The biggest problem with your idea, (not the only one though) is that many (most?) sedes cannot make it to the first "R", much less past it.The problem with R&R is while they say they recognise Francis as Pope, they don't treat him like it. Calling the Masses he gives blasphemous, his canonisations false and/or invalid, and the man himself a heretic. On top of that, they even doubt his ordination! There is no point calling a man Pope if you're going to ignore all the implications of the position. If he is indeed Pope, then you'd be guilty of a slew of mortal sins of disobedience and possibly borderline heresy when it comes to call the NO(which +Lefebvre said one can attend, contrary to the modern R&R position) "unholy" or "blasphemous", as many on here do.
The problem with R&R is while they say they recognise Francis as Pope, they don't treat him like it. Calling the Masses he gives blasphemous, his canonisations false and/or invalid, and the man himself a heretic. There is no point calling a man Pope if you're going to ignore all the implications of the position. If he is indeed Pope, then you'd be guilty of a slew of mortal sins of disobedience and possibly borderline heresy when it comes to call the NO(which +Lefebvre said one can attend, contrary to the modern R&R position) "unholy" or "blasphemous", as many on here do.R&R simply call him what he is. Nothing complicated there. Also, thank you forlorn from proving my point. :laugh1:
R&R simply call him what he is. Nothing complicated there. Also, thank you forlorn from proving my point. :laugh1:
CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.
...
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
I think I see what you're saying, Xavier Sem, but I'm not convinced that the situation is completely black-and-white.Well said Meg.
I think you are correct in that Cekada coined the descriptor of "R&R," and it is indeed a kind of derision, which is why I tend to not use it. The sedevacantists and sedewhatevers use it of course, since they go along with a lot of Cekada's views, and they do not support the Resistance.
I agree too that +ABL did hold out hope that Rome would one day right herself, but.... he was also realistic about the problem of Modernism. After all, he said that Modernism is like a disease, from which one doesn't easily recover (or words to that effect). How many Modernists have repented of their heresy? Very few, I think.
I think that it's mainly the Crisis that's to blame for all of the division in Tradition. But also fallen human nature. We think we can understand all things, and therefore make firm pronouncements on the state of things, but really only God knows all things. And as to why He has allowed the terrible Crisis in the Church to take place, we cannot so much put our ultimate faith in men in order to understand the Crisis, but rather in God. As Bp. Williamson has said, it's not black-and-white.
Are saying that you attend or support the NOM so as not to be anathematized?QuoteCANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.
...
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
Condemned
I do actually think that the OP is more or less accurate describing the initial impetus of the SSPX. But I think we all do well to recognize that Archbishop Lefebvre was constantly re-assessing the situation. His only principle was Catholic Tradition, and over time the maintenance of Tradition was something that, in his opinion, called for different strategies. By the end of his life I think it is fair to say he had very little hope that the problem would be solved by his efforts, so he doubled down with the 1988 consecrations. This is not to say he was not committed to a restoration, only to say that time revealed to him that the conciliar authorities were not interested in it. By the end of his life, he had little hope that any deal would be facilitative of a restoration. What are the reasons to hope that 2019 is different?The enemies in Rome have not given us any reasons to expect even a smidgen of restoration. All they keep doing is proving the opposite. The SSPX authorities are getting themselves sucked into the modernist machine of their own free will - the people who follow them into the machine will have done so also of their own free will, same as all the people who have or will abandon the true faith for the new faith will have done so of their own free will.
Well said Meg.
This Sunday's sermon (SSPX) was about the crisis, +ABL, the pope and hierarchy etc., it was actually surprisingly very good, but what I really liked about it, was that he explained that the people themselves are bear a big chunk of responsibility for this crisis, that all the blame is not on the pope and hierarchy. How true that is, yet how rare is that ever even given a thought by most people in regards to this crisis.
Anyway, that is just another problem to add to the OP's idea.
Are saying that you attend or support the NOM so as not to be anathematized?I agree with +Lefebvre's position that one may attend NOM without sin. My doubts regarding NOM come from my doubts about the Papacy of the man who promulgated it, but if I was to assume that Paul VI was the true Pope then I would never call the NOM blasphemous, unholy, impious etc. as many R&R types on here have, and is condemned by Trent.
Good to have your thoughts on the subject. I agree that the blame for the crisis may not be all on Pope and hierarchy. Could you say more about what the sermon entailed regarding this? It is indeed an interesting problem.Although I liked Fr. Wathen's sermon (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/beware-40324/) better, he did pretty good in reference to Sunday's Gospel, "Beware of false prophets..." and spoke a bit more about: "Now this is the question; Who is guilty? Is it the false prophet or is it those who listen? That is the question."
