. “It goes against Tradition,” he said. “Okay, and who made the Society of St Pius X the arbiter of ‘Tradition’? Where can I find in my catechism that if a council is dubious, a religious congregation in Switzerland is to be my guide?” You can imagine I got no answer.
Additionally, what started as a simple fact-finding mission, an interview with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais nearly 5 years ago now, turned into an avocation for me, and apart from hearing Bishop Tissier say that Vatican II must be “erased” from Church history, I’ve also heard Bishop Williamson tell me that Vatican II is a “poisoned cake” and must be “discarded entirely.” Bishop de Galerreta has once referred, in a sermon he gave at a Winona ordination, to the last 20 years as the “institutionalization of the Revolution,” implying that Vatican II was a revolution. Bishop Fellay and the vast majority of Society priests and faithful will often refer to the Conciliar religion as a “new religion” which is manifestly clear, as this new religion has new sacraments, new beliefs, and new behavior. When I ask the question, “How can JPII/Benedict XVI be heads of a ‘new religion’ as well as heads of the Catholic Church?” the silence I receive is indicative of two things: 1) there is a failure to think through the implications of such rhetoric as “new religion” and that 2) the intellectual conclusions of calling it a “new religion” are too horrifying to even discuss.
So, the Society considers Vatican II to be suspect AND Benedict XVI to be a legitimate Pope. There is no Catholic teaching anywhere on earth that makes provision for a Swiss (or any) congregation to be the arbiter of “Tradition” nor is there an explanation anywhere as to how the Supreme Head of the Church on earth, the Vicar of Christ, can be the head of a “new religion” other than the Catholic Church. But, this is the explanation for why there were “negotiations” in the first place. If you believe that you are holding the Catholic Faith, and that all that remains is for you to show the wayward Pope and the other billions of Catholics that they, indeed, are the ones who are lost, then of course you will, like naïfs and ingénues, show up in Rome for “negotiations.” Yet, even this was simply an imitation of the Archbishop’s actions, instead of learning from his mistakes. Countless times the Archbishop went “to Rome” and countless times he was disappointed. Formed in the Roman diplomatic tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always looking for one more angle with which to treat with Rome, instead of recognizing that at some point, his tenuous holding position could have only one real conclusion – that the men who let the “smoke of satan” into the Church were the Churchmen themselves. This is why the Archbishop ordained known sedevacantists and had sedevacantist professors at Econe for years: he knew it was a future possibility.
The negotiations failed not because the SSPX was unconvincing or because Bishop de Galerreta was rude, or as some supremely ignorant laymen postulate, because Bishop Williamson hates Jews (or women, or children, or dwarfs too perhaps), but because, as Bishop Fellay seems surprised to learn, they believe in a DIFFERENT RELIGION than the Society holds. The question then devolves to the Society: do we hold the Catholic Faith? If we do, then those in possession of the Catholic instruments of authority are usurpers, as the Arians were during the time of St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius. If those in the Society dare to say that they don’t have the Catholic Faith, and that wearing a white cassock makes you right (even though antipopes have worn the white cassock, reigned from Rome, etc.), then they should humbly, on their knees, seek suppliance, forgiveness, and reintegration into the Catholic Church.
The negotiations failed because the Society of St Pius X has a distorted ecclesiology, and the chickens finally came home to roost. What remains to be seen is what will happen now. For those of us who have watched the SSPX for years, the predictable will likely happen: the SSPX will crawl back into the bunker, after some time in the sunshine after the (ironically more restrictive) Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI and the propagation of the Orwellian phrase "Extraordinary Form." There will be appeals to “tradition” and “the Archbishop” and all that, and no honest confrontation of what is going on.
The negotiations failed because the Conciliar Church, as headed by Paul VI, JPI and JPII, and now Benedict XVI, are bent on creating a One World Religion. All the Archbishop did in 1986 when Assisi I happened was make a statement of protest. He never called it what it was: an act of apostasy. Assisi II happened and Bishop Fellay made his necessary noises. And now Assisi III will happen, in the same year that John Paul II was made “Beato.” Yet the Society continues to, in Orwellian fashion, tell us that none of this means anything. It doesn’t matter that the Pope writes books saying that contraception is okay, it doesn’t matter that he prays in mosques or ѕуηαgσgυєs, it doesn’t matter that he is calling a congress of religions, and it doesn’t matter that he beatified who is potentially the worst Pope (if he was one) in Church history. Nothing matters. He has a white cassock, and as such, HAS to be Pope. The issue of canonizations/beatifications has proven to be a thornier one, as no one really cared when John XXIII was “beatified.” But people know that JPII was notoriously bad – not just for his heresies, but for his conduct. Yet the SSPX and other "recognize and resisters" maintain that canonizations/beatifications are not covered by infallibility – yet the issue of Sainthood/Blessedhood must indeed be covered by the Church’s disciplinary Magisterium. It is not for a congregation, Swiss or otherwise, to dispute who the Church proclaims as worthy of veneration. It is out of order in the organizational sense, and it is completely unfounded in the Catholic sense.
The negotiations failed because the large checks that flow into Menzingen and other Society General Houses around the world would stop if the Society were to ask The Question: Is the Pope Catholic?
As for the faithful, who are struggling to simply get to Mass, say the Rosary, and live a virtuous life, it is a battle entirely out of their control. If the SSPX does one day lose its schizophrenic current ecclesiology, it will either: 1) rejoin the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr Church that it was briefly part of in 1970-1971 or 2) realize its own Catholicity and reject the holders of authority in the Church as usurpers. In the first scenario, tens of thousands of faithful will return to garage and hotel Masses, and learn the lesson that St. Augustine drives home in the City of God: nothing on this earth lasts. In the second scenario, tens of thousands of faithful will ask the question in prayer that has been too horrific for the SSPX to confront since the Archbishop died: what do I do now? Yet, in both of these scenarios, the faithful will gain, as they will be confronted with the truth. The SSPX’s current position, schizophrenic and distorted, is simply unsustainable, and more importantly, not Catholic.
-
They weren't negotiations. They were attempts to convert Rome. In any case, it's no surprise that they were unsuccessful. When you have infiltrators who are Freemasons, Communists, and gαys, they won't convert no matter what (I'm not saying Benedict is one, I'm talking about the Vatican in general).
-
Oh, by the way, there's three parts in that article I strongly disagree with. First of all, Bishop Williamson does not hate Jews, or women, or children. The man is a Traditional Catholic Bishop, he knows better than to hate people. Secondly, Archbishop LeFebvre DID call Assisi an act of apostasy. And to say the position the SSPX holds isn't even Catholic? That is absurd. How can you refuse to celebrate the Novus Ordo and only say the Traditional Latin Mass yet not have a Catholic position? The person who wrote this article doesn't know what they're talking about.
-
Oh, by the way, there's three parts in that article I strongly disagree with. First of all, Bishop Williamson does not hate Jews, or women, or children. ....
I suggest you re-read the article. Obviously, you did not understand it if you thought Mr. Heiner thinks this.
-
It may not be what he thinks, but this line from the article implies it (unless he's trying to say he doesn't hate Jews):
"The negotiations failed not because the SSPX was unconvincing or because Bishop de Galerreta was rude, or as some supremely ignorant laymen postulate, because Bishop Williamson hates Jews (or women, or children, or dwarfs too perhaps),"...
-
They weren't negotiations. They were attempts to convert Rome. In any case, it's no surprise that they were unsuccessful. When you have infiltrators who are Freemasons, Communists, and gαys, they won't convert no matter what (I'm not saying Benedict is one, I'm talking about the Vatican in general).
Can you direct me to the docuмentation where it is stated that these were attempts at conversion rather than negotiations?
I need to know. ty
-
They weren't negotiations. They were attempts to convert Rome. In any case, it's no surprise that they were unsuccessful. When you have infiltrators who are Freemasons, Communists, and gαys, they won't convert no matter what (I'm not saying Benedict is one, I'm talking about the Vatican in general).
Can you direct me to the docuмentation where it is stated that these were attempts at conversion rather than negotiations?
I need to know. ty
http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/54_answers_from_bishop_fellay_feb_2011/54_answers_bp_fellay1.htm
-
Oh, by the way, there's three parts in that article I strongly disagree with. First of all, Bishop Williamson does not hate Jews, or women, or children. ....
I suggest you re-read the article. Obviously, you did not understand it if you thought Mr. Heiner thinks this.
This is why I finally broke down and put SS on ignore.
Ahhhhhh....... no more worrying about complete epic comrehension failures and illogic.
Refreshing! :cheers:
-
It seems like its a waste of time in spite of the forced attitude of optimism.(Regarding the talks)
But clearly, SSPX needs Bishops.
And they should talk with them seriiously about becoming Tradtionalists, even Bishops from Polish Nationalist Church, Orthodox, Eastern Rite and even converting protestants.
It seems that the conciliar church must have a nice pension. I don't understand why more are not leaving.
-
I haven't kept up with Stephen Heiner, but I had always assumed he was an SSPX type Trad and not a sede. This article seems to demonstrate he is a sede, is this correct? In any case, his article is so full of slap dash conclusions based on errouneous interpretation of facts, I'm not sure where I'd even begin to respond. It amazes me this guy conducted so many interviews with SSPX Bishops and priests and still doesn't get them.
If the situation is different from 1991 at all it is because it is better, not worse. BXVI gave the Society all three of their pre-conditions. The Mass is "freed", the Society is no longer "excommunicated" and Rome conceded to doctrinal discussions.
Bishop Fellay is following in the exact footsteps and the direction of ABL who urged them to always be open to dialogue with Rome because the Society would always be attached to Rome as the seat of the Faith. ABL, after 1988, said he learned an important lesson. A lesson which the SSPX has learned as well and a mistake they are not repeating. ABL said if he had to do '88 over again, he would never try to agree to a practical arrangement before the doctrinal issues were settled. Thus ABL himself gave impetus to the discussions as it was his desire. How Heiner does not know this after his involvement with Tradition since '96 and his constant interviews, I have no idea.
The Society does not deny Paul VI signed VCII. Who cares? It's like me signing a completely ambiguous statement that says nothing and everything at the same time. It's as if I signed a Magic Eye painting where everybody sees what they want to.
He asked the wrong question to his friend outside of Mass. He asked by what authority he questions the authority of VCII? Nobody questions the authority of VCII. VCII by its own admission was a pastoral council that defined nothing and obligated nothing. It authoritatively said....nothing.
In this context the Bishops' statements make sense. Yes, this non-infallible, non-dogmatic Council which waxed poetic in dangerous ambiguous language lending itself to heterodox interpretation should indeed be "erased from Church history", "discarded entirely", and the last 20 years were indeed the "institutionalization of the Revolution". The Revolution was the entire VCII event including the ambiguous docuмents and the complete lack of discipline in allowing the innovators to use the Council as a pretext for every sort of heresy and scandal.
The PC popes are heads of a "new religion" in the sense of the non-binding, non-mandatory, optional post-concilliar novelties they support and perpetuate. They are also popes of the Catholic Church as they have never condemned or forbade Traditional belief and practice or officially changed the Faith.
The Society is not the "arbiter" of Tradition, as if Tradition were some ambiguously vague and contradictory post-conciliar text that needed to be "arbited" by some sort of gnostic prophet like George Weigel. The Society keeps Tradition and the Faith as it stood before the Council. This cannot be wrong. They arbiter nothing. Instead they hold fast to Tradition and point out when the current gang does something differently than what the Church has always done.
Heiner brings up the Arians as usurpers. Yes many current bishops are similar usurpers. But St. A did not declare Liberius anti-pope and start his own church then. Neither does the Society today.
