Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: saintbosco13 on February 04, 2017, 08:42:11 PM
-
I was doing some random reading on the Great Western Schism tonight and stumbled across an interesting quote from a book called, "The Great Schism of the West" (Nihil Obstat/Imprimi Potest 1906).
Some quick background for those not familiar with the Great Western Schism... In the late 14th-century after Pope Urban VI was just elected in Rome, there was some confusion and disagreement which led to the Cardinals electing a second Pope named Clement VII in Avignon. For the next 40 years, no one knew who the Pope was because neither Urban nor Clement would abdicate. Some sided with Urban (referred to as "Urbanists") and some with Clement (referred to as "Clementines").
Going to the book at the link below brings you to a page that states, "The Urbanists of Bruges refused to hear mass said by Clementine priests". Some other books in Google books say the same, that neither side would attend each other's masses. This was obviously because each side believed the other was under a false Pope. I found this interesting because sedevacantists are condemned for doing the same. They obviously shouldn't be because this book makes it obvious that this is standard procedure.
Link to the page in the book where the quote is found:
The Great Schism of the West 1906 (https://books.google.com/books?id=jdU-AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA105&dq=schism+Mass+%22Urban+VI%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_otr6yPfRAhXs6oMKHQ_OAxUQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=schism%20Mass%20%22Urban%20VI%22&f=false)
-
Neither the "Urbanists" nor the "Clementines" were sedevacantist. So how does their refusal to attend each others Masses parallel sedevacantists not attending (hearing) Masses offered by non-sede priests?
-
Two things were different then.
There were TWO sides, each of which said the OTHER was following a false pope, whereas today, the sedevacantists cannot be accused of following any false pope.
And the other thing different about then: there is no song about the sedevacantists, but there is a song about the Clementines.........
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/arL3QzNBc6A[/youtube]
-
this book makes it obvious that this is standard procedure.
Yes, it is standard procedure for people to make illogical, emotional and wrong conclusions based on correct principles (this is why we need a church and a hierarchy). However, this is not standard CATHOLIC procedure, which is:
In necessary things, unity.
In doubtful things, liberty.
In all things, charity.
It is NOT necessary (or required, or allowed, or advised) for we priests/laity to "pick sides" in a papal issue (whether the question is two popes, or no pope). What IS necessary is to fulfil our daily duty, to keep the commandments, and to live the Faith. Anything other than this, and we're "above our pay grade" as they say.
-
And the other thing different about then: there is no song about the sedevacantists, but there is a song about the Clementines.........
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/arL3QzNBc6A[/youtube]
:laugh1:
-
Neither the "Urbanists" nor the "Clementines" were sedevacantist. So how does their refusal to attend each others Masses parallel sedevacantists not attending (hearing) Masses offered by non-sede priests?
The comparison I am making is as follows:
1. The Urbanist Catholics refused to attend the Masses of the Clementines because they believed the Clementines were following a false Pope (and vice versa).
2. The Sedevacantist Catholics (many of them) refuse to attend the Masses of the SSPX because they believe the SSPX is following a false Pope. (same for the Novus ordo)
No one today faults the Urbanists for doing what they did, nor the Clementines for doing the same. Yet today some people are declaring the Sedevacantists "dogmatic", evil, and other terms for doing the same thing. The SSPX needs to put themselves in the shoes of the sedevacantist; it is the DUTY of a Catholic to avoid (and tell others to avoid) masses where they believe the clergy are acting schismatically (or where they believe the validity of the clergy are doubtful for some reason). The actions of the Urbanists and Clementines shows this - the sedevacantists are not doing anything out of the norm acting this way.
-
Nobody has the "DUTY" which you descibe, nor the responsibility of judging popes. As Pax vobis says: emotional, illogical, wrong...
You make your decisions for yourself and for no other.
-
Nobody has the "DUTY" which you descibe, nor the responsibility of judging popes. As Pax vobis says: emotional, illogical, wrong...
You make your decisions for yourself and for no other.
The people in the 14th century had to make a judgment whether Urban or Clement was the true Pope, and after they made that judgment, they followed the Pope of their choice entirely in matters of faith and morals. The sedevacantists are not doing much differently; they're making a judgment on whether Francis is a true Pope, and in their case not following him at all because they don't believe he is true based on prior magisterial statements. The sedevacantist bishops and priests then tell their flocks to stay away. This is normal as we see from this book in 1906.
Also keep in mind that those priests following Pope Clement were otherwise entirely Catholic, and the validity of their orders and Sacraments were not in question. Likewise for the priests and faithful following Pope Urban. The ONLY thing that changed during the Western Schism was that these priests and laypeople on each side were believed to suddenly be following a false Pope. Notice that this alone was enough for those who followed Pope Urban to stay away from the Clementine Masses (and vice versa), even though those masses were VALID. Why? Because by following anyone other than a true Pope it is considered schismatic by definition, and as we know, the Church has always stated it is the duty of every Catholic to avoid schismatics.
The bottom line is, the sedevacantists are reacting the same way as the Catholics did during the Western Schism and should not be faulted for doing so.
-
My common sense informs me this way; Popes Urban or Clement were considered Anti-popes because neither of them were True Popes, but not because they taught heresy.
Today those who believe Francis is a True Pope have much to answer for, since especially with Francis it is so very obvious that he is a heretic. Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.
Also a doubtful pope is no pope, REMEMBER THAT ONE!
-
My common sense informs me this way; Popes Urban or Clement were considered Anti-popes because neither of them were True Popes, but not because they taught heresy.
Today those who believe Francis is a True Pope have much to answer for, since especially with Francis it is so very obvious that he is a heretic. Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.
Also a doubtful pope is no pope, REMEMBER THAT ONE!
Agreed with your points on heresy! Though just to clarify on your first statement above, later it was determined that Pope Urban was actually the true Pope since he was the first elected. The Clementines thought he was false, but he was actually the true Pope the entire time. So Pope Urban is not considered an anti-pope.
-
The major difference between the Great Western Schism and the situation in which we find ourselves today is that during the Great Western Schism all of the claimants to the papacy were Catholic. One cannot, in good faith, make the same claim today.
-
Vatican I, infallibility defines pope, defines nomination. We can judge outside, we don't judge hearts, that is for God.
-
My common sense informs me this way; Popes Urban or Clement were considered Anti-popes because neither of them were True Popes, but not because they taught heresy.
Today those who believe Francis is a True Pope have much to answer for, since especially with Francis it is so very obvious that he is a heretic. Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.
Also a doubtful pope is no pope, REMEMBER THAT ONE!
Agreed with your points on heresy! Though just to clarify on your first statement above, later it was determined that Pope Urban was actually the true Pope since he was the first elected. The Clementines thought he was false, but he was actually the true Pope the entire time. So Pope Urban is not considered an anti-pope.
Thanks for the correction!
-
Nobody has the "DUTY" which you descibe, nor the responsibility of judging popes. As Pax vobis says: emotional, illogical, wrong...
You make your decisions for yourself and for no other.
Do you accept everything your "pope" says? Do you resist him at all? Is there any theological difference between the "New Order" of "mass" which Paul VI promulgated and the Traditional Mass?
Your questions are irrelevent to the topic. Your response shows you read into my post what is not there. How do you know I am not a sedevacantist? I am arguing again OP's il-logic not against sedevacantism.
-
Nobody has the "DUTY" which you descibe, nor the responsibility of judging popes. As Pax vobis says: emotional, illogical, wrong...
You make your decisions for yourself and for no other.
The people in the 14th century had to make a judgment whether Urban or Clement was the true Pope, and after they made that judgment, they followed the Pope of their choice entirely in matters of faith and morals. The sedevacantists are not doing much differently; they're making a judgment on whether Francis is a true Pope, and in their case not following him at all because they don't believe he is true based on prior magisterial statements. The sedevacantist bishops and priests then tell their flocks to stay away. This is normal as we see from this book in 1906.
Also keep in mind that those priests following Pope Clement were otherwise entirely Catholic, and the validity of their orders and Sacraments were not in question. Likewise for the priests and faithful following Pope Urban. The ONLY thing that changed during the Western Schism was that these priests and laypeople on each side were believed to suddenly be following a false Pope. Notice that this alone was enough for those who followed Pope Urban to stay away from the Clementine Masses (and vice versa), even though those masses were VALID. Why? Because by following anyone other than a true Pope it is considered schismatic by definition, and as we know, the Church has always stated it is the duty of every Catholic to avoid schismatics.
The bottom line is, the sedevacantists are reacting the same way as the Catholics did during the Western Schism and should not be faulted for doing so.
This also makes it obvious that this "dogmatic sedevacantism" accusation going around Internet forums, is a novelty. If it weren't, we would see similar examples of it in books before Vatican II, but never have I seen anything similar mentioned anywhere.
-
Again, you read into what I said what is not there,
I did not say 'the responsibility to judge the "pope"'. I said 'the respnsibility to judge popes'.
Each of us has to decide where we stand on the issue but not to pass off our opinion as some sort of teaching to share with others. I do not make statements about my stand on the present papacy. I have my opinion and I'm keeping it!
Does that make me SSPX friendly? Or a sedeplenist? Strange logic!
-
Second, you told bosco that nobody has the duty to tell people that they shouldn't go to schismatic masses.
:rolleyes: You've done it again! You have an overactive imagination, Seven.
-
Each of us has to decide where we stand on the issue but not to pass off our opinion as some sort of teaching to share with others. I do not make statements about my stand on the present papacy. I have my opinion and I'm keeping it!
There are plenty of teachings from the ordinary magisterium (infallible according to Vatican I) that say should a Pope teach heresy, and that heresy be manifest, he is no longer Pope. The ordinary magisterium has taught this over and over and over, century after century. Francis has likewise taught heresy after heresy after heresy, all posted right on the Vatican websites so that no one can deny it..
What you believe in must be the truth from your perspective or you cannot claim you believe in it. We have infallible teaching from the ordinary magisterium behind us on this, so it is not opinion, but is Church teaching.