I agree with +Lefebvre's position that one may attend NOM without sin. My doubts regarding NOM come from my doubts about the Papacy of the man who promulgated it, but if I was to assume that Paul VI was the true Pope then I would never call the NOM blasphemous, unholy, impious etc. as many R&R types on here have, and is condemned by Trent.The SSPX has always, with a few exceptions, held the position that one may attend the NOM if that's their only option. In light of all the bad that attending it has accomplished in such a short period of time, that position is altogether insane for them to even consider much less hold because by now, there should be no question that attending the evil thing, even passively, is a danger to one's soul and one must not put themself in that type of danger for any reason ever. Proof of this is all around us, literally.
At present I just try to ignore the Pope issue as much as possible. Conciliar authorities have declared that attending SSPX masses is not an act of schism and that it counts for one's Sunday obligation, and therefore even if I was completely wrong about V2 and the NO and the NOM turned out to be a perfectly valid and holy Mass, then I'd still be in the clear Mass-wise at least. Whereas if I attended the NO and it turned out the NO was invalid and/or promulgated by an anti-Pope, then I'd have gone my life without the Sacraments, and I'd be in a right mess.
The SSPX has always, with a few exceptions, held the position that one may attend the NOM if that's their only option. In light of all the bad that attending it has accomplished in such a short period of time, that position is altogether insane for them to even consider much less hold because by now, there should be no question that attending the evil thing, even passively, is a danger to one's soul and one must not put themself in that type of danger for any reason ever. Proof of this is all around us, literally.You're calling a Mass of the Church evil. That is in direct contradiction of Trent.
Back in the day, the position among most independent priests was this: Do not attend the NOM for any reason. God will not forsake you and will send you to a priest, or He will send a priest right to your front door so long as you remain faithful to Him. IOW, prove you are going to remain faithful and God will Provide. Going to the NOM for any reason demonstrates a decided lack of faith in God to provide the Mass for you, just as it is He who provides the same Mass for all those who have it.
This is not even an idea to most (not all) of the SSPX priests that I know, it is in fact, something entirely lost on the majority of them far as I know.
You're calling a Mass of the Church evil. That is in direct contradiction of Trent.It is not a Mass of the Church, it is it's ape, called "mass", it is the mass of the conciliar church, not the Catholic Church - and it is evil.
It is not a Mass of the Church, it is it's ape, called "mass", it is the mass of the conciliar church, not the Catholic Church - and it is evil.Is Pope Francis the head of the Catholic Church, the Conciliar Church, or both?
Is Pope Francis the head of the Catholic Church, the Conciliar Church, or both?He's not even a Pope. He's some kind of SJW Marxist who hates Catholicism.
Is Pope Francis the head of the Catholic Church, the Conciliar Church, or both?This really is pointless forlorn because sedes cannot get to the first "R", so I will answer for those who are as confused as I once was myself, and/or those on the fence. The answer is of course, both.
This really is pointless forlorn because sedes cannot get to the first "R", so I will answer for those who are as confused as I once was myself, and/or those on the fence. The answer is of course, both.And so the rite of Novus Ordo was issued for only the "stupid club" and not the Catholic Church, despite the Pope saying it was for the latter? How do you determine this?
Listen for about a minute or two from the 1:13:39 mark to hear Fr. Hesse answer the same question. It is however, best to listen to the whole video to better understand why the answer is both.
https://youtu.be/yFfnTdlrGK4?t=4419
And so the rite of Novus Ordo was issued for only the "stupid club" and not the Catholic Church, despite the Pope saying it was for the latter? How do you determine this?I gave you the answer but like I said, it's best to listen to the whole video to help you better understand how to arrive at that answer. So you determine this by listening to the whole video.
I gave you the answer but like I said, it's best to listen to the whole video to help you better understand how to arrive at that answer. So you determine this by listening to the whole video.No, you didn't answer how the NOM was only promulgated for the new secret club and not the Catholic Church which the Missal said it was promulgated for. This Papal Infallibility spiel is a complete non-sequitur. Just because the Pope is fallible doesn't mean that Stubborn gets to decide which laws and promulgations of his actually apply to the Catholic Church, and which apply to the secret club.
The main reason that many of the Catholic people did not then, and will not now accept the answer, is due to a false understanding of papal infallibility.