Heiner then trots out the usual sede dog and pony show and tries the "shock and awe" approach to convince one of sede-ism. He presents a laundry list of bad things JPII did, etc and asks how he could possibly be pope much less be beatified. But he fails to see the Society's arguments for what they are. The Society doesn't dismiss beatifications as crap. They distinguish that they are not, in fact, infallible and point out that honoring the beatus is optional. Canonizations were thought to be infallible but this opinion was formed when there was a devil's advocate and other safeguards present. Also the only thing infallible about the old canonizations was that the canonized was in Heaven.
Then Heiner pulls a Cekada and attributes all Society beliefs not to core convictions but to attempts to collect more money. That doesn't even need a response.
He then presents the same tired old false sede dichotomy that has become old hat by now. He attempts to force a choice between the NO Church and Sede-ism. This is the situation the sedes have manufactured as a fiction, through the very same "shock and awe" Heiner uses, but, unfortunately for them, does not reflect reality.
If I were Heiner I'd spend more time actually reading and understanding the very tenable Society position rather than apparently interviewing Society priests without any context with which to understand their comments and then flying off the cuff writing articles refuting, not Society positions, but strawmen.
-
They weren't negotiations. They were attempts to convert Rome. In any case, it's no surprise that they were unsuccessful. When you have infiltrators who are Freemasons, Communists, and gαys, they won't convert no matter what (I'm not saying Benedict is one, I'm talking about the Vatican in general).
Can you direct me to the docuмentation where it is stated that these were attempts at conversion rather than negotiations?
I need to know. ty
They were/are discussions.
-
I see the staff on Ignis Ardens have locked the thread on Quo vadis SSPX?
Quo vadis Ignis Ardens?
-
Stevus,
The PC popes are heads of a "new religion" in the sense of the non-binding, non-mandatory, optional post-concilliar novelties they support and perpetuate.
Yes. But they could be heretics by virtue of their "non-binding, non-mandatory, optional post-concilliar novelties they support and perpetuate."
They are also popes of the Catholic Church as they have never condemned or forbade Traditional belief and practice or officially changed the Faith.
Yes again. Except . . . they may not be popes.
But the fact that one may remain a Traditional Catholic and believe exactly what was believed, and worship as Catholics worshipped, before V2, does indicate caution in saying they are not popes - I would think true anti-pope heretics who are tools of the Anti-Christ (if not the Anti-Christ) would put an end to that freedom to be a Traditional Catholic.
On the other hand, heretics are not popes, and they may be heretics.
This is why forums like this are full of endless, spirited debates on these issues.
-
Decem,
The argument goes that only if they are formal heretics could they possibly lose their office as Pope. None of us have the authority to officially declare the Pope is in formal heresy. Thus it is a non-issue.
Futhermore none of the PC popes have pertinaciously denied Catholic dogma. They believe Catholic dogma. They also believe certain novelties and new expressions are a true consistent development and organic growth of these dogmas and that the liturgical practices "renew" the Faith through modern expression, etc. etc.
To consider any pope an anti-pope the opinion goes that the pope would need to unequivocally deny Catholic dogma and cling to that denial in the face of correction. For instance a pope would have to officially state that Our Lady was not Immaculately Conceived and cling to that belief in the face of correction. We have not even so much as approached this in our lifetimes.
Instead we get a bunch of double-talking, amorphous, ambiguous, fluff that coulds the Traditional understanding of the Church, all the while repeating that it changes nothing. It is an illusion. Smoke and mirrors. It is not a true rejection of Catholic dogma, though sedes fall for it every time, declare the smoke and mirrors "heresy" and go on about their business.
-
Oh, by the way, there's three parts in that article I strongly disagree with. First of all, Bishop Williamson does not hate Jews, or women, or children. ....
I suggest you re-read the article. Obviously, you did not understand it if you thought Mr. Heiner thinks this.
This is why I finally broke down and put SS on ignore.
Ahhhhhh....... no more worrying about complete epic comrehension failures and illogic.
Refreshing! :cheers:
For someone that has me on ignore you sure are thumbing down alot of my posts, which is interesting considering I'm sticking up for the Society which you support. And even though I put you on ignore as well, don't think I can't see your un-charitable posts, I sometimes take people off ignore for the heck of it. Keep up these un-charitable posts and you'll be in violation of even more forum rules here.
And it's funny because I was also refreshed to have put you on ignore. Ahhhhhh...... no more worrying about neo-Cath nonsense and denial of plain heresies. Refreshing! :cheers:
See how I can play at your game too, Stevus? Back on ignore.
-
The argument goes that only if they are formal heretics could they possibly lose their office as Pope. None of us have the authority to officially declare the Pope is in formal heresy. Thus it is a non-issue.
I don't know about that, Stevus.
I posted an excerpt from Van Nort where he says it's the "common opinion" that someone who is "public" with their heretical stance is not a member of the Church, and it doesn't matter if they are formal heretics. Look at the quote below. Darn, Van Nort's saying that's the common opinion, and I never can get anyone to comment on that.
Certainly the V2 popes have been public in their statements and actions that create problems for all of us.
Van Nort, Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, p. 241-242
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
-
Remember that pertinacity is also required, yet it is also manifest by words and actions. If one can see the heresy, he can also see the pertinacity, if it is there.
-
But they could be heretics by virtue of their "non-binding, non-mandatory, optional post-concilliar novelties they support and perpetuate."
The argument goes that only if they are formal heretics could they possibly lose their office as Pope. None of us have the authority to officially declare the Pope is in formal heresy. Thus it is a non-issue.
I don't know about that, Stevus.
Decem,
stevie just brushes all aside that conflicts with his agenda. Justice means nothing to him. It does not even occur to him that none of the theologians who speculated about this issue concluded as he does -- i.e., that it is a non-issue because no one can officially declare such and such. FWIW, formal heretics are not called such because they have been officially declared to be so, as if the formal aspect has to do with a recognition within the order of law.
It is as plain as the summer sun that a man -- ANY MAN, including a Pope -- can, in fact, formally adhere to heresy in a way that is discernible to normal men, sans authoritative investigation and declaration. The official angle just ratifies something within the order of law that is already true within the order of fact.
In stevie's world, a pope could say that the Holy Trinity is really made up of Larry, Curly, and Mo (or sex, drugs, and rock and roll), yet all would still be well because he did not do so in a solemn, binding docuмent!
-
Decem,
The text you quoted is Van Nort saying he not only agrees with the "common opinion" but that he doesn't see how the other opinion has any merit, listing his reasons for this opinion. Very well and good. Other theologians are free to disagree with the "common opinion" as the "common opinion" is not binding or infallible. It is simply seen as probable.
It makes no sense to me that a Catholic would be cut off from the Body of Christ completely and entirely by externally uttering a statement in sincere ignorance that goes against the truth of the Church. So does this mean if a Pope utters an error in ignorance publicly, he immediately ceases to be pope and a Catholic. Then a moment later a nearby Cardinal corrects him, the pope realizes he was wrong, and then corrects himself and he becomes a Catholic again and pope again?
This is absurd. It sets up a sort of invisible pope/not pope test where each lay Catholic needs to scan the newpapers to see if the pope is really pope this day, hour, minute, second. It would utterly destroy the entire purpose of a juridical framework and hierarchy, making us all Protestants.
GV, like the Protestants, thinks he can easily and objectively spot heresy and privately judge the pope of spewing it. Then, he acts on this private judgment as if it were absolutely certain and assumes his "thesis" is absolutely certain. He then does as he likes and waits for the idiot "official" Church to be "re-animated" by God through some miracle. Then 500 years after GV is dead, this re-animated Church recognizes the "obvious" "fact" GV saw all along and thus vindicates his separating himself from and maligning as heretics JPII, BXVI, etc. all those years. :rolleyes:
No, I do not believe the pope loses his office because he utters an error one day over tea to a seminarian. This is insane. Infallibility protects the pope from error under certain conditions. Outside of these conditions, the pope can err. I believe, as St. RB did, that the Pope cannot lose his office. However, even speculating he could, the pope would need to be a formal heretic and publicly deny a dogma (commit heresy) and cling to it even in the face of correction.
It might go something like this:
"I, BXVI, believe and affirm the Immaculate Conception is a crock and a lie."
"But Holy Father, that is de fide dogma, all Catholics must believe"
"I couldn't care less. I truly believe it is crap and I affirm this belief!"
If this happens and it checks out the pope was not high on drugs or lit when he said it and in his right mind and as time goes by he hardens his view and refuses to recant then it is STILL not our place as lay pewsitters to declare the pope is not pope. Then we wait for an official juridical declaration from the Church recognizing that the former pope has lost his office due to formal heresy.
IN THE MEANTIME, between the heresy and the declaration, we continue following Tradition as we do now, leaving the matter to the competent authorities to declare. If the presumed heretic pope says say your rosary, we say our rosary. If presumed heretic pope says don't say your rosary, we still say our rosary. As you have said Decem, it would be completely uneccessary for us, even under that extreme scenario, to take it upon ourselves to start declaring who is pope based on "commmon opinion", the speculative "theses" of St. RB, or whatever else. We do our part and the Church does its part.
As it is, this extreme absurd scenario has not happened. Not even close. Thus there is absolutely no reason to go privately judging the pope to not be pope or not be "materially pope", whatever that means, as a pretext to do whatever the Hell we want (like the Protetsants) as we corner ourselves in a self-made blind alley with no escape but for a miracle from God Himself.
-
It makes no sense to me that a Catholic would be cut off from the Body of Christ completely and entirely by externally uttering a statement in sincere ignorance that goes against the truth of the Church.
No one is talking about such a scenario, stevie, but it is a nice try at utterly misrepresenting what is, in fact, being discussed.
FWIW, clerics are presumed to KNOW the doctrines of Holy Church.
"Oh, I innocently arranged to fly to Lake Togo and publicly worship with animists...but I was sincere as I went about participating in, and confirming them in, their devilry! You cannot think badly about me...I'm the Great One!"
-
GV, like the Protestants, thinks he can easily and objectively spot heresy and privately judge the pope of spewing it.
At least two of the four SSPX bishops have publicly stated that many heresies have been uttered -- i.e., I am not the only one who sees what is plain.
What does it mean to "privately judge", stevie? Do I think it is already established within the order of law that they are formal heretics? No. In fact, that is the heart of the problem and what keeps Traddieland divided. Have I issued some kind of pseudo declaration? No. I have shared my personal opinion as to the facts, realizing that such has no weight within the order of law or upon the consciences of other men.
-
The reasoning behind Stevus' posts is hard to even comprehend. He claims to support the SSPX but his viewpoints are very different from both Archbishop LeFebvre and the Society as a whole. The Society constantly talks of the errors that fill the Novus Ordo. Stevus just brushes them off as "goofs that occur out of sincere ignorance". The reason he has me on ignore (not that I really care) is so he won't have to read my posts whenever I refute him on the NWO and Novus Ordo. I'd be willing to bet that pretty soon he'll have GV on ignore as well, and probably most of the sedes here who are frequent posters.
When the Church is in a crisis such as this, you must be able to spot heresy. Because obviously when the Church has been infiltrated by Freemasons, Communists, and gαys, there is going to be heresy almost everywhere you look. And that's no exaggeration.
-
I see the staff on Ignis Ardens have locked the thread on Quo vadis SSPX?
Quo vadis Ignis Ardens?
Metzingen flu.
-
Stevus,
Thanks for commenting on Van Nort.
But here's my point. Almost everyone discussing the issue of the V2 popes as heretics, sedes like Fr. Cekada, and clerics in the SSPX (I think of Bishop Williamson for example), discuss whether the popes were/are formal heretics, and discuss pertinacity, etc. According to Van Nort - and I'm not so much as seeking to know whether you agree with him or not - the "common" or majority opinion is that one loses Church membership for even "public," material heresy.