If you read up on the Western Schism where no one knew who the Pope was for 40 years, each person studied the matter to the best of their ability, then backed the Pope of their choice 100%. Go read up on it and you will see not a single Catholic at the time held the wishy-washy stance of "I will not make statements on my stand of the papacy".
-
I usually don't defend sedevacantism unless it is attacked and I notice.
As far as other forums not welcoming us, the reason might be we stir up something within their reason they would rather not think about.
The bottom line is a True Pope MUST BE A MEMBER of the Catholic Church. I believe God has allowed Francis to be so obvious a heretic, that He will hold all accountable. Because it is Divine Law that a Pope must be Catholic if anyone here says Francis is Catholic they had better examine their own conscience on that matter.
Matthew 10:33
But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.
-
As far as other forums not welcoming us, the reason might be we stir up something within their reason they would rather not think about.
Nope, that's not the reason.
-
As far as other forums not welcoming us, the reason might be we stir up something within their reason they would rather not think about.
Nope, that's not the reason.
What's the reason......?
-
:popcorn:
-
As far as other forums not welcoming us, the reason might be we stir up something within their reason they would rather not think about.
Nope, that's not the reason.
What's the reason......?
Not owing any forum myself, I can only surmise the different reasons some forum owners have for not welcoming sedevacantists, but being "something within their reason they would rather not think about" is not very likely to be one of them - unless that "something" is anarchy.
If I had to guess the one reason that the forum owners might all agree upon, I would guess that it boils down to sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. By this I mean that as a rule, sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the only consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.
This is only my guess but it seems like a worthy reason to me.
-
As far as other forums not welcoming us, the reason might be we stir up something within their reason they would rather not think about.
Nope, that's not the reason.
What's the reason......?
Not owing any forum myself, I can only surmise the different reasons some forum owners have for not welcoming sedevacantists, but being "something within their reason they would rather not think about" is not very likely to be one of them - unless that "something" is anarchy.
If I had to guess the one reason that the forum owners might all agree upon, I would guess that it boils down to sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. By this I mean that as a rule, sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the only consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.
This is only my guess but it seems like a worthy reason to me.
Wait, you emphatically state: "Nope, that's not the reason.", and then you say you are guessing. Don't you think it would be better if you didn't comment at all?
Also, you have a lot of nerve to sugest that sedevacantists have a lawless mentality. Have you ever given more than one minute on really thinking about this subject?
We are far from being lawless, those of us who hold the sedevacantist position, those of us who obey and uphold the laws of the Church and who love the pope. Rather it is those who claim that Bergoglio is the pope and ignore all of his laws he enacts, who are being lawless. When was the last time you submitted to your local diocesan bishop? See, it is you who are lawless.
Can you see why Sedevacantists can't accept this evil institution that has apostatized and it's manifestly heretical "pope" to have any authority over us? Sedevacantists want the rule of law, we want a true pope who we can submit to and obey.
-
Wait, you emphatically state: "Nope, that's not the reason.", and then you say you are guessing. Don't you think it would be better if you didn't comment at all?
Also, you have a lot of nerve to sugest that sedevacantists have a lawless mentality. Have you ever given more than one minute on really thinking about this subject?
We are far from being lawless, those of us who hold the sedevacantist position, those of us who obey and uphold the laws of the Church and who love the pope. Rather it is those who claim that Bergoglio is the pope and ignore all of his laws he enacts, who are being lawless. When was the last time you submitted to your local diocesan bishop? See, it is you who are lawless.
Can you see why Sedevacantists can't accept this evil institution that has apostatized and it's manifestly heretical "pope" to have any authority over us? Sedevacantists want the rule of law, we want a true pope who we can submit to and obey.
Well lets see, sedevacantists conclude that all those V2 cardinals and bishops lost their offices. Therefore, sedevacantists insist the elections of all the conciliar popes by the V2 and post V2 cardinals were invalid. Since the two Popes were also active at the Council, having been expelled from the Church, they could not have been validly elected.
Further still, all the conciliar bishops, having been excommunicated for their part in the Council, were automatically deprived of their dioceses. And since all the conciliar popes' elections were invalid, not only is the throne of St. Peter vacant, but all his appointments have been invalid also. Therefore, neither the Pope, nor any of the conciliar bishops, hold their offices legitimately, as such it only stands to reason that neither are there any more priests. The universal Church is without a head, and all the dioceses throughout the world are without ordinaries and all the NO priests are only heretical laymen.
Is that about right?
That's the anarchy of which I speak.
-
As far as other forums not welcoming us, the reason might be we stir up something within their reason they would rather not think about.
Nope, that's not the reason.
What's the reason......?
Not owing any forum myself, I can only surmise the different reasons some forum owners have for not welcoming sedevacantists, but being "something within their reason they would rather not think about" is not very likely to be one of them - unless that "something" is anarchy.
If I had to guess the one reason that the forum owners might all agree upon, I would guess that it boils down to sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. By this I mean that as a rule, sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the only consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.
This is only my guess but it seems like a worthy reason to me.
Wait, you emphatically state: "Nope, that's not the reason.", and then you say you are guessing. Don't you think it would be better if you didn't comment at all?
Also, you have a lot of nerve to sugest that sedevacantists have a lawless mentality. Have you ever given more than one minute on really thinking about this subject?
We are far from being lawless, those of us who hold the sedevacantist position, those of us who obey and uphold the laws of the Church and who love the pope. Rather it is those who claim that Bergoglio is the pope and ignore all of his laws he enacts, who are being lawless. When was the last time you submitted to your local diocesan bishop? See, it is you who are lawless.
Can you see why Sedevacantists can't accept this evil institution that has apostatized and it's manifestly heretical "pope" to have any authority over us? Sedevacantists want the rule of law, we want a true pope who we can submit to and obey.
:applause:
-
I don't necessarily agree with your premise that the Sede vacante position is intrinsically anarchistic.
Of course, the Conciliar pope explicit calls for chaos would indicate that the Conciliar sect could be considered intrinsically anarchistic.
-
Wait, you emphatically state: "Nope, that's not the reason.", and then you say you are guessing. Don't you think it would be better if you didn't comment at all?
Also, you have a lot of nerve to sugest that sedevacantists have a lawless mentality. Have you ever given more than one minute on really thinking about this subject?
We are far from being lawless, those of us who hold the sedevacantist position, those of us who obey and uphold the laws of the Church and who love the pope. Rather it is those who claim that Bergoglio is the pope and ignore all of his laws he enacts, who are being lawless. When was the last time you submitted to your local diocesan bishop? See, it is you who are lawless.
Can you see why Sedevacantists can't accept this evil institution that has apostatized and it's manifestly heretical "pope" to have any authority over us? Sedevacantists want the rule of law, we want a true pope who we can submit to and obey.
Well lets see, sedevacantists conclude that all those V2 cardinals and bishops lost their offices. Therefore, sedevacantists insist the elections of all the conciliar popes by the V2 and post V2 cardinals were invalid. Since the two Popes were also active at the Council, having been expelled from the Church, they could not have been validly elected.
Further still, all the conciliar bishops, having been excommunicated for their part in the Council, were automatically deprived of their dioceses. And since all the conciliar popes' elections were invalid, not only is the throne of St. Peter vacant, but all his appointments have been invalid also. Therefore, neither the Pope, nor any of the conciliar bishops, hold their offices legitimately, as such it only stands to reason that neither are there any more priests. The universal Church is without a head, and all the dioceses throughout the world are without ordinaries and all the NO priests are only heretical laymen.
Is that about right?
That's the anarchy of which I speak.
Those who folllow Vatican have left the Church. Picture a piece of paper if you have any imagination and a small corner torn off representing John Wycliffe and his ilk. now picture this torn off corner only bigger now, the torn off larger portion represents Martin Luther who widely acknowledged to have started the Reformation, so now the torn off portion represents a larger apostasy, and the larger portion of the paper REMAINING represents the One, Holy, Catholic Faith with THE tear representing those who have gone their own way with a new religion.
Here comes Vatican II, and suddenly a great big tear appears on the piece of paper, leaving only a tiny bit left. WoW that big tear took the relics, property, valuable possessions such at Vatican City and all that it contained within. This tiny piece left had nothing, BUT THE FAITH. Wait the Faith is everything according to Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock; "May God console you! ...What saddens you ...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises?but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?"
Stubborn all you have is a counterfeit Church by your own admittance in past posts, you would not even say, that Francis is Catholic.
You now believe a True Pope can deceive the faithful in Faith and Morals, the Vicar of Christ can teach not only Truth but error also. The Marks are gone regarding doctrine, it is not necessary any longer during this time for Unity in doctrine, let every parish decide for themselves, let every faithful live according to their own will with absolutely NO ABSOLUTES.
The faithful now walks in darkness, jumping from one parish to another to seek which one has the best Catholic culture. Is it this priest or that one?
Matthew said here recently, that to be sedevacantism means we do not have the fullness of the Church ... I say what is it that we are missing Matthew? Heresy?
For your own information Stubborn, CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH but I can assure you He is not the Head of Vatican II, Francis IS!
Yes you have a Pope, Stubborn and YOU will have to answer for him. You deny Our Lords own words when He says in Luke 18:8
"But yet the Son of man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?"
-
Wait, you emphatically state: "Nope, that's not the reason.", and then you say you are guessing. Don't you think it would be better if you didn't comment at all?
Also, you have a lot of nerve to sugest that sedevacantists have a lawless mentality. Have you ever given more than one minute on really thinking about this subject?
We are far from being lawless, those of us who hold the sedevacantist position, those of us who obey and uphold the laws of the Church and who love the pope. Rather it is those who claim that Bergoglio is the pope and ignore all of his laws he enacts, who are being lawless. When was the last time you submitted to your local diocesan bishop? See, it is you who are lawless.
Can you see why Sedevacantists can't accept this evil institution that has apostatized and it's manifestly heretical "pope" to have any authority over us? Sedevacantists want the rule of law, we want a true pope who we can submit to and obey.