People have been misled, mostly by theologians far as I can tell, into believing that a pope speaking as pope cannot teach or fall into heresy, some add to that idea the belief that the pope, even as a private individual cannot fall into heresy. Generally, most (all?) sedes believe this is actually a doctrine of the Church, even an infallible dogma. But per V1, this whole idea is altogether wrong, possibly even heretical. If it is heretical, it is because this false doctrine largely ignores the defined dogma that V1 clearly spelled out, and replaces it with the above false doctrine, resulting in a false understanding of papal infallibility, which for many, results in sedevacantism or NOism.
No, you didn't answer how the NOM was only promulgated for the new secret club and not the Catholic Church which the Missal said it was promulgated for. This Papal Infallibility spiel is a complete non-sequitur. Just because the Pope is fallible doesn't mean that Stubborn gets to decide which laws and promulgations of his actually apply to the Catholic Church, and which apply to the secret club.The enemies infiltrated the Church, they invented a new Rite with a new "mass" and perpetrated it on the people while they suppressed the true Mass. Not sure what you're getting at, unless you don't already know this.
The enemies infiltrated the Church, they invented a new Rite with a new "mass" and perpetrated it on the people while they suppressed the true Mass. Not sure what you're getting at, unless you don't already know this.I see. And what of the new rite of ordination, are NO priests valid priests?
Our Lord cautioned us to beware of the Church's enemies, to not listen to them. That is how not just I, that is how we all must always decide which laws and promulgations actually apply to the Catholic Church - especially when we *know* the enemies have infiltrated the Church.
I see. And what of the new rite of ordination, are NO priests valid priests?Far as I'm concerned, NO ordinations are doubtful, that all the reason needed to entirely avoid them.
Far as I'm concerned, NO ordinations are doubtful, that all the reason needed to entirely avoid them.So then Pope Francis' ordination was therefore doubtful, correct?
So then Pope Francis' ordination was therefore doubtful, correct?I have no idea but as far as my opinion, as far as I'm concerned, his ordination is also doubtful. But if he was ordained validly or not is altogether irrelevant any way, we may not listen to him as long as he preaches heresy, so that really makes no difference to traditional Catholics.
I have no idea but as far as my opinion, as far as I'm concerned, his ordination is also doubtful. But if he was ordained validly or not is altogether irrelevant any way, we may not listen to him as long as he preaches heresy, so that really makes no difference to traditional Catholics.And one must be a priest to be consecrated as bishop, and one must be a bishop to be pope. So if Francis' ordination is doubtful, is his papacy not doubtful?
Like you said, and like most (all?) trads do, I will just continue to ignore whatever the Pope says or preaches. In the unlikely event he says something Catholic, I am quite sure it'll make the news or be broadcasted here on CI, at which time I would listen to what he has to say.
As for me personally, I do my Catholic duty and pray for him daily, that is what we are bound to do whether he is a heretic or not.
The problem with R&R is while they say they recognise Francis as Pope, they don't treat him like it. Calling the Masses he gives blasphemous, his canonisations false and/or invalid, and the man himself a heretic. On top of that, they even doubt his ordination! There is no point calling a man Pope if you're going to ignore all the implications of the position. If he is indeed Pope, then you'd be guilty of a slew of mortal sins of disobedience and possibly borderline heresy when it comes to call the NO(which +Lefebvre said one can attend, contrary to the modern R&R position) "unholy" or "blasphemous", as many on here do.The problem with "R + R" is that its a really broad term. But TBH, if we're talking particularly about the "SSPX Resistance" position, to be honest I agree with you. I've tried to avoid saying too much about it here, both because this is an SSPX Resistance forum to some extent., and also because I'm a new convert, but I agree that that position is not really internally consistent. I think the regular SSPX, and Sedevacnatists each have a more consistent position than the "SSPX Resistance."
And one must be a priest to be consecrated as bishop, and one must be a bishop to be pope. So if Francis' ordination is doubtful, is his papacy not doubtful?Not for me, not since reading Pope St.Pius X's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, wherein it he says: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". Being that even all the conciliar popes, having followed the established legislation in the matter, have been elected by all the cardinals, well, his word is all I need to believe that the pope is the pope. Although I admit that sometimes the conciliar popes test my faith, but that's just part of keeping the faith. In order to strengthen it, God loves to test our faith all the time.
Not for me, not since reading Pope St.Pius X's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, wherein it he says: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world".Stubborn, believe it or not, I actually agree with you on this part!