This is a huge. For if indeed it is the "common" or majority opinion, then according to that opinion pertinacity doesn't matter. If this opinion is "common," where is the discussion of this point in the literature, in the debate on the loss of membership of the V2 popes for heresy?
So, is Van Nort wrong? I don't mean is his view wrong, but is he wrong in saying that his opinion is the "common" or majority one? I'm just wondering if anyone has any input they can give on that issue. And wondering why this view is not discussed in the discussion regarding the V2 popes and heresy.
-
An article from Stephen Heiner.
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2011/06/bishop-and-i.html
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Bishop and I
The recent publication of my article Quo Vadis, SSPX : Part I has given rise to some confusion and speculation as to how far Bishop Williamson shares, or is responsible for, the positions taken in that article and/or in others expressing various of my personal opinions. This is partly because he and I have been collaborating at True Restoration Press for the last five years. He has provided much (but not all) of the material published by that Press, for which I am solely responsible. It is thus understandable (though it was not intended) that the Bishop may have been implicated to a greater or lesser extent in my past expressions of personal opinion.
During all that time, however, neither the Bishop nor I have ever had the intention of implying – nor have we ever said – that we agreed with all of each other’s positions on various or any particular issues. What each of us thinks, on his own, is a separate matter from, and certainly of more interest than, any coincidental agreement or disagreement we might have on one or another issue. That said, none of our differences of opinion have ever prevented us from collaborating (I hope and believe fruitfully) as writer or speaker, on the one side, and publisher, on the other.
Thus, True Restoration Press will continue, at least until further notice, to carry the Bishop’s books, sermons and interviews. That these serve a useful purpose by their relating of the integral and eternal Catholic Faith to a highly problematic modern world seems to me unarguable. But my private and public opinions on Church and secular issues, past, present and future – including those expressed in the above-mentioned article – are separate matters, and they have never been nor are they endorsed by the Bishop, explicitly or otherwise.
So, to avoid in the future any improper appearance of endorsement (in either direction) or possibility of confusion, the Bishop’s weekly commentary, known as “Eleison Comments” by Dinoscopus, will be, as of July 1, underwritten not by True Restoration Press but by the website Durendal out of Canada.
The Bishop has seen and explicitly approved this clarification.
-
The reasoning behind Stevus' posts is hard to even comprehend.
Not really. He has a blind spot because he can't accept the conclusion. This is not uncommon, even in purely secular issues.
-
The reasoning behind Stevus' posts is hard to even comprehend.
Not really. He has a blind spot because he can't accept the conclusion. This is not uncommon, even in purely secular issues.
Yes, it is common. My point is that it's hard to comprehend how someone who labels himself as a Traditional Catholic believes some of the things he does.
-
The reasoning behind Stevus' posts is hard to even comprehend.
Not really. He has a blind spot because he can't accept the conclusion. This is not uncommon, even in purely secular issues.
Yes, it is common. My point is that it's hard to comprehend how someone who labels himself as a Traditional Catholic believes some of the things he does.
Well, maybe he listens to Caminus, who likes to imply we think all the hierarchy of the Church has defected.
-
I've come to the thread rather late, but I suppose rather than re-argue my article for those who choose to ignore the questions asked, or put the SSPX-party-line spin on them, I would simply make the point that I put the point in about money as an ancillary point. It was hardly an article about money but it's foolish to imply that the SSPX doesn't keep money in mind about *anything*.
They (Angelus Press) advertise using the phrase "Extraordinary Form" even though they precisely do not (or do they? :-) consider it the "Extraordinary Form." That part of it is a business thing, and no need to slap someone and tell them they are wrong before you sell them an altar missal.
I get that, I run businesses. It's not immoral, for goodness' sake, but it's the truth. Let's be honest and not pretend the SSPX is infallible. As I've said in other forums, the SSPX is fallible and not above criticism.
As am I and my articles. So let's get to that.
As to the other criticisms, I'll let them fall where they may.
Stephen
PS Stevus - you could not have mis-read me more profoundly. To your point, I would say that interviewing all of these SSPX clergy helped lead me inevitably to this point. There was a lot of reading, prayer, reflection, and argument, but my interviews with them opened my eyes about a lot of things.
-
No one here ever said that the SSPX is infallible. But to claim they hold a position that isn't Catholic is an absurd accusation and is outrageous.
-
Their position towards the man they claim is Pope is not Catholic. It's the "have your Pope and eat him too" school of thought.
-
It makes no sense to me that a Catholic would be cut off from the Body of Christ completely and entirely by externally uttering a statement in sincere ignorance that goes against the truth of the Church.
No one is talking about such a scenario, stevie, but it is a nice try at utterly misrepresenting what is, in fact, being discussed.
Emphasis added... :detective:
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic)...It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership.
This was Decem's entire point that I was responding to, in case you missed it.
Thus someone was talking about such a scenario, it was being discussed, and it was not a misrepresentation on my part.
-
The reasoning behind Stevus' posts is hard to even comprehend.
Not really. He has a blind spot because he can't accept the conclusion. This is not uncommon, even in purely secular issues.
I don't accept the conclusion because the "thesis" is not supported by the evidence and fails.
-
Their position towards the man they claim is Pope is not Catholic. It's the "have your Pope and eat him too" school of thought.
It is very Catholic.
Are you a sede?
-
PS Stevus - you could not have mis-read me more profoundly. To your point, I would say that interviewing all of these SSPX clergy helped lead me inevitably to this point. There was a lot of reading, prayer, reflection, and argument, but my interviews with them opened my eyes about a lot of things.
I think perhaps you are taking particular rhetorical satatements of certain Society clergy out of context and assuming those statements represent some sort of precise doctrinal positions. Oftentimes they are simply describing the situation as they see it- a crazy and mysterious situation- in layman's terms during interviews- spontaneously. I'm certain if they were asked to write a doctrinal treatise distinguishing their precise theological positions from sedevacantism, they could and it would most likely address your objections.
-
So, is Van Nort wrong? I don't mean is his view wrong, but is he wrong in saying that his opinion is the "common" or majority one? I'm just wondering if anyone has any input they can give on that issue. And wondering why this view is not discussed in the discussion regarding the V2 popes and heresy.
Emphasis added...
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/little_catechism_on_sedevacantism.htm
If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church. (Billuart, De Fide, Diss. V, A. III, No. 3, obj. 2.)
Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.
But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?
The Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.
The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.
In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.
-
Their position towards the man they claim is Pope is not Catholic. It's the "have your Pope and eat him too" school of thought.
This is nothing more than mockery fueled by intellectual laziness. Accepting the juridical claim of a Bishop while recognizing his errant ways is perfectly Catholic. If anyone "Pope sifts" it is the Sedevacantist. They've sifted the last four Popes and have consequently undermined original jurisdiction. So while you are content with these pithy little jabs, your supposed "cure" is nothing more than a lethal dose of human opinion for you claim to be a member of the Catholic Church which is in reality utterly devoid of authority thereby destroying the divine constitution of the Church. For the Sedevacantist, they must rely upon the notion of an invisible Church composed of a loose federation of roaming priests and Bishops who supposedly possess supplied jurisdiction from a non-existent Church. By restricting the matter to the "Pope question" you can successfully evade the serious dogmatic problems of your own position. Indeed, the Catholic Church, as it stands today, is absolutely impotent to fulfill its mission and to bring an end to this crisis within itself. Appealing to some "authoritative body" off in the distant future, who will resolve the crisis and restore the Church, to which you will surely pledge your allegiance is as chimerical as positing some lone Cardinal who still possesses original jurisdiction somehow holding together the entire juridical edifice of the Church. Sedevacantist theorists simply have lost any real appreciation for the Office of the Papacy complete with a legal claimant as the very center which literally holds the Church together as a single body. Bishops do not receive their authority directly from Christ, but through the Roman Pontiff alone.
-
The Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.
Stevus,
I already explained to you what Rev. Fr. Reginald was saying in his commentary on the Summa:
From what I have read from the book and the corresponding passage of the Summa whereupon it comments (it is a commetary of the Summa, so reading it is necessary to understand the book) your conclusion that Rev. Fr. Reginald's statement contradicts sedevacantism is wrong. St. Thomas was dicussing the "gratia capitis" of Christ, whereby He has been constituted as Head of all the faithful. Fr. Reginald's commentary was meant to prove and clarify that St. Thomas was correct. As a possible problematic objection, he discusses the subject of a "heretical pope," and concludes that such a Pope retain his jurisdiction by way of a very extraordinary exception of the rule. But he was speaking of the case wherein the Roman Pontiff privately succuмbs to a theologically heretical opinion. This is immaterial to the sedevacantists' arguments, as the case of a public heretic is pertinent to their discussion, not a private heretic. Canon Law (which I cited in my previous post) makes this crucial distinction also.
By the way, Rev. Fr. Reginald speaks of the wicked in the same chapter, but he does not mean heretics, but Catholics in the state of mortal sin, transgressing any or all but the First Commandment (against which heresy and apostasy is a horrible crime). This is important because it shows that he was trying to validate St. Thomas teaching of Christ's "gratia capitis," which is what led him to that curious tangent regarding a Pope who may have privately lapsed into heresy.
[In the "previous post" mentioned above, I wrote:
Actually Holy Mother Church has warned us of the possibility of such an event in the Apostolic Constitution cuм ex apostolatus (15 February 1559) of Pope Paul IV, which was sanctioned by the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A. A. S., vol. IX, pars II [1917]) insofar as it was a source for Can, 188, num. 4, which reads: “Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus […] A fide catholica publice defecerit.” Canon Law makes it clear that by means of tacit renunciation, accepted by the law itself, any office whatsoever is rendered vacant in the very fact and without any declaration, if the cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith. This is based on the principle of divine positive law that a public heretic cannot be said to belong to Holy Mother Church. If a public heretic cuts himself off from the Mystical Body of Christ, he cannot be said to be a Catholic, much less to have supreme and universal jurisdiction over all clerics and layfolk in the competence and authority of the Sovereign Pontiff.]
This is more to the point of what you are attempting to argue:
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church. (Billuart, De Fide, Diss. V, A. III, No. 3, obj. 2.)
The Latin text cited must be given in full in order that we may see what Billuart was exactly arguing. It could be misinterpreted you had misinterpreted Rev. Fr. Reginald's text in question. Furthermore, the source claims it is the "more common opinion" without providing citations.
-
How does their canonical argument fare?
The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution cuм ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated. See, for example, the article of Fr. Albert, O.P., in Sel de la terre, Summer 2000, pp.67-78. What remains in effect from this constitution is its dogmatic teaching. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.
-
Mr. Heiner:
I found your article exceedingly interesting, and it reminded me of the questions I asked when I was being introduced to the realities of "Vatican II" and the Novus Ordo. While I cannot comment on the Priestly Fraternity of Pope St. Pius X, as I have never attended their chapels nor have I keep up with what they have been doing, I shall make some remarks regarding your argument in itself as it is formulated in the article.
The reactions your article has received from certain acerbic critics substantiate my impression that the questions you have asked have not been satisfactorily answered by those whose polemical arguments are influenced by partisan sympathies or by semanticists who wish for every morpheme to be broken down and systematically explained only to have them spout out categorical pronouncements that had already been predetermined a priori by prejudices. They seem to not wish to carry out an open discourse, but to prove you wrong. Again, regarding the SSPX I can't comment, but your critics should be more thoughtful in address your article instead of accusing you of becoming a sedevacantist or whatever.