Well lets see, sedevacantists conclude that all those V2 cardinals and bishops lost their offices. Therefore, sedevacantists insist the elections of all the conciliar popes by the V2 and post V2 cardinals were invalid. Since the two Popes were also active at the Council, having been expelled from the Church, they could not have been validly elected.
Further still, all the conciliar bishops, having been excommunicated for their part in the Council, were automatically deprived of their dioceses. And since all the conciliar popes' elections were invalid, not only is the throne of St. Peter vacant, but all his appointments have been invalid also. Therefore, neither the Pope, nor any of the conciliar bishops, hold their offices legitimately, as such it only stands to reason that neither are there any more priests. The universal Church is without a head, and all the dioceses throughout the world are without ordinaries and all the NO priests are only heretical laymen.
Is that about right?
That's the anarchy of which I speak.
I shouldn't bother answering your post since you didn't address anything I wrote, but here's why I said I don't believe you thought about this subject for more than a minute:
If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.
There may be other issues that need to be looked into and resolved, but if this did happen I would accept him as true pope on the premise of acclamation. He would be peacefully accepted as a true pope by the vast majority of those who profess the true faith.
God could do this? Yes, but I'm not convinced that this is how he will resolve the crisis.
I believe that we should put all of our trust in God and holding the sedevacantist position, I trust that He will resolve the crisis when it is absolutely the right time, no more no less. With that said, here are a few other scenarios I have envisioned:
1) There could be valid Roman clergy who have kept the faith through the crisis. They could declare the See vacant and elect a true pope.
2) There must be some bishops still alive (most likely from the Eastern Rite of the Church) who still profess the true faith and could/would call a council and declare the See vacant and elect a true pope.
3) There could be some conservative NO "cardinals" who could convert, profess the true faith, declare the See vacant, and then call a conclave to elect a true pope.
This renders your accusations above irrelevant, doesn't it?
-
If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.
If you say so.
In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.
Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.
At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!
-
If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.
If you say so.
In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.
Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.
At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!
Guess what Stubborn if we don't have the above, neither do you and your ilk.
-
If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.
If you say so.
In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.
Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.
At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!
And where is the hierarchy that you submit to? Most Protestants acknowledge Bergoglio as pope, but they don't submit to him, now do they? What all Catholics must do is submit to the reignng Roman Pontiff, do you submit to Bergoglio or do you just acknowledge him as pope?
-
If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.
If you say so.
In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.
Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.
At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!
And where is the hierarchy that you submit to? Most Protestants acknowledge Bergoglio as pope, but they don't submit to him, now do they? What all Catholics must do is submit to the reignng Roman Pontiff, do you submit to Bergoglio or do you just acknowledge him as pope?
I submit blindly, only to God, as should everyone.
No one is bound to submit to anyone, not even the pope if he wants us to do something displeasing to God.
Remember, the dogma decrees "It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" - the dogma most certainly does not decree that "It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature to submit to the Roman Pontiff."
The sedevacantists do not make this distinction, in fact I know of one who insists that the two different words mean exactly the same thing and other sedevacantists who agree with him. I don't know for sure but it sounds as if you agree with him too.
-
If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.
If you say so.
In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.
Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.
At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!
Guess what Stubborn if we don't have the above, neither do you and your ilk.
Sorry Myrna, but though we agree that the hierarchy is overall comprised of modernist heretics, to those of us who remain non-anarchists, they all still hold their offices legitimately - therefore, me and my ilk have the above, you on the other hand, do not.
-
Well lets see, sedevacantists conclude that all those V2 cardinals and bishops lost their offices. Therefore, sedevacantists insist the elections of all the conciliar popes by the V2 and post V2 cardinals were invalid. Since the two Popes were also active at the Council, having been expelled from the Church, they could not have been validly elected.
Further still, all the conciliar bishops, having been excommunicated for their part in the Council, were automatically deprived of their dioceses. And since all the conciliar popes' elections were invalid, not only is the throne of St. Peter vacant, but all his appointments have been invalid also. Therefore, neither the Pope, nor any of the conciliar bishops, hold their offices legitimately, as such it only stands to reason that neither are there any more priests. The universal Church is without a head, and all the dioceses throughout the world are without ordinaries and all the NO priests are only heretical laymen.
Is that about right?
That's the anarchy of which I speak.
Stubborn,
It's not sedevacantists who conclude certain clergy have lost their offices due to heresy, it is the CHURCH who has concluded this for the faithful by creating a LAW that says so. Sedevacantists simply follow that law. For example, this one as told by St. Robert Bellarmine - many others can be given that say the same:
"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff
You'll notice that St. Robert also mentions the early fathers taught the same. It is YOU who are the one creating anarchy by not following the law.
-
If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.
If you say so.
In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.
Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.
At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!
And where is the hierarchy that you submit to? Most Protestants acknowledge Bergoglio as pope, but they don't submit to him, now do they? What all Catholics must do is submit to the reignng Roman Pontiff, do you submit to Bergoglio or do you just acknowledge him as pope?
I submit blindly, only to God, as should everyone.
No one is bound to submit to anyone, not even the pope if he wants us to do something displeasing to God.
Remember, the dogma decrees "It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" - the dogma most certainly does not decree that "It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature to submit to the Roman Pontiff."
The sedevacantists do not make this distinction, in fact I know of one who insists that the two different words mean exactly the same thing and other sedevacantists who agree with him. I don't know for sure but it sounds as if you agree with him too.
Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?
-
Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?
Paraphrasing st. Thomas More's last words: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first". I think explains it absolutely perfectly.
From another post to An Even Seven.......
Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51
Are not all subordinates subject to their superiors? Are not all children subject to their parents - in all things except sin?
I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.
Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?
-
Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?
Paraphrasing st. Thomas More's last words: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first". I think explains it absolutely perfectly.
From another post to An Even Seven.......
Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51
Are not all subordinates subject to their superiors? Are not all children subject to their parents - in all things except sin?
I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.
Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?
I see how St. Thomas was subject to his temporal king as long as it did not cause him to deny an article of faith. I see how the Christ Child obeyed his parents. I see how inferiors are to be subject to their superiors in all things but sin.
Now, can we agree that being subject to someone is to submit to their authority or to obey that person as long as that person does not command us to sin?
-
Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?
Paraphrasing st. Thomas More's last words: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first". I think explains it absolutely perfectly.
From another post to An Even Seven.......
Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51
Are not all subordinates subject to their superiors? Are not all children subject to their parents - in all things except sin?
I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.
Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?
Is Bergoglio subject to the Papacy?
-
I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.
Whatever you have "come to believe" about what sedevacantists do or do not understand, it is absolutely clear that you certainly do not understand what the word means.
Every time I read your posts, I am reminded of Inigo Montoya telling Vizzini in The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
-
Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?
Paraphrasing st. Thomas More's last words: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first". I think explains it absolutely perfectly.
From another post to An Even Seven.......
Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51
Are not all subordinates subject to their superiors? Are not all children subject to their parents - in all things except sin?
I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.
Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?
I'm continually amazed at how Stubborn openly admits to being a schismatic on this website, yet for some reason he is not booted out the door. All we need to do is look in any Catholic book before Vatican II to see that it has NEVER been a teaching of the Church to obey the Pope in all circuмstances "except where sin is involved", as if popes can teach the faithful to sin. What an anti-Catholic bunch of garbage.
Looking up the definition of Schism in "A Catholic Dictionary", it states: "The refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope..." (it doesn't provide any exceptions) and further down it continues, "Anyone guilty of an external act of schism is ipso facto excommunicated". Enough said on that.
I've learned a long time ago that you shouldn't bother spinning your wheels with Stubborn....his posts should be taken with a grain of salt.
-
I see how St. Thomas was subject to his temporal king as long as it did not cause him to deny an article of faith. I see how the Christ Child obeyed his parents. I see how inferiors are to be subject to their superiors in all things but sin.
Now, can we agree that being subject to someone is to submit to their authority or to obey that person as long as that person does not command us to sin?
Absolutely! I'm glad that we agree on something of importance!
-
I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.
Whatever you have "come to believe" about what sedevacantists do or do not understand, it is absolutely clear that you certainly do not understand what the word means.
Every time I read your posts, I am reminded of Inigo Montoya telling Vizzini in The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I never saw The Princess Bride.
As I said, this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning. Is it your understanding that both have the same meaning as well?
-
Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?
Paraphrasing st. Thomas More's last words: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first". I think explains it absolutely perfectly.
From another post to An Even Seven.......
Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51
Are not all subordinates subject to their superiors? Are not all children subject to their parents - in all things except sin?
I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.
Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?
I'm continually amazed at how Stubborn openly admits to being a schismatic on this website, yet for some reason he is not booted out the door. All we need to do is look in any Catholic book before Vatican II to see that it has NEVER been a teaching of the Church to obey the Pope in all circuмstances "except where sin is involved", as if popes can teach the faithful to sin. What an anti-Catholic bunch of garbage.
Looking up the definition of Schism in "A Catholic Dictionary", it states: "The refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope..." (it doesn't provide any exceptions) and further down it continues, "Anyone guilty of an external act of schism is ipso facto excommunicated". Enough said on that.
I've learned a long time ago that you shouldn't bother spinning your wheels with Stubborn....his posts should be taken with a grain of salt.
It's sad that you demonstrate a clear understanding of schism - no pleading ignorance for you.
-
I see how St. Thomas was subject to his temporal king as long as it did not cause him to deny an article of faith. I see how the Christ Child obeyed his parents. I see how inferiors are to be subject to their superiors in all things but sin.
Now, can we agree that being subject to someone is to submit to their authority or to obey that person as long as that person does not command us to sin?
Absolutely! I'm glad that we agree on something of importance!
So you admit that being subject to someone is submitting to their authority!
You agree to this and then in the post below you say this:
"As I said, this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning. Is it your understanding that both have the same meaning as well?"
Do you even read what you write?