The problem with "R + R" is that its a really broad term. But TBH, if we're talking particularly about the "SSPX Resistance" position, to be honest I agree with you. I've tried to avoid saying too much about it here, both because this is an SSPX Resistance forum to some extent., and also because I'm a new convert, but I agree that that position is not really internally consistent. I think the regular SSPX, and Sedevacnatists each have a more consistent position than the "SSPX Resistance."R&R certainly is a broad label, but it suffices. Remember that in their effort to justify their position, the sedes often quote +ABL, same as they quote numerous of the popes, saints and Fathers, none of whom were sede btw. Now consider what the force of such quotes would be were they to quote sede popes, or sede saints, or sede Fathers, now *that* would be something. But there are no such authorities to quote.
But that's the question. Is "R + R" just +Williamson's "have nothing to do with Rome at all?" Or does it also entail +Lefebvre? Does it include +Fellay? Does it include FSSP types who do believe in hermeneutic of continuity at some level, but yet disagree with the way the modern hierarchy interprets and applies the council? Does it even include John Paul II type Catholics who don't like Francis? What exactly is resisting? Recognizing has a fairly obvious definition, but resisting doesn't.
Stubborn, believe it or not, I actually agree with you on this part!Well I'd say that deserves an upthumb. :laugh1:
Not for me, not since reading Pope St.Pius X's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, wherein it he says: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". Being that even all the conciliar popes, having followed the established legislation in the matter, have been elected by all the cardinals, well, his word is all I need to believe that the pope is the pope. Although I admit that sometimes the conciliar popes test my faith, but that's just part of keeping the faith. In order to strengthen it, God loves to test our faith all the time.But then, why does canon law list impediments that can prevent an election from being valid, if any election is automatically valid just by the fact that it happened? Why is it a requirement that a candidate be consecrated bishop at all if his election automatically makes him the true pope even if he is not one? By your logic, that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedes means that the fact that an election occurred means it must be valid, even an election where the cardinals were held at sword point and forced to vote for someone, even if that someone was a Muslim or some other nonsense, would be wholly valid and the man elected the true pope. Of course, that cannot be.
But then, why does canon law list impediments that can prevent an election from being valid, if any election is automatically valid just by the fact that it happened? Why is it a requirement that a candidate be consecrated bishop at all if his election automatically makes him the true pope even if he is not one? By your logic, that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedes means that the fact that an election occurred means it must be valid, even an election where the cardinals were held at sword point and forced to vote for someone, even if that someone was a Muslim or some other nonsense, would be wholly valid and the man elected the true pope. Of course, that cannot be.This point is critical for me given the Pope is "The BISHOP of Rome". If the man was never subsequently consecrated a bishop, was he pope? Or is there where we get the idea of a "pope-elect"?
Vacantis Apostolicae Sedes is actually only referring to elections that are valid, so it doesn't answer the question of if an election was valid at all. The constitution addresses beliefs at the time that a validly elected pope only became the pope and was granted his jurisdiction upon his coronation, rather than his election. It doesn't mean that every election, no matter how many impediments, is automatically valid.
But then, why does canon law list impediments that can prevent an election from being valid, if any election is automatically valid just by the fact that it happened? Why is it a requirement that a candidate be consecrated bishop at all if his election automatically makes him the true pope even if he is not one? By your logic, that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedes means that the fact that an election occurred means it must be valid, even an election where the cardinals were held at sword point and forced to vote for someone, even if that someone was a Muslim or some other nonsense, would be wholly valid and the man elected the true pope. Of course, that cannot be.But per the words I noted from V.A.C., we are assured of no impediments to the election. *That's* the whole purpose of the legislation, it has no other purpose than to lay down the law of papal elections. We do not have to worry about impediments, thanks to that legislation.
Vacantis Apostolicae Sedes is actually only referring to elections that are valid, so it doesn't answer the question of if an election was valid at all. The constitution addresses beliefs at the time that a validly elected pope only became the pope and was granted his jurisdiction upon his coronation, rather than his election. It doesn't mean that every election, no matter how many impediments, is automatically valid.
But per the words I noted from V.A.C., we are assured of no impediments to the election. *That's* the whole purpose of the legislation, it has no other purpose than to lay down the law of papal elections. We do not have to worry about impediments, thanks to that legislation.We know that V.A.S can only be referring to valid elections, because otherwise it would also refer to the elections of anti-popes, etc. Many anti-popes were elected by real cardinals, and every part of their election was done properly and they were eligible as candidates, except only for the fact that there was already a pope. So clearly just the fact that you were elected by the college of cardinals does not instantly make you pope, it only does so if the election was valid to begin with.