Here is an example:
The Roman authorities consider this to be an ecuмenical council, much like Nicea, Trent, and Vatican I. Its teachings and spirit have permeated the structures of the Catholic Church since 1962 and have destroyed the faith of millions. The Society of St. Pius X adopts a hybrid position in regards to this Council: their bishops and priests and vast majority of the faithful who attend their chapels consider Vatican II to be an “optional” or “questionable” council. They cite terms like “pastoral” in order to make their case, while ignoring that every Vatican II docuмent was signed by Paul VI as, “We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory…(signed) I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”
I have heard and read time and time again the excuse that "Vatican II" was merely a "pastoral council" but no docuмentation is ever cited for this very serious claim. The reality is that the Vatican certainly regards this council to be Oecuмenical and morally binding on consciences, and there is in fact an attitude amongst most figures in the Vatican's hierarchy that seem to regard it as a super-council. This is seen in the fact that the Motu and the latest Instruction clearly specify that that the orthodoxy of the New Order of Mass [and "Vatican II"] may not be questioned by those who seek the rites of the 1962 Missal. Yet, this is just pushed aside or explained away in some sort of phenomenological argumentation that leaves me too disappointed and horrified to even dignify the claim with a response.
I think your article is important because it advocates the honest and open discussion of the central question regarding the Roman Pontiff.
As I have written in my exchanges here with anti-sedevacantists, I believe that we should have a calm and rational exchange and not a word-fight that is debased into ad hominem fallacies and endless semantic games. I don't pretend that I have any competence or authority of my own, but I feel I have the right to ask for an open discourse regarding these things, regardless of what conclusion whereto the participants arrive.
He has a white cassock, and as such, HAS to be Pope.
This is essentially all I am getting from the anti-sedevacantists here and elsewhere. They have not convincingly made their case, but then again they will say that the sedevacantists have not made their case either. It all boils down to criteriological questions. And when there is an epistemological chasm, there can be no further progress in discourse because it essentially becomes an argument over the existence or non-existence a datum of fact: either it's there or it isn't there. But even this much I appreciate [like in my exchange with DecemRationis sometime ago].
The better and more serious anti-sedevacantist polemicists do posit interesting questions that motivate me to further study and research, and I appreciate this more than they will ever know because they are edifying me in a very substantial manner (though not in the way they may have intended). Sadly, polemicists who speak of the limited competence and authority of individual layfolk take it upon themselves to judge their fellow neighbor, even to the point of pretending to scan their hearts and reins as if they were endued with divine revelation, or of diagnosing them with random moral or mental disorders as if they had the competence of a professional psychologist or casuist that had received a doctorate in Moral Theology.
I would appreciate those polemicists (on either side of the question of the Roman Pontiff) who candidly admit that there are inexorable intricacies in their positions, or would at least use the subjunctive mood in their argumentation.
Uh, so to conclude this long post, I would like to thank you for honestly writing your views on the matter, knowing the negative consequences that would result.
-
How does their canonical argument fare?
The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution cuм ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated. See, for example, the article of Fr. Albert, O.P., in Sel de la terre, Summer 2000, pp.67-78. What remains in effect from this constitution is its dogmatic teaching. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.
We've gone through this before [5 April 2011]:
That provision you are quoting, Jehane, was abrogated by 1917 Code as well as Pius XII.
Badly said [or thought]. The Bull of Pope Paul IV cuм ex apostolatus was not abrogated by the Code of Canon of Law nor by Pope Pius XII. The excommunication of heretics pertains to positive and divine law, not to ecclesiastical discipline. While the latter can be amended and reformed, and the former cannot [that would be absurd]. Moreover, the Bull in question was one of the sources for the provision of the Code of Canon Law that says that a cleric can lose office without any declaration by public apostasy ("Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: [...] A fide catholica publice defecerit," Can. 188, no. 4).
And again [6 April 2011]:
Some would continue to object, that the 1917 Code does not abolish “cuм Ex Apostolatus” because the Code references the Bull to show how Bishops can be deposed. They fail to realize that this is predominately commentary on the code to explain how deposing hierarchs generally takes place. Just because bishops can still loose office and the Bull is referenced in the 1917 Code, it does not follow that everything in “cuм Ex Apostolatus” is still in effect. For instance the Bull also speaks of how if a king harbors a heretic, his kingdom shall be forfeit and seized. Surely this is Bull no longer in effect.
That doesn't cut it, probably because it is not pertinent to the discussion regarding your claim of the nullity of the Bull insofar as the Pope question is concerned. No one is claiming that everything in the Bull is in effect, and arguing that some random and dated prescription found therein is no longer legally or historically possible might be convincing for those who don't or won't focus on the actual question on hand.
The pertinent text of the Bull is the following:
Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
— It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
— Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
— Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
— Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.
Can. 188, no. 4, and the pertinent text of the Bull share the same principle. As the commentary upon the Code of Canon Law written by Rev. Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam C. Ellis says, “there are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration” (Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 129; Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1953; Imprimatur: + Moses E. Kiley, Archbishop of Milwaukee, 18 August 1951). Canon Law makes it clear that by means of tacit renunciation, accepted by the law itself, any office whatsoever is rendered vacant in the very fact and without any declaration, if, among other things, a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith ("A fide catholica publice defecerit"). The various "disciplinary" measures that Pope Paul IV enumerates are simply legitimate and necessary consequences of this principle.
This principle is based on positive divine law. A heretic cannot be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, just as much as a circle cannot consist of no more than 360 degrees. A man cannot be at once a heretic and a Catholic, just as much as a man cannot be simultaneously in the state of grace and in the state of mortal sin.
The Code itself (Can. 6, no. 6) has specified that "All former disciplinary laws which were in force until now, and are neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in the Code, shall be regarded as having lost all force, unless they are found in the approved liturgical books, or they are laws derived from the natural and the positive divine law" (aut lex sit iuris divini sive positivi sive naturalis).
The pertinent text of Paul IV's Bull ultimately rests on divine positive law, that no heretic is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which can never be rescinded, not even by God Himself, Who is immutable and cannot change. Change is proper to finite, created beings (possible or actual), not to God.
-
I have heard and read time and time again the excuse that "Vatican II" was merely a "pastoral council" but no docuмentation is ever cited for this very serious claim.
http://unavoce.org/resources/cardinal-ratzingers-address-to-bishops-of-chile/
Cardinal Ratzinger’s address to bishops of Chile (13 July 1988)
The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
-
Hobble,
See here for yet another refutation of the sede view of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Errors-of-Sedevacantism-and-Ecclesiastical-Law
-
Cardinal Ratzinger’s address to bishops of Chile (13 July 1988)
The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
This is interesting, because he had just said:
Aside from the liturgical questions, the central points of conflict at present are Lefebvre’s attack on the decree which deals with religious liberty, and on the so-called spirit of Assisi. Here is where Lefebvre fixes the boundaries between his position and that of the Catholic Church today.
“I need hardly say in so many words that what he is saying on these points is unacceptable. Here we do not wish to consider his errors, rather we want to ask ourselves where there is lack of clarity in ourselves. For Lefebvre what is at stake is the warfare against ideological liberalism, against the relativization of truth. Obviously we are not in agreement with him that — understood according to the Pope’s intentions — the text of the Council or the prayer of Assisi were relativizing.
“It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church.
Emphases mine.
Note: He was clearly saying that Archbishop Lefebvre was not a Catholic [notice the dichotomy between the term Catholic and his name, also the use of the word schism elsewhere] at that time, and that the "Council" ought to be defended against his "errors" as "valid, and as binding upon the Church."
See here for yet another refutation of the sede view of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Errors-of-Sedevacantism-and-Ecclesiastical-Law
Yes I saw that. Another polemicist who clearly dichotomizes between the term "Catholic" and those who disagree with him. He hasn't addressed the issue of divine positive law as far as I can see, and he keeps confusing the theological and canonical aspects of the question with the strictly disciplinary aspects.
It is interesting though. Again, as I wrote to Mr. Heiner, interesting questions are posited at times.
-
As a practical matter, does this debate about the Pope make any difference? Most SSPX supporters that I know reject the Novus Ordo, and wouldn't go even if an NO mass were the only one available to them on a Sunday. So practically speaking, an SSPX supporter and a sede are in the same position when it comes to practicing their faith: they ignore the Conciliar Church, its rites, its priests, etc.
Their disagreement is abstract, and theoretical.
I don't know about "eating the pope," but they both throw what he gives them to eat on the floor.
-
Citing cuм ex apostolatus begs the question.
-
As a practical matter, does this debate about the Pope make any difference? Most SSPX supporters that I know reject the Novus Ordo, and wouldn't go even if an NO mass were the only one available to them on a Sunday. So practically speaking, an SSPX supporter and a sede are in the same position when it comes to practicing their faith: they ignore the Conciliar Church, its rites, its priests, etc.
Their disagreement is abstract, and theoretical.
I don't know about "eating the pope," but they both throw what he gives them to eat on the floor.
I posted this before, from the old "sede list", from Jim Larrabee:
Let me put it this way. At present, there are basically two
types of "Catholics": those who are happy with the "changes" and
those who are not. Of the latter group, some if not most have
joined some sort of resistance "movement" at least in their
minds. The first group is not Catholic, and I have no concern
with them, though I hope and pray for their conversion to the
Truth as I do for all unbelievers. They are not members of the
Church, and they are not interested in what I or
"traditionalists" have to say. It would take a far greater than
I to convert them. My "mission" is to those who are unhappy with
the "changes" but have not found the way out from conciliar
heresy and schism. I am convinced that on a better understanding
of Catholic teaching, given to us by Our Divine Redeemer for our
comfort as well as for our salvation (and every single syllable
of it was bought and paid for by His Most Precious Blood), they
will see the need, regardless of the "Pope" question, of totally
rejecting the "changes." They will understand the falsity of the
position of so many compromisers who, while not accepting the
heresies of Vatican II openly, are in the position of the
Semi-Arians of the 4th century, of the Jansenists, of other
groups who have diluted the pure truth of Christ to gain a
following, or out of human respect, or because they have been
partly deceived by heretics.
Therefore, as I have said, my "mission" (I can't and don't wish
to speak for others) is not per se to prove that the conciliar
Popes are invalid, but to convey the absolute necessity of
believing the doctrine of the unity of the Church, as well as the
sacrosanct character of all Tradition, both doctrinal,
liturgical, and disciplinary. The invalidity of the "popes" is a
conclusion depending on the heretical nature of their teachings.
Those who adhere to their teachings obviously will never agree to
this. There is no point discussing this with them at all, when
there is no antecedent agreement on matters of Faith. For those
who do see the heresy, to a greater or lesser extent, the "pope
question" may be necessary, and is likely to be helpful, as
clearing out an obstacle to the full truth, particularly the
obstacle of confusing a heretical sect with the True Church. If
this is confused, the mind is deprived of clear ideas about
doctrine. The necessary result is that all the doctrines
rejected in the Novus Ordo "church" are reduced, in the minds of
otherwise would-be orthodox people, to matters of opinion. This
is actually the position of certain well-known "traditional"
priests (in communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy). Their
whole position is founded on accepting, a priori, conciliar
"popes" as legitimate and the Vatican Council as a legitimate
council. Their great danger is precisely the appearance, and
their claim, of 100% orthodoxy, enabling them to keep people in
the conciliar slaughterhouse.
There are so many important Catholic principles which have been
lost sight of today. One could clean the Augean stables before
succeeding in restoring these to men's minds. But one of the
most important, and neglected even by traditional priests, is
that of St. Augustine: In necessary things unity, in doubtful
things liberty, in all things charity. (Frequently fractured by
heretics to "in unessential things" as though any matter of
doctrine could be unessential). There need be no division
between Catholics over controverted matters when they are
DIFFICULT, OBSCURE, not clear from past teaching or requiring
proof of facts not evident to us, and of course, not yet decided
by Catholic authority (Pope or general council). Such, it seems
to me, is the question of the legitimacy of the "popes" since
1958. Such is NOT the clear teaching of the Church (whether or
not solemnly defined) which has been overthrown in countless ways
by and since the Council. In these things, there can be no
disagreement. Those who are with us on this are with the Church;
those who are not, are not Catholics. If some of the matters are
difficult, many, if not most, are not.