Good heavens man! Being subject to the pope is *not* the same as submitting to the pope in all things even when he wants us to do something displeasing to God.
The sedevacantists' problem is that they wrongly believe that the pope is incapable of wanting such a thing.
-
I'm done.....it's like arguing with an evolutionist! :facepalm:
I hear you brother. You should see him in action in the Feeneyite section - heresy after heresy - truly disturbing and I don't even waste my time anymore. There are many discussions where I simply hide all of his posts - it's that bad. Sometimes I suspect he may have been paid just to throw confusion into the discussions....and I'm not even kidding.
-
I'm done.....it's like arguing with an evolutionist! :facepalm:
You're the one talking in circles.........
You asked:
Now, can we agree that being subject to someone is to submit to their authority or to obey that person as long as that person does not command us to sin?
You then repeat the same thing:
So you admit that being subject to someone is submitting to their authority!
I've been arguing with crazy sede's long enough to know that your line of questioning leads directly back to your original confused post equating "subject" to "submit", without regard to sin:
What all Catholics must do is submit to the reignng Roman Pontiff, do you submit to Bergoglio or do you just acknowledge him as pope?
Wash, rinse, repeat. Same o same o.
-
I'm done.....it's like arguing with an evolutionist! :facepalm:
I hear you brother. You should see him in action in the Feeneyite section - heresy after heresy - truly disturbing and I don't even waste my time anymore. There are many discussions where I simply hide all of his posts - it's that bad. Sometimes I suspect he may have been paid just to throw confusion into the discussions....and I'm not even kidding.
The way you promote error, I pray you never need to depend on the Last Rites of desire.
-
I'm done.....it's like arguing with an evolutionist! :facepalm:
I hear you brother. You should see him in action in the Feeneyite section - heresy after heresy - truly disturbing and I don't even waste my time anymore. There are many discussions where I simply hide all of his posts - it's that bad. Sometimes I suspect he may have been paid just to throw confusion into the discussions....and I'm not even kidding.
The way you promote error, I pray you never need to depend on the Last Rites of desire.
The point is we don't have a known pope to begin with, also Francis is not subject to God, Francis does not submit to God, Francis fights against God. You know that so that makes you a hypocrite.
-
I'm done.....it's like arguing with an evolutionist! :facepalm:
I hear you brother. You should see him in action in the Feeneyite section - heresy after heresy - truly disturbing and I don't even waste my time anymore. There are many discussions where I simply hide all of his posts - it's that bad. Sometimes I suspect he may have been paid just to throw confusion into the discussions....and I'm not even kidding.
The way you promote error, I pray you never need to depend on the Last Rites of desire.
The point is we don't have a known pope to begin with, also Francis is not subject to God, Francis does not submit to God, Francis fights against God. You know that so that makes you a hypocrite.
I have one, you sedevacantists don't have a known pope Myrna, nor any hope of ever having one.
Francis will be judged by God just the same as you and me. You know that and it makes no difference to either of our eternities. All I need to do is to be the pope's good subject, but God's first. Always, God's first - and in so doing, I know that I meet the requirement for salvation of being subject to the pope.
-
I'm done.....it's like arguing with an evolutionist! :facepalm:
I hear you brother. You should see him in action in the Feeneyite section - heresy after heresy - truly disturbing and I don't even waste my time anymore. There are many discussions where I simply hide all of his posts - it's that bad. Sometimes I suspect he may have been paid just to throw confusion into the discussions....and I'm not even kidding.
The way you promote error, I pray you never need to depend on the Last Rites of desire.
The point is we don't have a known pope to begin with, also Francis is not subject to God, Francis does not submit to God, Francis fights against God. You know that so that makes you a hypocrite.
I have one, you sedevacantists don't have a known pope Myrna, nor any hope of ever having one.
Francis will be judged by God just the same as you and me. You know that and it makes no difference to either of our eternities. All I need to do is to be the pope's good subject, but God's first. Always, God's first - and in so doing, I know that I meet the requirement for salvation of being subject to the pope.
You don't know everything Stubborn and you don't know anything about the position of sedevacantism. Just because we don't sit and bite our fingernails about the pope issue, you think we gave up on the idea of ever having a True pope.
You claim you are the pope's good subject but I ask you what pope are you subject to, the past True popes or Francis who is opposite in his teachings and contradicts past popes.
You say you are subject to God first, then submit to God and stop resisting Him, trust that He, God will give us a True Pope in HIS TIME, not your time.
The problem with so many Traditional Catholics is Pride if they can't figure out how God will work out and end this crisis they invent a theory that yes, God is allowing His church to be deceived and bringing souls to hell. They even have so much Pride as to believe that they will be the instruments of fixing the church, that God NEEDs THEM. They forget that it is we who need God, not vice versa. In the meantime, they whittle the time away seeking and hearing every person who backs their self-planned agenda. Tearing down anyone who simply says trust in Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Relax and trust in God, He is in charge, not you.
-
All I need to do is to be the pope's good subject, but God's first. Always, God's first - and in so doing, I know that I meet the requirement for salvation of being subject to the pope.
Stubborn,
If we look on the home page of Francisquotes.com, we can find a list of quotes with direct links to the Vatican websites showing Francis doing the following:
Promoting Atheism
Doubting the Blessed Trinity
Condemning capital punishment when the Church has approved of it
Approving of cohabitation/concubinage
Speaking positively of communism
Approving of contraception
Condemning conversion/proselytizing
Approving of ecuмenism
Approving of pagans worshiping their false gods
Saying that those in the Islam false religion will be saved
Saying that those in the Jєωιѕн religion will be saved
Questioning the omnipotence of God
Approving of prayer in common when the Church has repeatedly condemned it
Commemorating the Protestant Reformation
Denying that sins are forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession
Saying that the majority of sacramental marriages are null
Approving of same-sex marriage
Approving of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
Approving of sex education
Approving of ѕυιcιdє
Even an uneducated child before the age of reason could tell you some of these are wrong because they are contrary to even the Natural Law. You are defending SIN - Don't even bother saying that defending sin is "fulfilling a requirement for your salvation".
Keep in mind that the Church teaches there are 9 ways in partaking in another's sin:
By Counsel
By Command
By Consent
By Provocation
By Flattery
By Concealment
By Silence
By Participation
By Justification
By giving us your heroic statement that you will be subject to Francis, your partaking in his sins by several of these ways; by consent, by silence, and by justification at a minimum. That's not putting God first, that's putting YOU first. You're not fooling anybody, and just giving us all the more reason to tune you out in these forums.
-
Saying that those in the Islam false religion will be saved
Saying that those in the Jєωιѕн religion will be saved
I don't think these two points are fair because nearly all sedevacantist priests that I know of also believe this. And don't you believe this also?
-
Saying that those in the Islam false religion will be saved
Saying that those in the Jєωιѕн religion will be saved
I don't think these two points are fair because nearly all sedevacantist priests that I know of also believe this. And don't you believe this also?
:facepalm:
Since we use the same books prior to VII, and my attending Catholic school my entire life prior to VII, this was never taught. I hope I am misunderstanding your point.
Actually it is THE POPE of SSPX, that teaches such. Your pope too, I believe! Which is the real reason why you don't think it fair to mention.
-
Um Myrna, do you believe people in false religions can be saved by baptism of desire without converting to the Catholic religion? Didn't you post an article from a CMRI magazine that claimed this. And of course you are an oracle and you know "the real reason" for all of my posts.
-
Matto, Do you not believe that Jesus Christ died for all men and He provided a way for all men to save their SOUL IF THEY COOPERATE WITH GOD'S GRACE.
Your pope believes that all men automatically CAN SAVE THEIR SOUL, without grace. But then he is your pope and the leader of the NWO.
Why not read the article it's in the library, not just stop at the Title.
-
I am not trying to argue with you about BOD right now.
-
Matto, here is the article, for fear of scandal I urge you to read the article since you are the one that mentioned it. Read the entire article. The first few paragraphs at least. If after reading it, and you don't agree then that would be a debate on another thread.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Salvation
-
You don't know everything Stubborn and you don't know anything about the position of sedevacantism. Just because we don't sit and bite our fingernails about the pope issue, you think we gave up on the idea of ever having a True pope.
Very true that I don't know everything, I do know quite a bit about the sedevacantist position though - for example, I know you submit to the papacy - whatever that means - I know this because you've posted as much at least a few times. The dogma decrees it is altogether necessary to be subject to the pope though, not the papacy.
You claim you are the pope's good subject but I ask you what pope are you subject to, the past True popes or Francis who is opposite in his teachings and contradicts past popes.
You say you are subject to God first, then submit to God and stop resisting Him, trust that He, God will give us a True Pope in HIS TIME, not your time.
Currently I am subject to Francis who is opposite in his teachings and contradicts past popes - but I am subject to God first. God is the One, after all, who revealed the dogma that it is altogether necessary for every human creature to be subject to the pope.
I mean no insult to you Myrna, but saying "God will give us a True Pope in HIS TIME, not your time" makes no sense for a few reasons; 1) I'm not even the one waiting for a pope, you are. As it is, God saw fit to give us pope Francis, who, as you rightly say, is opposite in his teachings and contradicts past popes, and 2) your saying that I am waiting for a pope reminds me a remark Fr. Feeney made about Jews......“The poor Jews are like expectant travelers waiting in a railroad station for a train which went by 2,000 years ago”, the sedevacantists are waiting for a pope, while a pope has been in office all along, or like the man who looks high and low and cannot find his eye glasses anywhere, as they sit on top of his head.
No, I am not waiting for a pope, I am taking the easiest and surest path possible to guarantee for me that I meet the requirement for salvation of being subject to the pope by always being subject to God first. All things considered, it's really pretty easy.
-
I read what you posted. My point when I made my initial post was not to start an argument about Baptism of Desire, which I do believe in by the way, but only to say that if you believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved by Baptism of Desire, you should not condemn Pope Francis for believing that Jews and Muslims can be saved because you also believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved.