-
SJB,
Those who are with us on this are with the Church;
those who are not, are not Catholics.
I think I agree with this. If I understand it correctly, sedes and those who oppose the changes but are not sedes (SSPX, for example) are both "with the Church." The "doubtful" issue of the pope - while Larrabee thinks the sede opinion is the better one - is not dispositive as to being "with the Church."
Am I understanding that correctly?
Of course, if he is (they were) the pope, this position is factually schismatic: the refusal to go to the NO and pray with fellow Catholics if it is one's only option, for example.
We come back to the dilemma of the SSPX supporter: he is rejecting a rite proposed and implemented by valid and real popes, rejecting it as something "harmful and evil" to the faith. A valid pope could not do such.
The SSPX view appears to be schizophrenic - even if the pope issue is "doubtful."
It can be genuinely unclear if an object is an orange or an apple, but if you believe it's an orange but say it produces apple juice when you squeeze it, I think you have a problem in your epistemology.
-
See here for yet another refutation of the sede view of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio
FWIW, some sedes think it is still law, while some think it is no longer so. IMO, it is not a vital matter in this discussion.
-
SJB,
Those who are with us on this are with the Church;
those who are not, are not Catholics.
I think I agree with this. If I understand it correctly, sedes and those who oppose the changes but are not sedes (SSPX, for example) are both "with the Church." The "doubtful" issue of the pope - while Larrabee thinks the sede opinion is the better one - is not dispositive as to being "with the Church."
Am I understanding that correctly?
Of course, if he is (they were) the pope, this position is factually schismatic: the refusal to go to the NO and pray with fellow Catholics if it is one's only option, for example.
Read this again:
But one of the most important, and neglected even by traditional priests, is that of St. Augustine: In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity. (Frequently fractured by heretics to "in unessential things" as though any matter of doctrine could be unessential). There need be no division between Catholics over controverted matters when they are DIFFICULT, OBSCURE, not clear from past teaching or requiring proof of facts not evident to us, and of course, not yet decided by Catholic authority (Pope or general council). Such, it seems to me, is the question of the legitimacy of the "popes" since 1958.
We come back to the dilemma of the SSPX supporter: he is rejecting a rite proposed and implemented by valid and real popes, rejecting it as something "harmful and evil" to the faith. A valid pope could not do such.
The SSPX view appears to be schizophrenic - even if the pope issue is "doubtful."
It can be genuinely unclear if an object is an orange or an apple, but if you believe it's an orange but say it produces apple juice when you squeeze it, I think you have a problem in your epistemology.
If you read the above carefully, this will appear less important, and maybe even unnecessary to the point of being divisive.
-
Decem
I'm a couple posts back, but to your point, absolutely (re: what does it matter?)
SVs and SSPXers are in praxis identical: they ignore the commands of the man claiming to be Pope.
-
DR said:
We come back to the dilemma of the SSPX supporter: he is rejecting a rite proposed and implemented by valid and real popes, rejecting it as something "harmful and evil" to the faith. A valid pope could not do such.
The SSPX view appears to be schizophrenic - even if the pope issue is "doubtful."
It can be genuinely unclear if an object is an orange or an apple, but if you believe it's an orange but say it produces apple juice when you squeeze it, I think you have a problem in your epistemology.
If you read the above carefully, this will appear less important, and maybe even unnecessary to the point of being divisive.
It may or may not be important; it may or may not be divisive. What it is is true: a genuine problem in epistemology, a genuine inconsistency.
Truth is truth.
-
Dedalus,
SVs and SSPXers are in praxis identical: they ignore the commands of the man claiming to be Pope.
Yep.
-
they ignore the commands of the man claiming to be Pope
What "commands"? List them in detail and give their precise meaning.
-
Their position towards the man they claim is Pope is not Catholic. It's the "have your Pope and eat him too" school of thought.
Insane. Just because you have a valid Pope does not mean that everything he does is Infallible and should be obeyed. Remember St. Catherine? She stood up to the Pope yet was not a sedevacantist. You are over-exaggerating Papal Infallibility. It does not apply to every little thing the Popes says or does. Nor does it mean that Popes must be free of error and sin. The SSPX's position makes much more sense than yours.
-
You are over-exaggerating Papal Infallibility.
I think you may have misunderstood his comment, SS.
It does not apply to every little thing the Popes says or does. Nor does it mean that Popes must be free of error and sin.
I cannot find this idea within anything dedalus has written -- whether on cathinfo or elsewhere (and I have read a fair bit of his stuff).
-
SVs and SSPXers are in praxis identical: they ignore the commands of the man claiming to be Pope.
The Pope never gave them any commands, unless you're talking about merging the TLM with the Novus Ordo. But your reasoning lacks logic. Because the Society thinks Benedict is Pope they should submit to him and start celebrating hybrid Masses? Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Sede groups such as the CMRI and SSPV can also be accused of "ignoring the Pope's commands" if they refuse to celebrate the NO or the new hybrid form that will pop up in a few years. Does that mean they should celebrate the hybrid Mass so as not to be disobediant?
-
You are over-exaggerating Papal Infallibility.
I think you may have misunderstood his comment, SS.
It does not apply to every little thing the Popes says or does. Nor does it mean that Popes must be free of error and sin.
I cannot find this idea within anything dedalus has written -- whether on cathinfo or elsewhere (and I have read a fair bit of his stuff).
He seems to be implying that. Basically he's saying that if the Society thinks Benedict is Pope they should obey him regardless of what he says or does. It is that position that would not be Catholic, not their current position which is in fact Catholic.
-
they ignore the commands of the man claiming to be Pope
What "commands"? List them in detail and give their precise meaning.
If I can show one, will that suffice or will you demand more and more and more?
How about the command to use a brand new Good Friday prayer for the Jews in the traditional Mass?
There was an absolute, direct, and unambiguous command from Benedict 16 that, so far, the Society ignores.
-
Cite the text of the command and penalties attached for "disobedience".
-
Cite the text of the command and penalties attached for "disobedience".
You deny such a command was ever given? All of the FSSP priests who used this new prayer just spontaneously changed the wording on their own?
-
Answer the question please.
-
Their position towards the man they claim is Pope is not Catholic. It's the "have your Pope and eat him too" school of thought.
Insane. Just because you have a valid Pope does not mean that everything he does is Infallible and should be obeyed. Remember St. Catherine? She stood up to the Pope yet was not a sedevacantist. You are over-exaggerating Papal Infallibility. It does not apply to every little thing the Popes says or does. Nor does it mean that Popes must be free of error and sin. The SSPX's position makes much more sense than yours.
Your post is not insane, but ignorant. Why don't you learn something about papal infallibility first, before you tell us what "makes more sense."
-
Their position towards the man they claim is Pope is not Catholic. It's the "have your Pope and eat him too" school of thought.
Insane. Just because you have a valid Pope does not mean that everything he does is Infallible and should be obeyed. Remember St. Catherine? She stood up to the Pope yet was not a sedevacantist. You are over-exaggerating Papal Infallibility. It does not apply to every little thing the Popes says or does. Nor does it mean that Popes must be free of error and sin. The SSPX's position makes much more sense than yours.
Your post is not insane, but ignorant. Why don't you learn something about papal infallibility first, before you tell us what "makes more sense."
Sorry, but your position is what makes no sense. I'm not talking about your sede position, but rather your position that if a Pope makes one mistake, then he's out of Office. Define what you think Papal Infallibility is, because it appears you think that a Pope must be literally Infallible in all areas to be a valid Pope.
-
Answer the question please.
Never mind. Nothing any human being can say will ever change the track upon which you're traveling. I have nothing more to say to you.
-
Right, reserving judgment about the Pope is some kind of "track". :laugh1:
-
Their position towards the man they claim is Pope is not Catholic. It's the "have your Pope and eat him too" school of thought.
Insane. Just because you have a valid Pope does not mean that everything he does is Infallible and should be obeyed. Remember St. Catherine? She stood up to the Pope yet was not a sedevacantist. You are over-exaggerating Papal Infallibility. It does not apply to every little thing the Popes says or does. Nor does it mean that Popes must be free of error and sin. The SSPX's position makes much more sense than yours.
Your post is not insane, but ignorant. Why don't you learn something about papal infallibility first, before you tell us what "makes more sense."
Sorry, but your position is what makes no sense. I'm not talking about your sede position, but rather your position that if a Pope makes one mistake, then he's out of Office.
This isn't my position.
Define what you think Papal Infallibility is, because it appears you think that a Pope must be literally Infallible in all areas to be a valid Pope.
Why don't you learn what it is? It's definition and scope as taught by the Church's authorized teachers? You have NOT done this, yet you comment as if this is just a matter of opinion.
-
Answer the question please.
Never mind. Nothing any human being can say will ever change the track upon which you're traveling. I have nothing more to say to you.
Define what you think Papal Infallibility is, because it appears you think that a Pope must be literally Infallible in all areas to be a valid Pope.
Why don't you learn what it is? It's definition and scope as taught by the Church's authorized teachers? You have NOT done this, yet you comment as if this is just a matter of opinion.
No comment :cool:
-
Answer the question please.
Never mind. Nothing any human being can say will ever change the track upon which you're traveling. I have nothing more to say to you.
Define what you think Papal Infallibility is, because it appears you think that a Pope must be literally Infallible in all areas to be a valid Pope.
Why don't you learn what it is? It's definition and scope as taught by the Church's authorized teachers? You have NOT done this, yet you comment as if this is just a matter of opinion.
No comment :cool:
Exactly.
-
SJB, I never said it was just a matter of opinion. I'm aware that Papal Infallibility has always been taught by the Church. What I'm saying is that you seem to over-exaggerate its definition.
-
SJB, I never said it was just a matter of opinion. I'm aware that Papal Infallibility has always been taught by the Church. What I'm saying is that you seem to over-exaggerate its definition.
I'm asking you to learn what the Church Herself teaches. You present your uninformed understanding as if it is relevant. It is not. The fact is you can't tell us where you learned it, making us assume it's just your opinion, which is of no value.
-
I see Ignis Ardens have locked the thread
Clarification of BpW/SH/TRP relationship
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7359&st=0
-
SJB, I never said it was just a matter of opinion. I'm aware that Papal Infallibility has always been taught by the Church. What I'm saying is that you seem to over-exaggerate its definition.
I'm asking you to learn what the Church Herself teaches. You present your uninformed understanding as if it is relevant. It is not. The fact is you can't tell us where you learned it, making us assume it's just your opinion, which is of no value.
I accept what the Church teaches regarding the matter.
-
3 conditions must be met for papal infallibility.
First Vatican Council
Therefore,
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
-
That is exactly my belief on Papal Infallibility. SJB was accusing me of holding it as a matter of opinion.
-
SJB, I never said it was just a matter of opinion. I'm aware that Papal Infallibility has always been taught by the Church. What I'm saying is that you seem to over-exaggerate its definition.
I'm asking you to learn what the Church Herself teaches. You present your uninformed understanding as if it is relevant. It is not. The fact is you can't tell us where you learned it, making us assume it's just your opinion, which is of no value.
I accept what the Church teaches regarding the matter.
I know you accept what the Church teaches. I also don't believe you fully understand it.
-
I believe the following clarifies alot.
Condemned proposition (78) from the illicit 'Pistoia council', censured in the following quote:
78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
-
What does it clarify?
-
That the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, cannot establish discipline which is not only useless and burdensome to Christian liberty, but even dangerous and harmful.