-
Stubborn,
If we look on the home page of Francisquotes.com, we can find a list of quotes with direct links to the Vatican websites showing Francis doing the following:
Promoting Atheism
Doubting the Blessed Trinity
Condemning capital punishment when the Church has approved of it
Approving of cohabitation/concubinage
Speaking positively of communism
Approving of contraception
Condemning conversion/proselytizing
Approving of ecuмenism
Approving of pagans worshiping their false gods
Saying that those in the Islam false religion will be saved
Saying that those in the Jєωιѕн religion will be saved
Questioning the omnipotence of God
Approving of prayer in common when the Church has repeatedly condemned it
Commemorating the Protestant Reformation
Denying that sins are forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession
Saying that the majority of sacramental marriages are null
Approving of same-sex marriage
Approving of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
Approving of sex education
Approving of ѕυιcιdє
Even an uneducated child before the age of reason could tell you some of these are wrong because they are contrary to even the Natural Law. You are defending SIN - Don't even bother saying that defending sin is "fulfilling a requirement for your salvation".
Keep in mind that the Church teaches there are 9 ways in partaking in another's sin:
By Counsel
By Command
By Consent
By Provocation
By Flattery
By Concealment
By Silence
By Participation
By Justification
By giving us your heroic statement that you will be subject to Francis, your partaking in his sins by several of these ways; by consent, by silence, and by justification at a minimum. That's not putting God first, that's putting YOU first. You're not fooling anybody, and just giving us all the more reason to tune you out in these forums.
What this whole post insinuates is really quite ridiculous.
-
I read what you posted. My point when I made my initial post was not to start an argument about Baptism of Desire, which I do believe in by the way, but only to say that if you believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved by Baptism of Desire, you should not condemn Pope Francis for believing that Jews and Muslims can be saved because you also believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved.
That is the biggest contradiction in the positions of most of the sedevacantists. They condemn V2 and V2 claimants to the papacy mainly for heresies regarding ecclesiology and soteriology, yet they believe essentially the same thing (that Jews and Muslims can be saved through BoD or that belief in one God who rewards good and punishes evil might be sufficient for salvation). And by the way, no Magisterial docuмent ever taught that BoD applies to unconverted Jews or Muslims or that they can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. But that discussion should go to BoD/Feeneyism subforum.
-
The big difference is that Francis believes that all religions are saved by that fact alone. The Church believe that all men will have a chance for grace, might it be at their last second of life, I do not know, which is why the Church forbids us to judge their soul.
If the Jew or Muslim desire the One Baptism I feel that would have to come from their conversion, don't you? Why else would they desire Baptism?
Francis on the other hand, does not believe a conversion is necessary, and you know that from his many words.
Please do no misrepresent the meaning of sedevacantism, it is not a schismatic sect because we defend the Papacy we do not reject it, there is the difference compared to other schismatic who reject the Papacy.
If you believe we have a True Pope, so be it, I only wish you would tell me who it is?
-
You don't know everything Stubborn and you don't know anything about the position of sedevacantism. Just because we don't sit and bite our fingernails about the pope issue, you think we gave up on the idea of ever having a True pope.
Very true that I don't know everything, I do know quite a bit about the sedevacantist position though - for example, I know you submit to the papacy - whatever that means - I know this because you've posted as much at least a few times. The dogma decrees it is altogether necessary to be subject to the pope though, not the papacy.
You claim you are the pope's good subject but I ask you what pope are you subject to, the past True popes or Francis who is opposite in his teachings and contradicts past popes.
You say you are subject to God first, then submit to God and stop resisting Him, trust that He, God will give us a True Pope in HIS TIME, not your time.
Currently I am subject to Francis who is opposite in his teachings and contradicts past popes - but I am subject to God first. God is the One, after all, who revealed the dogma that it is altogether necessary for every human creature to be subject to the pope.
I mean no insult to you Myrna, but saying "God will give us a True Pope in HIS TIME, not your time" makes no sense for a few reasons; 1) I'm not even the one waiting for a pope, you are. As it is, God saw fit to give us pope Francis, who, as you rightly say, is opposite in his teachings and contradicts past popes, and 2) your saying that I am waiting for a pope reminds me a remark Fr. Feeney made about Jews......“The poor Jews are like expectant travelers waiting in a railroad station for a train which went by 2,000 years ago”, the sedevacantists are waiting for a pope, while a pope has been in office all along, or like the man who looks high and low and cannot find his eye glasses anywhere, as they sit on top of his head.
No, I am not waiting for a pope, I am taking the easiest and surest path possible to guarantee for me that I meet the requirement for salvation of being subject to the pope by always being subject to God first. All things considered, it's really pretty easy.
Nice to know you are happy with things the way they are, sort of put some creditability on the note above to whoever thinks you might be a paid shill or whatever they call them.
The Modernist calling the shots are not waiting for any change either.
-
The big difference is that Francis believes that all religions are saved by that fact alone. The Church believe that all men will have a chance for grace, might it be at their last second of life, I do not know, which is why the Church forbids us to judge their soul.
Myrna, I've been pointing it out to you several times (not just me, other users as well) - you completely confuse two distinct categories here. Yes, we cannot judge fate of individual souls, but we most certainly can know what are the objective conditions for salvation without which nobody can be saved - namely, the sacrament of baptism and explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Nobody can be saved without those - the fact that we cannot judge individual souls does not mean that those who die without baptism and without faith in Christ and Trinity can be saved.
If the Jew or Muslim desire the One Baptism I feel that would have to come from their conversion, don't you? Why else would they desire Baptism?
If they receive the sacrament of Baptism through BoD and believe in Christ and the Trinity they are no longer Jews and Muslims, but Catholics. However, vast majority of sedevacantist priests believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved in their false religions if they are "invincibly ignorant".
Francis on the other hand, does not believe a conversion is necessary, and you know that from his many words.
Sedevacantist priests also believe in salvation of infidels without conversion. Just one example out of many:
"The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error." (Bishop Donald Sanborn)
If you believe we have a True Pope, so be it, I only wish you would tell me who it is?
I believe that the Chair of Peter is probably vacant, but I can't prove it with certainty.
-
I believe that the Chair of Peter is probably vacant, but I can't prove it with certainty.
Can't we all agree with this statement and move on? The emphasis put on sedevacantism is overblown to the nth degree. When history books look back on this period, many will surely be surprised at the confusion on this topic because, at the end of the day, who is or isn't pope changes NOTHING about what I (or you, or anyone else) has to do to save our soul. The whole controversy is over a theological theory! Oh, how the devil must be laughing.
-
I believe that the Chair of Peter is probably vacant, but I can't prove it with certainty.
Can't we all agree with this statement and move on? The emphasis put on sedevacantism is overblown to the nth degree. When history books look back on this period, many will surely be surprised at the confusion on this topic because, at the end of the day, who is or isn't pope changes NOTHING about what I (or you, or anyone else) has to do to save our soul. The whole controversy is over a theological theory! Oh, how the devil must be laughing.
The only time I bring it up is when someone here mocks sedevacantism.
Also I don't believe all are saved as Francis pretends, I think it strange that it is MISTAKENLY brought up that to be sede is similar to what Francis believes by his denial of EENS, and at the same time those who attest that Francis is a Pope with certainty ignore their popes denial of EENS as trifle.
My belief is this: Matthew 7:14
How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!
Yet, no one can say that a particular soul is in hell with certainty, no matter, only God can judge who died in the state of Sanctifying grace.
-
Also I don't believe all are saved as Francis pretends, I think it strange that it is MISTAKENLY brought up that to be sede is similar to what Francis believes by his denial of EENS, and at the same time those who attest that Francis is a Pope with certainty ignore their popes denial of EENS as trifle.
The theological positions of sedevacantist priests on EENS (namely, that all kinds of infidels can be saved without conversion if they are invincibly ignorant) taken to their logical conclusion mean that there is no substantial error in V2's and Bergoglio's soteriology - even if sede priests don't realize it.
Dimonds, many faults they have, nailed it perfectly:
"This heretical teaching that non-Catholics can be united to the Church and be saved without the Catholic Faith was actually the key to the Great Apostasy. Once this heresy was imbibed, Vatican II and the post-Vatican II Church could then justify almost anything because “we cannot say that all of them are lost.” All of Vatican II’s heresies on ecuмenism, religious liberty, etc. are directly connected to what Sanborn and priests like him believe. In fact, if you were to ask a Novus Ordo priest about the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of the Catholic Faith, you would receive an answer very similar to Donald Sanborn’s answer above [this is reference to +Sanborn's quote which I cited in my previous post]. The Novus Ordo priest would tell you about invincible ignorance, the soul of the Church, etc."
-
I read what you posted. My point when I made my initial post was not to start an argument about Baptism of Desire, which I do believe in by the way, but only to say that if you believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved by Baptism of Desire, you should not condemn Pope Francis for believing that Jews and Muslims can be saved because you also believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved.
That is the biggest contradiction in the positions of most of the sedevacantists. They condemn V2 and V2 claimants to the papacy mainly for heresies regarding ecclesiology and soteriology, yet they believe essentially the same thing (that Jews and Muslims can be saved through BoD or that belief in one God who rewards good and punishes evil might be sufficient for salvation). And by the way, no Magisterial docuмent ever taught that BoD applies to unconverted Jews or Muslims or that they can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. But that discussion should go to BoD/Feeneyism subforum.
It's really not going to make any difference to start challenging individual things in the previously posted summary of what Francis has been saying. Go back and look at the summary again. If even ONE thing in the list is heresy (which everyone reading this knows is the case), then the result is SEDEVACANTISM according to the ordinary magisterium. End of story.
Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.