-
That is exactly my belief on Papal Infallibility. SJB was accusing me of holding it as a matter of opinion.
No, I was saying your interpretation was simply your badly formed opinion.
-
What does it clarify?
It's says exactly what the manualists teach (mentioning specifically, the Papal Bull Auctorem fidei) :
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)
(16.) The bull Auctorem fidei (DB 1578).
-
That the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, cannot establish discipline which is not only useless and burdensome to Christian liberty, but even dangerous and harmful.
The Novus Ordo isn't "established discipline". It is a non-authoritative, experimental liturgy based upon foreign principles that has no pedigree within the Church. If that's what you mean by "clarify". If anything it was the reformers whose assumptions were substantially identical to the condemned proposition.
-
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 novus ordo isn't a "universal law" and it is harmful per accidens, not of its nature which is nothing more than a faulty attempt at implementing a form of worship, perverted by false principles, which is good in itself. In other words, liturgical worship is good in itself, this particular expression of it, introduced as a complete fabrication, is bad.
-
That the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, cannot establish discipline which is not only useless and burdensome to Christian liberty, but even dangerous and harmful.
The Novus Ordo isn't "established discipline". It is a non-authoritative, experimental liturgy based upon foreign principles that has no pedigree within the Church. If that's what you mean by "clarify". If anything it was the reformers whose assumptions were substantially identical to the condemned proposition.
It say ESTABLISH a discipline, not ESTABLISHED DISCIPLINE.
-
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 novus ordo isn't a "universal law" and it is harmful per accidens, not of its nature which is nothing more than a faulty attempt at implementing a form of worship, perverted by false principles, which is good in itself. In other words, liturgical worship is good in itself, this particular expression of it, introduced as a complete fabrication, is bad.
Not what Van Noort says. The Church cannot establish a discipline harmful to souls.
-
Caminus,
it is harmful per accidens, not of its nature which is nothing more than a faulty attempt at implementing a form of worship, perverted by false principles, which is good in itself
Couldn't we may that about material heresy of someone who genuinely seeks God? And yet the True Church could not teach or even establish such material heresy: the teaching of the Church's bishops in union with the pope could never embrace or teach material heresy, or else the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church would fail.
The bishops of the Church, in union with the pope (i.e. the Ordinary Magisterium), embrace and celebrate the Novus Ordo.
-
Not what Van Noort says. The Church cannot establish a discipline harmful to souls.
Right. Which is why Stevus is consistent in his position: the Novus Ordo is not, in principle and in se, harmful to souls.
Those in the SSPX who believe it is harmful in se have a problem.
-
That the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, cannot establish discipline which is not only useless and burdensome to Christian liberty, but even dangerous and harmful.
The Novus Ordo isn't "established discipline". It is a non-authoritative, experimental liturgy based upon foreign principles that has no pedigree within the Church. If that's what you mean by "clarify". If anything it was the reformers whose assumptions were substantially identical to the condemned proposition.
It say ESTABLISH a discipline, not ESTABLISHED DISCIPLINE.
Either way you put it, the Novus Ordo doesn't qualify. It is the antithesis of discipline. They way you are reading the principle and the manner in which you are attempting to apply it regarding a concrete fact leads to only two options, either it is truly from the Church or it was from a completely false Church that came into being while the Catholic Church ceased to be what it was upon the promulgation of this liturgy. Either you become the most faithful novus ordo attendee or you must posit that the Church, properly speaking, ceased to exist at that very moment or at some previous time in the past.
Both your understanding of the manuals and the application of principles to the circuмstance we face today is manifestly faulty. You have not properly assessed the nature of the problem.
-
Those in the SSPX who believe it is harmful in se have a problem.
No, because it doesn't come from the Church properly speaking as envisioned by those same theologians you cite. The members of the hierarchy cannot pull something out of thin air and claim it is from the Church. They created this thing themselves, its origin is traced back to the minds of those who made it up and nothing more.
-
Cite the text of the command and penalties attached for "disobedience".
For those who may not remember, Caminus asked me to cite the text of the command for the change in the Good Friday prayer for the Jews that Benedict 16 wrote for use in the traditional Mass. When he essentially denied any such command exists, I essentially dismissed him since, as "everyone knows" the change was the will of Benedict 16.
I did not, however, just stop. I began looking for the docuмent since, surely, it must exist...right?
All internet searches came up empty. I finally sent an email to a traditionally minded Conciliar friend of mine and asked him to contact his sources in the Conciliar church. This is what I asked:
Someone recently asked me an interesting question. He asked me what “docuмent” commanded the use of the new Good Friday prayer for the Jews written by Benedict 16 for the traditional Mass. It is my understanding that indult communities such as the FSSP and diocesan clergy use that new prayer on Good Friday. I figured it would be a cinch to look it up on the internet and identify the docuмent but the only source I ever found indicates the Vatican Newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. The individual says that the command was never actually promulgated in any official docuмent and that all the indult priests changed the prayer over a false (or misleading) news story in the paper and internet rumor that the prayer was officially changed by the pope.
I was wondering if you could ask your sources in the Conciliar church to identify the actual docuмent issued by the Vatican since my internet research ability is not so good.
Here is the reply he forwarded to me from a Conciliar priest friend of his (who is a diocesan priest):
I really don't know about this. Presumably, there is an "official version" of the prayer, along with the motu proprio or whatever legal docuмent was chosen to promulgate it. I'd imagine that the higher ups in the FSSP, ICK, etc., would know about this. So, I'd imagine, would Father Withoos who works for Eccl. Dei in Rome.
I have not contacted the FSSP, ICK, or anyone else. The one and only link to this prayer on the Vatican website is a press release from the Vatican Secretary of State.
As much as I hate to admit it, it does not seem that this change in the Missal is official even by today's Conciliar Vatican standards. Canimus was correct. In this matter, I am wrong. I apologize for my dismissive attitude.
-
That is exactly my belief on Papal Infallibility. SJB was accusing me of holding it as a matter of opinion.
No, I was saying your interpretation was simply your badly formed opinion.
There's nothing regarding interpretation when I say you seem to over-exaggerate Papal Infallibility. You believe that if a Pope commits error then he ceases to be Pope, right?
-
That is exactly my belief on Papal Infallibility. SJB was accusing me of holding it as a matter of opinion.
No, I was saying your interpretation was simply your badly formed opinion.
There's nothing regarding interpretation when I say you seem to over-exaggerate Papal Infallibility. You believe that if a Pope commits error then he ceases to be Pope, right?
No.
-
No.
Care to clarify then?
-
No.
Care to clarify then?
4. The scope of papal infallibility is exactly the same as for the Church as a whole: "He possesses that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines on faith or morals." The fathers of the Vatican Council did not mean to delineate the precise boundaries of papal infallibility by the words: "doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church," for it was their intention to take up this point later. Hence they indicated the scope of his infallibility only in a general way by the formula normally used by theologians. It was by deliberate design, however, that they employed the phrase: “must be held” (tenendam) rather than the phrase: “must be believed” (credendam). They used the former phrase so that they might not appear to be restricting the prerogative of infallibility exclusively to those truths which have been revealed. (2)
5. The conditions for papal infallibility are summed up in the words: "when he speaks ex cathedra." A throne (cathedra-chair-judicial bench) is normally a symbol of authority and particularly of doctrinal authority. (3) The consecrated formulae: "to speak ex cathedra," or "an ex cathedra definition" were in use in theological schools long before the Vatican Council. They designated the full exercise of the papal magisterium. The Vatican Council, however, added this precise explanation: "that is: when exercising his office of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that some doctrine on faith or morals must be held by the universal Church.”
Keeping in mind, then, what has already been explained in discussing the object of infallibility (see nos. 85-96), "to speak ex cathedra" signifies two things: (a) the pope is actually making use of his papal office – of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians; (b) the pope is using his papal authority at its maximum power. Both these facts must be made known clearly and indisputably. It makes no difference, however, whether they be made known by the words the pope uses, or by the circuмstances of the case. Briefly, no set formula, and no particular type of solemnity is required for an ex cathedra statement.
For example, it is not inconceivable that some pope in the future might use the medium of television to broadcast a solemn definition to the world. It is the pope's office that guarantees him the divine assistance, and the pope's decision to make a definitive declaration that calls that assistance to his aid, not any magical formula of words. Some literal-minded people wish that St. Peter had laid down some one introductory phrase, or clause for all popes to follow in making infallible statements. They forget that phrases which in apostolic times might be very clear to apostolic contemporaries might be very obscure to us; and that phrases which would be very clear to us might be very obscure to future generations. The Church is always contemporary; its magisterium is a living magisterium and it knows how to make its message known in any age.
(2) See Granderath, op. cit., p. 190 ff. The importance of this distinction will be seen in the controversy over "ecclesiastical faith"; see volume III of this series, nos. 248-50.
-
That citation is irrelevant. No one is restricting the scope or object of papal infallibility.
-
That citation is irrelevant. No one is restricting the scope or object of papal infallibility.
No, it isnt. You need to believe the pope can merrily preach heresy as long as it's not contained in a solemn definition.
-
That citation is irrelevant. No one is restricting the scope or object of papal infallibility.
No, it isnt. You need to believe the pope can merrily preach heresy as long as it's not contained in a solemn definition.
No one has ever claimed that either. You, on the other hand, need to believe that the Pope is for all intents and purposes infallible in everything he says, thus the relevancy of the quote viz. your peculiar understanding of the Papacy. And even supposing one truly detects a bona fide heresy within his writings, it still doesn't follow that he can be considered ipso facto a formal heretic. If you truly believed that the Pope is practically speaking always infallible, then this should be an a priori principle in reading all of his material and thereby come to the necessary conclusion that you have simply misread his intended meaning. See the Chicken or Egg thread for further details.
-
That the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, cannot establish discipline which is not only useless and burdensome to Christian liberty, but even dangerous and harmful.
The Novus Ordo isn't "established discipline". It is a non-authoritative, experimental liturgy based upon foreign principles that has no pedigree within the Church. If that's what you mean by "clarify". If anything it was the reformers whose assumptions were substantially identical to the condemned proposition.
It say ESTABLISH a discipline, not ESTABLISHED DISCIPLINE.
Either way you put it, the Novus Ordo doesn't qualify. It is the antithesis of discipline. They way you are reading the principle and the manner in which you are attempting to apply it regarding a concrete fact leads to only two options, either it is truly from the Church or it was from a completely false Church that came into being while the Catholic Church ceased to be what it was upon the promulgation of this liturgy. Either you become the most faithful novus ordo attendee or you must posit that the Church, properly speaking, ceased to exist at that very moment or at some previous time in the past.
Both your understanding of the manuals and the application of principles to the circuмstance we face today is manifestly faulty. You have not properly assessed the nature of the problem.
And you never answered this difficulty either just as you avoid the difficulty of jurisdiction, i.e. a Catholic Church that ceases to possess apostolic authority. These are serious dogmatic issues that no SV ever seems willing to address all the while they criticize non-SV's for there supposed faulty position, i.e. simply to reserve judgment and presume legal validity.
-
What good is apostolic authority when it is used neither to preach nor protect the faith?
IOW, apostolic authority is a servant of the faith; publicly defect from the faith, lose the authority. [Perhaps it is a stretch, but think of a cart and a horse. What good is a cart if you do not have a horse?]
As for this...
You, on the other hand, need to believe that the Pope is for all intents and purposes infallible in everything he says...
Are you admitting a pontiff could, in fact, fall into heresy?
[FWIW, your saying this is "necessary" does not make it so -- and you have done nothing to demonstrate your point. I have heard non-SVs say this over and over and over -- but none of them ever demonstrates what he means or how it is so.]