-
Stubborn,
If we look on the home page of Francisquotes.com, we can find a list of quotes with direct links to the Vatican websites showing Francis doing the following:
Promoting Atheism
Doubting the Blessed Trinity
Condemning capital punishment when the Church has approved of it
Approving of cohabitation/concubinage
Speaking positively of communism
Approving of contraception
Condemning conversion/proselytizing
Approving of ecuмenism
Approving of pagans worshiping their false gods
Saying that those in the Islam false religion will be saved
Saying that those in the Jєωιѕн religion will be saved
Questioning the omnipotence of God
Approving of prayer in common when the Church has repeatedly condemned it
Commemorating the Protestant Reformation
Denying that sins are forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession
Saying that the majority of sacramental marriages are null
Approving of same-sex marriage
Approving of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
Approving of sex education
Approving of ѕυιcιdє
Even an uneducated child before the age of reason could tell you some of these are wrong because they are contrary to even the Natural Law. You are defending SIN - Don't even bother saying that defending sin is "fulfilling a requirement for your salvation".
Keep in mind that the Church teaches there are 9 ways in partaking in another's sin:
By Counsel
By Command
By Consent
By Provocation
By Flattery
By Concealment
By Silence
By Participation
By Justification
By giving us your heroic statement that you will be subject to Francis, your partaking in his sins by several of these ways; by consent, by silence, and by justification at a minimum. That's not putting God first, that's putting YOU first. You're not fooling anybody, and just giving us all the more reason to tune you out in these forums.
What this whole post insinuates is really quite ridiculous.
You are like a deer in the headlights on this point. I rest my case.
-
I read what you posted. My point when I made my initial post was not to start an argument about Baptism of Desire, which I do believe in by the way, but only to say that if you believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved by Baptism of Desire, you should not condemn Pope Francis for believing that Jews and Muslims can be saved because you also believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved.
That is the biggest contradiction in the positions of most of the sedevacantists. They condemn V2 and V2 claimants to the papacy mainly for heresies regarding ecclesiology and soteriology, yet they believe essentially the same thing (that Jews and Muslims can be saved through BoD or that belief in one God who rewards good and punishes evil might be sufficient for salvation). And by the way, no Magisterial docuмent ever taught that BoD applies to unconverted Jews or Muslims or that they can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. But that discussion should go to BoD/Feeneyism subforum.
It's really not going to make any difference to start challenging individual things in the previously posted summary of what Francis has been saying. Go back and look at the summary again. If even ONE thing in the list is heresy (which everyone reading this knows is the case), then the result is SEDEVACANTISM according to the ordinary magisterium. End of story.
Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.
I'm not sure why you quote me on this, I did not say anything about sedevacantism per se in that post. Rather, I pointed out inconsistency in the beliefs of majority of sedevacantist priests regarding EENS and V2.
-
I believe that the Chair of Peter is probably vacant, but I can't prove it with certainty.
Can't we all agree with this statement and move on? The emphasis put on sedevacantism is overblown to the nth degree. When history books look back on this period, many will surely be surprised at the confusion on this topic because, at the end of the day, who is or isn't pope changes NOTHING about what I (or you, or anyone else) has to do to save our soul. The whole controversy is over a theological theory! Oh, how the devil must be laughing.
Theological theory???? You are missing the boat. This topic was raised at the First Vatican Council and here is what they had to say:
"The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy."
Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago
By the way you can find this book by searching for any of the text above in Google books. This is not theological theory, this is Church teaching.
-
I read what you posted. My point when I made my initial post was not to start an argument about Baptism of Desire, which I do believe in by the way, but only to say that if you believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved by Baptism of Desire, you should not condemn Pope Francis for believing that Jews and Muslims can be saved because you also believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved.
That is the biggest contradiction in the positions of most of the sedevacantists. They condemn V2 and V2 claimants to the papacy mainly for heresies regarding ecclesiology and soteriology, yet they believe essentially the same thing (that Jews and Muslims can be saved through BoD or that belief in one God who rewards good and punishes evil might be sufficient for salvation). And by the way, no Magisterial docuмent ever taught that BoD applies to unconverted Jews or Muslims or that they can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. But that discussion should go to BoD/Feeneyism subforum.
It's really not going to make any difference to start challenging individual things in the previously posted summary of what Francis has been saying. Go back and look at the summary again. If even ONE thing in the list is heresy (which everyone reading this knows is the case), then the result is SEDEVACANTISM according to the ordinary magisterium. End of story.
Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.
I'm not sure why you quote me on this, I did not say anything about sedevacantism per se in that post. Rather, I pointed out inconsistency in the beliefs of majority of sedevacantist priests regarding EENS and V2.
EENS is completely off-topic for this discussion. It seems like people on this site cannot resist bringing it up for some reason. About 20 examples of outrageous quotes from Pope Francis were summarized earlier in this discussion. The question is, are any of them heresy, or are they all Orthodox Catholic teaching?
-
I believe that the Chair of Peter is probably vacant, but I can't prove it with certainty.
Can't we all agree with this statement and move on? The emphasis put on sedevacantism is overblown to the nth degree. When history books look back on this period, many will surely be surprised at the confusion on this topic because, at the end of the day, who is or isn't pope changes NOTHING about what I (or you, or anyone else) has to do to save our soul. The whole controversy is over a theological theory! Oh, how the devil must be laughing.
Theological theory???? You are missing the boat. This topic was raised at the First Vatican Council and here is what they had to say:
"The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy."
Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago
By the way you can find this book by searching for any of the text above in Google books. This is not theological theory, this is Church teaching.
By the way, all of the anti-sedevacantists who read the above quote from the Vatican I Church Fathers, and the Francis quotes summary above, and couldn't think of anything to say, you are now sedevacantists. Seriously.
-
You are like a deer in the headlights on this point. I rest my case.
Ridiculous. Really, quite ridiculous.
-
Theological theory???? You are missing the boat. This topic was raised at the First Vatican Council and here is what they had to say:
"The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church.
We know this can never happen - a council of bishops cannot judge the pope, not judging includes not even judge him to be a heretic. "The first see is judged by no one".
The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine,
This is the truth and this is apparently precisely the thing that sedevacantists do not comprehend.
and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.
Since God Himself is the only one who can depose the pope, and seeing as how the pope has never been deposed, it serves only to prove the pope has not been deposed at all.
By the way, all of the anti-sedevacantists who read the above quote from the Vatican I Church Fathers, and the Francis quotes summary above, and couldn't think of anything to say, you are now sedevacantists. Seriously.
Ridiculous.
-
Theological theory???? You are missing the boat. This topic was raised at the First Vatican Council and here is what they had to say:
"The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church.
We know this can never happen - a council of bishops cannot judge the pope, not judging includes not even judge him to be a heretic. "The first see is judged by no one".
and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.
Since God Himself is the only one who can depose the pope, and seeing as how the pope has never been deposed, it serves only to prove the pope has not been deposed at all.
Stubborn,
Do you have any idea that you are challenging a quote from the Church fathers of the First Vatican Council here? Truly embarrassing.
As usual the anti-sedevacantists have no answers here. As Bishop Sanborn has said in the past, the anti-sedevacantists know the sedevacantists are right, but they will not admit it because it will inconvenience them too much.... Either they will have to drive longer to get to Mass, or they will run into conflict with family and friends, and they are not willing to go through that suffering, so they remain obstinate. Really sad.
-
We know this can never happen - a council of bishops cannot judge the pope, not judging includes not even judge him to be a heretic. "The first see is judged by no one".
Again, your usual error. A heretic first loses his office due to his heresy and ceases to be member of the Church, and thus the college of bishops can depose him since he is no longer a Pope - thus, the rule that first see is judged by no one is not violated. There is no judging of the Pope involved.
A good article on the possibilities of deposing a heretic from the Chair of Peter:
Conclusion
In light of what the theologians and canonists have taught throughout the centuries, it is clear that the Church does possess a remedy by which she can rid herself of an heretical Pope. Therefore, faced with such an incalculably grave threat, the Church is not forced to wait for the “biological solution” to solve the problem.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope
The teaching that the first see is judged by no one was already taught by Pope Paul IV in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio - yet, after that docuмent St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and many others taught that a heretical Pope can be deposed, which is further evidence that such a possibility does not violate the rule that no one judges first see (unless you want to say that all these Saints and Doctors of the Church were ignorant and could not understand cuм Ex).
Burke should go ahead with formal correction and call an imperfect council to depose Francis (unlikely as it is, it would be the best solution).
-
Burke should go ahead with formal correction and call an imperfect council to depose Francis (unlikely as it is, it would be the best solution).
Even if he wanted to do so, and I don't think he does because I don't think he really believes Bergoglio is a heretic, I doubt he'd be able to gather together more than a handful of cardinals and/or bishops.
-
We know this can never happen - a council of bishops cannot judge the pope, not judging includes not even judge him to be a heretic. "The first see is judged by no one".
Again, your usual error. A heretic first loses his office due to his heresy and ceases to be member of the Church, and thus the college of bishops can depose him since he is no longer a Pope - thus, the rule that first see is judged by no one is not violated. There is no judging of the Pope involved.
A good article on the possibilities of deposing a heretic from the Chair of Peter:
Conclusion
In light of what the theologians and canonists have taught throughout the centuries, it is clear that the Church does possess a remedy by which she can rid herself of an heretical Pope. Therefore, faced with such an incalculably grave threat, the Church is not forced to wait for the “biological solution” to solve the problem.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope
The teaching that the first see is judged by no one was already taught by Pope Paul IV in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio - yet, after that docuмent St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and many others taught that a heretical Pope can be deposed, which is further evidence that such a possibility does not violate the rule that no one judges first see (unless you want to say that all these Saints and Doctors of the Church were ignorant and could not understand cuм Ex).
Burke should go ahead with formal correction and call an imperfect council to depose Francis (unlikely as it is, it would be the best solution).
Yes Burke should at least try, after all, he has all the evidence he needs.
What is he waiting for? What are the bishops waiting for? What are the sedevacantists waiting for - what is God waiting for?
Must be they don't know that St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and many others made it a Church teaching and taught that a heretical Pope can be deposed.