-
And you never answered this difficulty either just as you avoid the difficulty of jurisdiction, i.e. a Catholic Church that ceases to possess apostolic authority. These are serious dogmatic issues that no SV ever seems willing to address all the while they criticize non-SV's for there supposed faulty position, i.e. simply to reserve judgment and presume legal validity.
I think I made a statement about this very serious problem in the very first page of this thread.
-
I'll post this again, Caminus, for when it comes to this issue, you have little in the way of good will and constantly misrepresent my position.
The vacant see in the sense of the pope who by virtue of heresy ceases to be pope, was considered by the the theologians in the context of a Church which is normally Catholic. But today the problem – mysterious and apocalyptic – is different. Along with the “pope”, it is the orbis catholicus which no longer professes the Catholic faith, the body of bishops who are no longer Catholic, the faithful – even those who are in good faith – who are no longer Catholics. Ought we not therefore to understand that the problem today is therefore greater than that of the heretical pope?
I agree with Fr. Abrahamowicz. But if the problem is greater than the heretical pope, it is not sufficient either to say that Benedict XVI is the pope, no doubt. The SV's say he cannot be the pope and the sedeplentists say he must be the pope. Neither position in and of itself solves the mystery of the crisis.
-
The problem I see here is that sedevacantists seem to only be able to present the opinions of those who say that the sede thesis is true and the Pope must not be Pope. I have never seen any truth (i.e dogma, Bible verses, encyclicals, etc.) that supports the sede stance that if a Pope commits heresy he ceases to be Pope. My view is that a Pope CAN fall into to heresy and therefore lose his office, but to do so he would have to continue doing it and also be well aware of what he was doing with an evil intent behind it. There's no way you can prove that Benedict's intent is to bring the Church down. We can't judge a person's thoughts or motives. Only their actions.
Now, I have sympathy for the sede stance, especially for sedes who believe Paul VI and JPII were anti-popes. I believe Paul VI was an anti-pope due to being a Freemason and infiltrator. I do not currently believe any of the other Vatican II Popes are anti-popes, though. I don't think JPII was one, but like ABL am open to the possibility he was considering his acts at Assisi. But what I'm getting at is you can't hold a Pope as anti-pope just because he did something that isn't Traditional. If he were a mason like Paul VI then that's a different story, but otherwise I don't yet see any strong evidence to back up the sede thesis.
-
Spiritus, you want some evidence towards proving that JPII could have been an antipope too?
How about his theses that he put together in his book, "Ostoba y Czyn," published in Polish in 1969?
Thesis No. 15 - God is not an historical being who works with man - and man does not cooperate with God, but only acts in cooperation with other men. Religion doesn’t take its origin from divine revelation, but is simply the result of human imagination. The Catholic religion is no different from other cults.
Thesis No. 16 - Divine Revelation is impossible to prove.
Thesis No. 17 - The only real significance of the New Testament is found in the philosophical explanations.
Thesis No. 18 - Each divine mystery is to be considered as a variation or nuance of a system of pure thought.Traditional dogmatic Christianity is one of these erroneous systems.
Thesis No. 21 - A purely human community, united and universal; this is the true Christian church according to the meaning of the Gospel, understood in a new way, quite contrary to the existing totalitarian church.
Thesis No. 22 - The principles of “dialogue” and “neighbor” are those which lead to the salvation of Christianity, not the Revelation of creation, Redemption, or the Universal Judgement.
Thesis No. 24 - Salvation - the self-realization of humanity – doesn’t have an eternal nature. It will not bring to mortal man any resurrection of the body. The
naive hope of eternal life - and also the belief in the Assumption and the return of the Lord in His body - must be conceived only symbolically.
Thesis No. 25 - In the other world after death, we will not be rewarded for our good deeds, nor punished for our sins.
Thesis No. 27 - Even those who have helped the world become more civilized will die, and in this way, they will find salvation.
Thesis No. 28 - How can man create his soul so easily? Because he did not create it from nothing, but from existing matter: the animal soul, evolved phylogenetically, which he received from his parents, his ancestors and the apes and he can only improve.
Thesis No. 32 - There is no reason to worry for the souls of aborted babies. They are safe as original sin does not exist.
Thesis No. 33 - There is no need to be baptized or to use other traditional forms of initiation of non-Christians or non-believers. As well there is no need to convert followers of other religions.
Thesis No. 35 - Man is the visible God. To see man is to see God.
Hmm.... this doesn't sound like a Catholic is writing this, especially since all of this rabble is totally heretical.
See for yourself here: http://www.chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf
Page 24.
-
The problem I see here is that sedevacantists seem to only be able to present the opinions of those who say that the sede thesis is true and the Pope must not be Pope.
And, in fact, anti-sedevacantists can only present opinions to the contrary.
The fact is that the sedevacantist theory is just that...a theory. It should be classified as a theological certainty, because its basis rests upon facts and other theological certainties. But, at this time, the claim that a particular claimant to the papacy is not a valid pope cannot be a matter of dogma and no person who holds the Catholic faith as defined in all the old catechisms and truly believes all the things that the Church has always believed should never be considered outside the Church for reason of schism because he is or is not a sedevacantist.
While I truly believe that it is simply self-evident that the sedevacantist theory is correct, I cannot condemn others who cannot see it. Though I admit I have known sedevacantists who condemn those who do not see that truth as outside the Church, they are, I think, few--a very small minority of sedevacantists. On the other hand, anti-sedevacantists often condemn the sedevacantists as outside the Church for, at least, reason of schism and often because of heresy: They declare the identity of the pope to be a matter of dogma. These seem to be many; and, in fact, a vast majority of the "recognize and resist" Catholics as well as Novus Ordo Catholics in general.
The fact that sedevacantists present sedevacantism as a theory is evidence of our good will. The fact that anti-sedevacantists present sedevacantism as unlawful, irrational, and sometime even satanic is evidence of their ill-will.
I have never seen the theses listed by parentsfortruth, but one who presents these as true can not be considered a Catholic, let alone a pope. If this list was truly penned and published by John Paul 2 before his election, how could his election be valid? In the days of Saint Athenasius, the bishops knew to refuse communion with such people. Today, the bishops seem to think that anyone who says he's Catholic is for that reason alone.
-
Spiritus, you want some evidence towards proving that JPII could have been an antipope too?
How about his theses that he put together in his book, "Ostoba y Czyn," published in Polish in 1969?
Thesis No. 15 - God is not an historical being who works with man - and man does not cooperate with God, but only acts in cooperation with other men. Religion doesn’t take its origin from divine revelation, but is simply the result of human imagination. The Catholic religion is no different from other cults.
Thesis No. 16 - Divine Revelation is impossible to prove.
Thesis No. 17 - The only real significance of the New Testament is found in the philosophical explanations.
Thesis No. 18 - Each divine mystery is to be considered as a variation or nuance of a system of pure thought.Traditional dogmatic Christianity is one of these erroneous systems.
Thesis No. 21 - A purely human community, united and universal; this is the true Christian church according to the meaning of the Gospel, understood in a new way, quite contrary to the existing totalitarian church.
Thesis No. 22 - The principles of “dialogue” and “neighbor” are those which lead to the salvation of Christianity, not the Revelation of creation, Redemption, or the Universal Judgement.
Thesis No. 24 - Salvation - the self-realization of humanity – doesn’t have an eternal nature. It will not bring to mortal man any resurrection of the body. The
naive hope of eternal life - and also the belief in the Assumption and the return of the Lord in His body - must be conceived only symbolically.
Thesis No. 25 - In the other world after death, we will not be rewarded for our good deeds, nor punished for our sins.
Thesis No. 27 - Even those who have helped the world become more civilized will die, and in this way, they will find salvation.
Thesis No. 28 - How can man create his soul so easily? Because he did not create it from nothing, but from existing matter: the animal soul, evolved phylogenetically, which he received from his parents, his ancestors and the apes and he can only improve.
Thesis No. 32 - There is no reason to worry for the souls of aborted babies. They are safe as original sin does not exist.
Thesis No. 33 - There is no need to be baptized or to use other traditional forms of initiation of non-Christians or non-believers. As well there is no need to convert followers of other religions.
Thesis No. 35 - Man is the visible God. To see man is to see God.
Hmm.... this doesn't sound like a Catholic is writing this, especially since all of this rabble is totally heretical.
See for yourself here: http://www.chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf
Page 24.
Those are theses extracted and formed by someone else. In other words, someone read the book and attempted to deduce certain propositions or theses which the reader thought were contained in the work. Those are not the words of JPII. But even supposing these are entirely accurate interpretations, it doesn't necessarily follow that JPII was a formal heretic. It only means that heresy has been found within his works. This is the first step of the process by which authority determines the matter. You're making a big leap over very important details and coming to a particular conclusion. Read history for a change and see for yourself how the Church has dealt with these things.
-
The problem I see here is that sedevacantists seem to only be able to present the opinions of those who say that the sede thesis is true and the Pope must not be Pope. I have never seen any truth (i.e dogma, Bible verses, encyclicals, etc.) that supports the sede stance that if a Pope commits heresy he ceases to be Pope. My view is that a Pope CAN fall into to heresy and therefore lose his office, but to do so he would have to continue doing it and also be well aware of what he was doing with an evil intent behind it. There's no way you can prove that Benedict's intent is to bring the Church down. We can't judge a person's thoughts or motives. Only their actions.
Bellarmine says this is the opinion on ALL the ancient Fathers.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction ...
A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben's “Dogmatik” Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning
III. We must be careful to distinguish between the authority of one or a certain number of the Fathers, and the consentient testimony of all of them. It is evident that the former is not infallible, because the Church's approbation of their writings is not intended to be a guarantee of the truth of all that they teach. Some particular works, as, for instance, St. Cyril's Anathemas, have, however, received this guarantee. The Church's approbation implies: (1) that the writings approved were not opposed to any doctrine publicly held by the Church in the time of the author, and consequently were not subject to any censure ; (2) that the doctrines for which the Father was renowned, and on which he insisted most, are positively probable ; (3) that there is a strong presumption that the doubtful expressions of the Fathers should be interpreted in accordance with the commonly received doctrine, and that no discrepancy should be admitted among them except on the strongest grounds; (4) under extraordinary circuмstances it may give us a moral certainty of a doctrine when, for instance, some illustrious Father has, without being contradicted by the Church, openly enforced that doctrine as being Catholic, and has treated those who deny it as heretics. When, however, all the Fathers agree, their authority attains its perfection. The consent of the Fathers has always been looked upon as of equal authority with the teaching of the whole Church, or the definitions of the Popes and Councils. But inasmuch as it is hardly possible to ascertain the opinions of every Father on every point of doctrine, and as the Holy Ghost prevents the Church from ascribing to the whole body of the Fathers any doctrine which they did not hold, it follows that the consent of the Fathers must be regarded as fully ascertained whenever those of them whose writings deal with a given doctrine agree absolutely or morally, provided that they are numerous and belong to different countries and times. The number required varies with the nature of the doctrine, which may be public, a matter of daily practice and of great importance, or, on the other hand, may be of an abstract, speculative character, and comparatively unimportant: and with the personal authority of the Fathers, with their position in the Church, with the amount of opposition to the doctrine, and with many other circuмstances.
The Consent of the Fathers does not always prove the Catholic character of a doctrine in the same way. If they distinctly state that a doctrine is a public dogma of the Church, the doctrine must be at once accepted. If they merely state that the doctrine is true and taught by the Church, without formally attributing to it the character of a dogma, this testimony has by no means the same weight. The doctrine thus attested cannot, on that account, be treated as a dogma. Nevertheless it is at least a Catholic truth and morally certain, and the denial of it would deserve the censure of temerity or error.
-
Read history for a change and see for yourself how the Church has dealt with these things.