-
The teaching that the first see is judged by no one was already taught by Pope Paul IV in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio - yet, after that docuмent St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and many others taught that a heretical Pope can be deposed, which is further evidence that such a possibility does not violate the rule that no one judges first see (unless you want to say that all these Saints and Doctors of the Church were ignorant and could not understand cuм Ex).
No, I won't say that all these Saints and Doctors of the Church were ignorant and could not understand cuм Ex - if they even knew it existed.
I will say that no matter what they said, Pope Paul IV said it cannot be done. I know I know, you would think that by me saying such a thing that I am a sedevacantist - but nope, you'd be wrong.
-
Must be they don't know that St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and many others made it a Church teaching and taught that a heretical Pope can be deposed.
No need for sarcasm. St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and others taught about a hypothetical situation when a Pope falls into heresy and there is orthodox hierarchy to depose him. None of them could have predicted what we experience today - a massive defection from faith of large part of the hierarchy and almost universal apostasy. Thus, anyone who might try to organize imperfect council will necessarily be in small minority and thus be labeled schismatics and marginalized. As to Burke and conservatives in the Novus Ordo Church, they all accept Vatican II and the New Mass, so they don't see (or admit) full gravity of the crisis and might think that Francis and Amoris Laetitia are just another difficult moment in Church history.
-
I will say that no matter what they said, Pope Paul IV said it cannot be done.
And I tell you that deposition of a heretical Pope does not involve judging a valid Pope. Here is the chronological order:
1. Pope falls into formal heresy (by which he loses membership in the Church and thus is no longer a Pope) - the Chair of Peter is already vacant
2. The Church establishes that he is a formal heretic
3. The Church deposes him (i.e. she deposes a non-Catholic heretic who is not a Pope and not even a member of the Church, thus there is no judging of the first see involved).
-
I will say that no matter what they said, Pope Paul IV said it cannot be done.
And I tell you that deposition of a heretical Pope does not involve judging a valid Pope. Here is the chronological order:
1. Pope falls into formal heresy (by which he loses membership in the Church and thus is no longer a Pope) - the Chair of Peter is already vacant
2. The Church establishes that he is a formal heretic
3. The Church deposes him (i.e. she deposes a non-Catholic heretic who is not a Pope and not even a member of the Church, thus there is no judging of the first see involved).
Well said... At that point a man is being deposed, not a Pope.
-
Must be they don't know that St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and many others made it a Church teaching and taught that a heretical Pope can be deposed.
No need for sarcasm. St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and others taught about a hypothetical situation when a Pope falls into heresy and there is orthodox hierarchy to depose him. None of them could have predicted what we experience today - a massive defection from faith of large part of the hierarchy and almost universal apostasy. Thus, anyone who might try to organize imperfect council will necessarily be in small minority and thus be labeled schismatics and marginalized. As to Burke and conservatives in the Novus Ordo Church, they all accept Vatican II and the New Mass, so they don't see (or admit) full gravity of the crisis and might think that Francis and Amoris Laetitia are just another difficult moment in Church history.
Yes, I completely agree - they taught their opinions about a hypothetical situation. This is known as theological speculation, not Church teaching. The cost of theological speculation is finding lead as well as finding gold. This is not my opinion, this is a fact of the nature of theological speculation.
The pope (Paul IV) said "the pope can be judged by none in this world." This IS Church teaching. After he said it, we know better than to attempt to judge the status of the pope - period. He minced no words, he added no exceptions in his statement, he left no provisos, he meant what he said as absolute as he said it.
As pope, in order to stop all speculation in the matter, he prefaced that teaching by first reminding us of the extent of his authority and who he is, saying; the pope is "the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms..." - It is for this reason that he has no superior on earth - contemplate what this means, because it is for this reason he then says: "...who may judge all and be judged by none in this world".
He then teaches us the only thing anyone can actually do about a pope who is a heretic when he quite explicitly said that, that pope may "be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith". Again, this is a magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. After this, no one is left wondering what to do about a heretical pope, we have been given clear direction by our Holy Mother, all speculations and any confusion about what we are expected to do about a heretical pope is over forever.
All we can say as regards the Fathers who speculated the possibility that a heretical pope could be deposed, is that they were behind the times - Rome had already spoken, the case was closed - "Roma locuta; causa finita est".
And this is why your formula for deposing a pope, popular among sedevacantists and others who are behind the times, falls completely apart before it ever gets started, your first point should read: 1. Pope falls into formal heresy (by which he loses membership in the Church and thus is no longer a Pope) - the Chair of Peter is already vacant.
Per pope Paul IV, your second and third points are therefore invalid, but per the actual magisterial teaching of the Church, the next point must read: 2. Pope to be contradicted by all of his subjects.
THIS is what the Church actually teaches can be done about heretical popes. This is all She teaches about what can be done about heretical popes.
No speculation, no wondering, no confusing procedures to concoct, absolutely nothing complicated about it at all.
-
Must be they don't know that St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and many others made it a Church teaching and taught that a heretical Pope can be deposed.
No need for sarcasm. St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and others taught about a hypothetical situation when a Pope falls into heresy and there is orthodox hierarchy to depose him. None of them could have predicted what we experience today - a massive defection from faith of large part of the hierarchy and almost universal apostasy. Thus, anyone who might try to organize imperfect council will necessarily be in small minority and thus be labeled schismatics and marginalized. As to Burke and conservatives in the Novus Ordo Church, they all accept Vatican II and the New Mass, so they don't see (or admit) full gravity of the crisis and might think that Francis and Amoris Laetitia are just another difficult moment in Church history.
Yes, I completely agree - they taught their opinions about a hypothetical situation. This is known as theological speculation, not Church teaching. The cost of theological speculation is finding lead as well as finding gold. This is not my opinion, this is a fact of the nature of theological speculation.
The pope (Paul IV) said "the pope can be judged by none in this world." This IS Church teaching. After he said it, we know better than to attempt to judge the status of the pope - period. He minced no words, he added no exceptions in his statement, he left no provisos, he meant what he said as absolute as he said it.
As pope, in order to stop all speculation in the matter, he prefaced that teaching by first reminding us of the extent of his authority and who he is, saying; the pope is "the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms..." - It is for this reason that he has no superior on earth - contemplate what this means, because it is for this reason he then says: "...who may judge all and be judged by none in this world".
He then teaches us the only thing anyone can actually do about a pope who is a heretic when he quite explicitly said that, that pope may "be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith". Again, this is a magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. After this, no one is left wondering what to do about a heretical pope, we have been given clear direction by our Holy Mother, all speculations and any confusion about what we are expected to do about a heretical pope is over forever.
All we can say as regards the Fathers who speculated the possibility that a heretical pope could be deposed, is that they were behind the times - Rome had already spoken, the case was closed - "Roma locuta; causa finita est".
And this is why your formula for deposing a pope, popular among sedevacantists and others who are behind the times, falls completely apart before it ever gets started, your first point should read: 1. Pope falls into formal heresy (by which he loses membership in the Church and thus is no longer a Pope) - the Chair of Peter is already vacant.
Per pope Paul IV, your second and third points are therefore invalid, but per the actual magisterial teaching of the Church, the next point must read: 2. Pope to be contradicted by all of his subjects.
THIS is what the Church actually teaches can be done about heretical popes. This is all She teaches about what can be done about heretical popes.
No speculation, no wondering, no confusing procedures to concoct, absolutely nothing complicated about it at all.
Stubborn,
You said that the Church teaching about a hypothetical situation is called "theological speculation", and that "theological speculation is not Church teaching". This same argument can be used against your quoting Pope Paul IV, since he was also writing about a hypothetical situation. Your argument is negated.
Then you again quoted Pope Paul IV in stating that, "the Pope can be judged by none in this world", and trying to come across as the hero, you confirm that this IS Church teaching. Then in the same breath you say that Pope can be contradicted if he has deviated from the faith. Have you not then, judged the Pope? You are arguing in circles!
If you look further down in the SAME docuмent from Pope Paul IV, he confirms that "If the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless". This clearly applies to Pope Francis who openly taught heretically before he was even elected Pope. So the man is not Pope even if we use your own source from Pope Paul IV.
Then you again try to come across as an authority on the subject by saying, "this is a magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church", while you at the same time ignore the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church posted at this link (http://francisquotes.com/church-teaching.html), which consists of magisterial quotes from numerous Popes, Doctors of the Church, and other trusted sources ALL saying a heretical Pope is no longer Pope. You love to boast that you have magisterial teaching behind your arguments, and then you conveniently sweep under the rug the other magisterial arguments against you. You have been blown away in this discussion.
-
saintBosco, your post above is excellent, but it annoys me that I can't give you a thumb up anymore since this system won't allow me to do so.
I hate that we can't continue to give a person the credit they deserve, Matthew should abandon that altogether if that be the case.
-
Yes, I completely agree - they taught their opinions about a hypothetical situation. This is known as theological speculation, not Church teaching.
But the fact that a formal heretic is outside the Church and cannot excercise any authority in the Church is most certainly Church's teaching.
The pope (Paul IV) said "the pope can be judged by none in this world." This IS Church teaching. After he said it, we know better than to attempt to judge the status of the pope - period. He minced no words, he added no exceptions in his statement, he left no provisos, he meant what he said as absolute as he said it.
That is exactly true and exactly irrelevant, since deposition of a heretical Pope does not include judging a valid Pope, but merely removing a non-Catholic heretic who ceased to be the Pope the moment when he fell into formal heresy.
He then teaches us the only thing anyone can actually do about a pope who is a heretic when he quite explicitly said that, that pope may "be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith". Again, this is a magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. After this, no one is left wondering what to do about a heretical pope, we have been given clear direction by our Holy Mother, all speculations and any confusion about what we are expected to do about a heretical pope is over forever.
Again, irrelevant, since deposition of a heretic is not judging a Pope - for a heretic is not a Pope. The Church merely recognizes that a heretic placed himself outside the Church and is no longer a Pope.
All we can say as regards the Fathers who speculated the possibility that a heretical pope could be deposed, is that they were behind the times - Rome had already spoken, the case was closed - "Roma locuta; causa finita est".
They were not behind the times, all these Saints, Doctors and theologians taught after cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, and many theologians hold the same opinion after Vatican I - because deposition of a heretic does not involve judging a valid Pope.
And this is why your formula for deposing a pope, popular among sedevacantists and others who are behind the times, falls completely apart before it ever gets started, your first point should read: 1. Pope falls into formal heresy (by which he loses membership in the Church and thus is no longer a Pope) - the Chair of Peter is already vacant.
No, your argument falls apart completely at the beginning, because you do not recognize that a formal heretic is outside the Church. It is not the Church who removes him from the office, he removes himself from the office through heresy. The Church with her declaration only recognizes this fact.
Per pope Paul IV, your second and third points are therefore invalid, but per the actual magisterial teaching of the Church, the next point must read: 2. Pope to be contradicted by all of his subjects.
Again, a formal heretic is not a Pope, no judging of a Pope is involved in deposition of a heretic.
THIS is what the Church actually teaches can be done about heretical popes. This is all She teaches about what can be done about heretical popes.
No, this is what you quoted is what a Church teaches about a true Pope. A formal heretic is not a Pope, and thus can be deposed.
It is ironic that on this issue you agree with sedevacantist Mario Derksen from Novus Ordo Watch and you are against majority of R&R Traditionalists. Here Salza and Siscoe argue against your position:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantistwatch-novusordowatch.html
-
Stubborn,
You said that the Church teaching about a hypothetical situation is called "theological speculation", and that "theological speculation is not Church teaching". This same argument can be used against your quoting Pope Paul IV, since he was also writing about a hypothetical situation. Your argument is negated.
It is no argument, all I did was quote the explicit teaching of a pope, which is at least odd that sedevacantists, of all people, argue against the teaching of the pope as a rule.
Then you again quoted Pope Paul IV in stating that, "the Pope can be judged by none in this world", and trying to come across as the hero, you confirm that this IS Church teaching. Then in the same breath you say that Pope can be contradicted if he has deviated from the faith. Have you not then, judged the Pope? You are arguing in circles!
You must have failed to notice that in the same breath, it's not me, rather it is *the pope* that says a pope may be contradicted if he has deviated from the faith - in your misdirected zeal to correct me, you are arguing that the pope is "arguing in circles."
If you look further down in the SAME docuмent from Pope Paul IV, he confirms that "If the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless". This clearly applies to Pope Francis who openly taught heretically before he was even elected Pope. So the man is not Pope even if we use your own source from Pope Paul IV.
Yes, that is the only part that the sedevacantists ever zoom in on as they seemingly ignore every other teaching in there. Now, in order to know what our responsibility in the matter actually is, you have to go back to the part where the pope teaches that the only thing we can do about a heretic pope who is no pope, is contradict him. Not depose him. There is no Catholic teaching giving anyone the right to depose a pope, not even Richard Ibranyi - and he has docuмented proof of the heresies of popes and cardinals going back 887 years!
-
Yes, I completely agree - they taught their opinions about a hypothetical situation. This is known as theological speculation, not Church teaching.
But the fact that a formal heretic is outside the Church and cannot excercise any authority in the Church is most certainly Church's teaching.
You do not understand what you are trying to communicate. Because your foundation falls apart before the starting gate, everything is irrelevant, which is to say, the magisterial teaching of the pope is irrelevant.
-
Yes, I completely agree - they taught their opinions about a hypothetical situation. This is known as theological speculation, not Church teaching.
But the fact that a formal heretic is outside the Church and cannot excercise any authority in the Church is most certainly Church's teaching.
You do not understand what you are trying to communicate. Because your foundation falls apart before the starting gate, everything is irrelevant, which is to say, the magisterial teaching of the pope is irrelevant.
I'm not sure what are you trying to say here. Are you denying that a formal heretic is outside the Church? That is most certainly Church's teaching. So, if a Pope becomes a formal heretic, he places himself outside the Church and thus ceases to be Pope. Being a non-Catholic heretic who is outside the Church he has as much authority in the Catholic Church as a Southern Baptist minister. Thus, when the Church deposes him there is no judging of the first see involved - for he no longer occupies the first see. Therefore, all your arguments about not being able to judge a Pope are irrelevant.
-
Yes, I completely agree - they taught their opinions about a hypothetical situation. This is known as theological speculation, not Church teaching.
But the fact that a formal heretic is outside the Church and cannot excercise any authority in the Church is most certainly Church's teaching.
You do not understand what you are trying to communicate. Because your foundation falls apart before the starting gate, everything is irrelevant, which is to say, the magisterial teaching of the pope is irrelevant.
I ran out of time, but for a much better and more complete reply to your whole idea about heretic/outside of Church, read this post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=43372&min=120) from Drew, which I will quote below. He explains it beautifully.
Sedevacantists, besides the errors of making the pope the rule of faith overthrowing Dogma from its proper role, they also draw unnecessary conclusions from good principles.
The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Every mortal sin destroys the life of grace in the soul, that is, it ends the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, makes the soul an enemy of God, destroys all merit of every previous good work, and deprives the soul of the right to eternal life. Every mortal sin formally separates the soul from the friendship of God completely. It is not possible for a soul to be an enemy of God and remain part of the Mystical Body of Christ. He is the dead branch on a living vine where the sap of eternal life, of grace, is lost, completely cut off from life. He remains formally removed from the life of the vine but materially part of the vine. Every mortal sin formally separates the soul from God, but it does not materially separate the soul from membership in God’s Church.
The sin of heresy, like every mortal sin, formally removes a Catholic from the life of grace and friendship with God. But heresy can, but not necessarily, does more. It can also lead to the material separation of the Catholic from membership in the Church. If the mortal sin of heresy is an occult sin in the internal forum, it will formally, but cannot materially, remove the sinner from the Church. If it ipso facto necessarily caused the material removal of an occult heretic from the Church then the Church would not then be visible because no one could ever know who was or who was not a member of the Church. If the sin of heresy is public and contumacious, then it is a different problem. But the important point is that it is not the heresy per se that materially removes from the Church but the fact of the public and contumacious manifestation of the crime. The public and contumacious character of the crime is the efficient cause and not the heresy itself for the material removal of the heretic from the Church. The instrumental cause is the imposition of the ipso facto penalty after due process determination of guilt. The final cause is the glory of God and the protection of the faithful from the scandal of heresy.
In such cases, the Church determines that the sin of public and contumacious heresy is a problem of scandal for faithful Catholics and therefore the Vicar of Christ, the vicar of the “Lord of the harvest,” may determine to materially remove the cockle before the time of the harvest for the sake of the faithful “wheat.” But this is not always or necessarily done. For example, very, very few Modernist heretics were ever materially removed from the Church and then, always after due process even though every Modernists heretic was already formally removed from the Church and cut off from the life of grace. It is important to recognize that ipso facto penalties are only materially imposed by the law itself after due process. It is analogous to mandatory sentences for specific crimes under specific circuмstances. The penalty is imposed by the law itself but only after the determination of guilt after due process. Also, the matter of removing a heretic materially from the Church is a matter of human law and has all the limitation of all human laws, that is, it must be an act of reason, by competent authority, for a good end, promoting the common good, not be overly burdensome, etc. The essential consideration in the determination to material remove a heretic form the Church is the welfare of the faithful “wheat” in the judgment of the Church authority.
Sedevacantists make themselves the “Lord of the harvest.” They begin by making the pope the rule of faith and then they get rid of the “rule” because of his personal heresy. The proof that they hold the pope as the rule of faith is seen in their insistence, just like most conservative Catholics, that Vatican II was “infallible” and the every Catholic must be “obedient” to every disciplinary norm of heretical popes that are clearly harmful to the faith. They, both the conservative Catholics and the Sedevacantists, corrupt the virtue of Religion by inverting the proper hierarchical order making the virtue of Religion subject to the duty of obedience. This is evidence of the absence of Wisdom which not only requires the recognition of all truths but necessarily will see them in their proper hierarchical order.
Every good-willed Catholic when they reach a dead-end in the road will conclude that they must have made a wrong turn and will begin to retrace their steps. Sedevacantists are just pacing back and forth on a dead-end road doing nothing more but insisting that they have faithfully followed the map in every detail. They have no pope for their Church although they recognize that the Church Jesus Christ founded was established on the first pope, St. Peter. Even worse, they have no plans of every getting a pope. They cannot even begin to explain how or when a new pope will be created. The church they belong to is missing an essential attribute of the Catholic Church. It clearly is not the Catholic Church! They insist the pope is the rule of faith and therefore whoever belongs to a Church in which has a heretic pope as the head must necessarily participate in his heresy. This is absurd. It is as if to say that Jesus Christ, by worshiping at the temple in Jerusalem, participated in the heresy of the high priest, Caiaphas, or that the man born blind owed unconditional obedience to the high priest and therefore he should have refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ.
I have not read the book by Siscoe and Salza. If I am repeating what they have already said, I apologize for wasting anyone's time, but I do not think that is the case. Their book is favorably approved by the SSPX and conservative Catholic Indultists alike. That would not be the case if they argued that the principle problem for the great majority of Sedevacantists is the overthrow of Dogma from its proper role as the irreformable "formal object of divine and Catholic faith" replacing the revealed truth of God with the opinions of man.
Drew
-
The post you quoted concedes that formal heresy formally removes one from the Church (it has to, since this is Catholic dogma). Someone who is not formally in the Church cannot excercise any authority in Her. The whole post is consistent with Cassiciacuм Thesis according to which V2 Popes are Popes materially (because they have not been deposed), but not formally (since they are heretics and thus outside the Church). Cassiciacuм Thesis also solves the problem of Apostolic Succession and thus is more probable than straight sedevacantism.
Also, I do not see one iota of argument about the Church allegedly not being able to depose a heretic from the Chair of Peter. If one is formally outside the Church, he no longer has any authority in the Church and can thus be deposed - there is no judging of a valid Pope involved.