The Church is the law in this case, Matthew -- and history shows that the order of law, whether civil or ecclesiastical, lags behind the order of fact. Sometimes, the lag is rather significant.
Rank and file Catholics have treated public heretics as...heretics...even before the law rubber stamped the obvious. This is only a problem if one acts as if the law has pronounced something which it has not, in fact, pronounced (yet).
-
You keep repeating this oft asserted notion without realizing that it is precisely the determination of fact that is at issue. In other words, you are assuming that authority will side with you or that the defendant would not recant or renounce his errors when admonished by authority. There have been many cases where heresy has been discovered and reported to Roman authorities with the author eventually submitting to authority and doing penance. Your judgment does not allow for this.
-
Most of the men in question are DEAD, Matthew. Further, when the snakes are the ones "in charge", waiting for them to do something is nonsense (and dangerous).
Do you think W, BO, Hank Paulson, or Lloyd Blankfein will be brought to justice via the system? Do you presently hold them as innocent, despite the evidence (which has not been examined by those 'in charge')?
I shall be happy to accept whatever the law says -- if/when it gets its sh*t together and says something. Until then, all I have to guide me is the copious evidence and my own reason, aided by the light of supernatural faith.
-
You keep repeating this oft asserted notion without realizing that it is precisely the determination of fact that is at issue. In other words, you are assuming that authority will side with you or that the defendant would not recant or renounce his errors when admonished by authority. There have been many cases where heresy has been discovered and reported to Roman authorities with the author eventually submitting to authority and doing penance. Your judgment does not allow for this.
Why is this necessary? The problem is that you believe that pertinacity can be/is determined only by an official judgment from authority.
-
Thanks for posting that PFT, although they don't appear to be the actual words of JPII. I have actually seen stronger evidence that he was an anti-pope. I was recently watching some priest on EWTN named Fr. Mitch Pakwa (I sometimes watch the modernists on there to study their way of reasoning so I can better understand how to debate with them) and he was reading a quote from JPII saying that "The Holy Spirit guides all religions". I can't remember the rest of what he said, but his statement is clearly false. And this priest was agreeing with what JPII said!
That is exactly why I have such respect and sympathy for those who think JPII was an anti-pope. I'm haven't yet reached the conclusion that he was one, but I'm beginning to get pushed in that direction, particularly because of the blasphemy he allowed at Assisi.
-
Spiritus, you want some evidence towards proving that JPII could have been an antipope too?
Those are theses extracted and formed by someone else. In other words, someone read the book and attempted to deduce certain propositions or theses which the reader thought were contained in the work. Those are not the words of JPII. But even supposing these are entirely accurate interpretations, it doesn't necessarily follow that JPII was a formal heretic. It only means that heresy has been found within his works. This is the first step of the process by which authority determines the matter. You're making a big leap over very important details and coming to a particular conclusion. Read history for a change and see for yourself how the Church has dealt with these things.
Caminus, do you realize I said "could have been?" I'm "making a big leap?" I'm making no such leap. You're assuming (as you usually do.)
-
I'll post this again, Caminus, for when it comes to this issue, you have little in the way of good will and constantly misrepresent my position.
The vacant see in the sense of the pope who by virtue of heresy ceases to be pope, was considered by the the theologians in the context of a Church which is normally Catholic. But today the problem – mysterious and apocalyptic – is different. Along with the “pope”, it is the orbis catholicus which no longer professes the Catholic faith, the body of bishops who are no longer Catholic, the faithful – even those who are in good faith – who are no longer Catholics. Ought we not therefore to understand that the problem today is therefore greater than that of the heretical pope?
I agree with Fr. Abrahamowicz. But if the problem is greater than the heretical pope, it is not sufficient either to say that Benedict XVI is the pope, no doubt. The SV's say he cannot be the pope and the sedeplentists say he must be the pope. Neither position in and of itself solves the mystery of the crisis.
No one denies we face a larger problem, in fact, that's what I've been pointing out. But for the SV, he must deal with the logical conclusions and difficulties of his own position in an honest and forthcoming manner, rather than boasting to other traditional Catholics that they have it "all figured out" only to have pity on others and even despise them. As I mentioned to Raoul, I think it is a certainty that the future restoration of the Church will come about only through recognized jurisdiction which presupposes the valid legal claims of the Bishop of Rome, Cardinals and Bishops.
So don't accuse me of bad will until you deal with these questions, the avoidance of which is evident.
-
You keep repeating this oft asserted notion without realizing that it is precisely the determination of fact that is at issue. In other words, you are assuming that authority will side with you or that the defendant would not recant or renounce his errors when admonished by authority. There have been many cases where heresy has been discovered and reported to Roman authorities with the author eventually submitting to authority and doing penance. Your judgment does not allow for this.
Why is this necessary? The problem is that you believe that pertinacity can be/is determined only by an official judgment from authority.
That's not a "problem" it is a recognized juridical premise, short of actually defecting from the juridical Church, forming one's own sect or joining an already existing one. Why was Martin Luther, the arch-heretic even tried? And suppose, contrary to historical fact, that he recanted and submitted, he would not have had to re-enter the Church.
-
Spiritus, you want some evidence towards proving that JPII could have been an antipope too?
Those are theses extracted and formed by someone else. In other words, someone read the book and attempted to deduce certain propositions or theses which the reader thought were contained in the work. Those are not the words of JPII. But even supposing these are entirely accurate interpretations, it doesn't necessarily follow that JPII was a formal heretic. It only means that heresy has been found within his works. This is the first step of the process by which authority determines the matter. You're making a big leap over very important details and coming to a particular conclusion. Read history for a change and see for yourself how the Church has dealt with these things.
Caminus, do you realize I said "could have been?" I'm "making a big leap?" I'm making no such leap. You're assuming (as you usually do.)
You said, "How about his theses that he [JPII] put together in his book." And the term "anti-pope" is inexact. The term refers to one who claims to be the Pope in the face of a legitimately reigning Pope.
-
Do you know if there was an otherwise legitimately reigning pope during the time JPII was claiming to be the pope?
:scratchchin:
Boy, I sure wish I had a definite answer to that question, Caminus. Where do you get all your absolute information from?
Spiritus, you want some evidence towards proving that JPII could have been an antipope too?
Those are theses extracted and formed by someone else. In other words, someone read the book and attempted to deduce certain propositions or theses which the reader thought were contained in the work. Those are not the words of JPII. But even supposing these are entirely accurate interpretations, it doesn't necessarily follow that JPII was a formal heretic. It only means that heresy has been found within his works. This is the first step of the process by which authority determines the matter. You're making a big leap over very important details and coming to a particular conclusion. Read history for a change and see for yourself how the Church has dealt with these things.
Caminus, do you realize I said "could have been?" I'm "making a big leap?" I'm making no such leap. You're assuming (as you usually do.)
You said, "How about his theses that he [JPII] put together in his book." And the term "anti-pope" is inexact. The term refers to one who claims to be the Pope in the face of a legitimately reigning Pope.
-
No one denies we face a larger problem, in fact, that's what I've been pointing out. But for the SV, he must deal with the logical conclusions and difficulties of his own position in an honest and forthcoming manner, rather than boasting to other traditional Catholics that they have it "all figured out" only to have pity on others and even despise them.
You said I do, and I've been saying the opposite for years. I've said it many times here, yet you still make the accusation. I have to believe you're just here to argue.
-
No one denies we face a larger problem, in fact, that's what I've been pointing out. But for the SV, he must deal with the logical conclusions and difficulties of his own position in an honest and forthcoming manner, rather than boasting to other traditional Catholics that they have it "all figured out" only to have pity on others and even despise them.
You said I do, and I've been saying the opposite for years. I've said it many times here, yet you still make the accusation. I have to believe you're just here to argue.
I said you do what?
-
No one denies we face a larger problem, in fact, that's what I've been pointing out. But for the SV, he must deal with the logical conclusions and difficulties of his own position in an honest and forthcoming manner, rather than boasting to other traditional Catholics that they have it "all figured out" only to have pity on others and even despise them.
You said I do, and I've been saying the opposite for years. I've said it many times here, yet you still make the accusation. I have to believe you're just here to argue.
I said you do what?
Confirmed. You are here to argue.
-
If you don't want to engage in honest discussion, just say so. And may I remind you that we discuss controversial subject matter. I suppose that would make you an arguer too.
-
If you don't want to engage in honest discussion, just say so. And may I remind you that we discuss controversial subject matter. I suppose that would make you an arguer too.
You misrepresent other's views to make your "point", which appears to consist mainly as a general opposition to the sedevacantist position. Much of the time, you are not really discussing anything, but pushing your dogmatic position.
-
If you don't want to engage in honest discussion, just say so.
Gee, no imputation of bad motives here...
I am sure all of us, being fallen men, fail from time to time, but it seems we sometimes unwittingly go the extra mile to hinder fruitful discussion. C'est la vie...
-
I used to think that when Bishop Fellay or Archbishop Lefvre traveled to Rome to "negotiate" with the Pope that they were talking about the Mass and other important Traditions of the Church, but now when I here "Failed Negotiations" I think that it has more to do with MONEY.
SSPX, SSPV, Motu trad communities have a hugely growing population and Churches with HUGELY growing bank accounts.
These Zionists are not going to stand by and let the any community raise this much money without taking control.
And the Zionist (Satan) hate the fact that this many people are getting the TRUTH. The Real Sacrifice of the Mass.
They need to get a handle on all of you, especially your money. If they control your money they control you.
In my opinion when I hear that "Negotiations Failed". That is good news not bad. It means the Bishop is not cow towing to these Banker Zionist.
The smart sheep
-
I used to think that when Bishop Fellay or Archbishop Lefvre traveled to Rome to "negotiate" with the Pope that they were talking about the Mass and other important Traditions of the Church, but now when I here "Failed Negotiations" I think that it has more to do with MONEY.
SSPX, SSPV, Motu trad communities have a hugely growing population and Churches with HUGELY growing bank accounts.
These Zionists are not going to stand by and let the any community raise this much money without taking control.
And the Zionist (Satan) hate the fact that this many people are getting the TRUTH. The Real Sacrifice of the Mass.
They need to get a handle on all of you, especially your money. If they control your money they control you.
In my opinion when I hear that "Negotiations Failed". That is good news not bad. It means the Bishop is not cow towing to these Banker Zionist.
The smart sheep
Welcome to the forum and I agree completely.
-
Thank you, I am glad to be here.
:dancing-banana:
-
I used to think that when Bishop Fellay or Archbishop Lefvre traveled to Rome to "negotiate" with the Pope that they were talking about the Mass and other important Traditions of the Church, but now when I here "Failed Negotiations" I think that it has more to do with MONEY.
SSPX, SSPV, Motu trad communities have a hugely growing population and Churches with HUGELY growing bank accounts.
These Zionists are not going to stand by and let the any community raise this much money without taking control.
And the Zionist (Satan) hate the fact that this many people are getting the TRUTH. The Real Sacrifice of the Mass.
They need to get a handle on all of you, especially your money. If they control your money they control you.
In my opinion when I hear that "Negotiations Failed". That is good news not bad. It means the Bishop is not cow towing to these Banker Zionist.
The smart sheep
There were no negotiations, the Concillar Church thought they were going to negotiate but SSPX was there for the talks simply to convert the concillarists back to the Catholic Faith.
Here is some info for you if you'd like on the Doctrinal Talks.
http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/54_answers_from_bishop_fellay_feb_2011/54_answers_bp_fellay1.htm
http://www.sspx.org/sspx_roman_theological_commission.htm
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/doctrinal-talks-between-the-sspx-and-the-holy-see/
-
Good reads, thanks Lordphan.
I still cant help but think that maybe the Money thing was a side issue with him and the Pope. You know with the Pope being so pro banker/ zionist.
The smart sheep