Otherwise we would "why is" and "what if" forever, as would have all Catholics for the last 2k years for that matter, all the while, the whole Catholic world for the last 2k years would be never knowing who the pope is. Thankfully, we have no need whatsoever of ever concerning ourselves with any of that.
We know that V.A.S can only be referring to valid elections, because otherwise it would also refer to the elections of anti-popes, etc. Many anti-popes were elected by real cardinals, and every part of their election was done properly and they were eligible as candidates, except only for the fact that there was already a pope. So clearly just the fact that you were elected by the college of cardinals does not instantly make you pope, it only does so if the election was valid to begin with.Agreed, yet the process in place is what we have to go by, it's all we have to go by. For me, I have absolutely no reason or interest in "What iffing" it. We already know that pretty much the entire hierarchy has corrupted themselves, so if on that account if they broke the law and elected a pope who was impeded from being elected, then the result is that the pope is the pope albeit illicitly and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Since there is nothing that can be done about it, there is no sense being concerned about something no one can do anything about - right?
Why are you reposting this nonsense now? It was ripped to shreds the last time you posted it.It was only ripped to shreds in the mind of the dogmatic doubter, how could he think other?
In a previous discussion about V.A.S., Stubborn was so committed to his stupid understanding of the law that he refused to agree that the person elected pope has to be a living man, since the law did not explicitly make this condition.Do tell. I know I can be pretty stupid oh great one, but I don't recall that moment of stupidity. Good thing you do.
I have no interest in arguing with another dogmatic sede. That "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world" remains true, your self acclaimed genius in the matter will never prove otherwise.But there are many criteria for an election to, well, actually be an election. We can all agree that when a certain group of laity "elected" "Pope" Michael, that wasn't actually a real election. There are many requirements for an election to be valid, and trying to wave them away using V.A.S is a complete misunderstanding and misapplication of the constitution. If every purported election was a real election, then by V.A.S all anti-popes would be true popes. But we can agree that's nonsense. We know that the election of anti-Pope Michael wasn't a real election, just as we know the election of anti-Pope Clement VII wasn't, and so we don't have to accept him as pope according to V.A.S. The sede proposition is that the election of Francis et al. were similarly not real elections, due to the various impediments they are supposed to suffer from - for example, Francis' doubtful ordination, as well as modernist heresies and possible masonic membership.
I have no interest in arguing with another dogmatic sede. That "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world" remains true, your self acclaimed genius in the matter will never prove otherwise.Ah, the "dogmatic sede" card.... :jester:
Ah, the "dogmatic sede" card.... :jester:There's just no talking to'em.
But there are many criteria for an election to, well, actually be an election. We can all agree that when a certain group of laity "elected" "Pope" Michael, that wasn't actually a real election. There are many requirements for an election to be valid, and trying to wave them away using V.A.S is a complete misunderstanding and misapplication of the constitution. If every purported election was a real election, then by V.A.S all anti-popes would be true popes. But we can agree that's nonsense. We know that the election of anti-Pope Michael wasn't a real election, just as we know the election of anti-Pope Clement VII wasn't, and so we don't have to accept him as pope according to V.A.S.Yes, I do not concern myself the the popes' status *because it does not matter*, I have to save my soul regardless of the popes' status. I will not be judged on whether or not I guessed his status correctly. I will be judged on everything I ever did, and also on everything I should have done but did not do. Guessing the popes' status does not fall into either category, thankfully.
The sede proposition is that the election of Francis et al. were similarly not real elections, due to the various impediments they are supposed to suffer from - for example, Francis' doubtful ordination, as well as modernist heresies and possible masonic membership.
CondemnedI disagree with the logic here TBH. Trent is addressing Protestants here. Protestants said the outward vestments, icons, etc. were distracting to true heart worship, and also said that the Sacrifice of the Mass *itself* is idolatrous. This isn't addressing a Novus Ordo type situation at all. And I'm not particularly married to a particular position on it.
I have no idea but as far as my opinion, as far as I'm concerned, his ordination is also doubtful. But if he was ordained validly or not is altogether irrelevant any way, we may not listen to him as long as he preaches heresy, so that really makes no difference to traditional Catholics.Wait.... hold on....
Like you said, and like most (all?) trads do, I will just continue to ignore whatever the Pope says or preaches. In the unlikely event he says something Catholic, I am quite sure it'll make the news or be broadcasted here on CI, at which time I would listen to what he has to say.
As for me personally, I do my Catholic duty and pray for him daily, that is what we are bound to do whether he is a heretic or not.
Wait.... hold on....You misunderstood. I did not say he might not be validly ordained, rather I stressed it is only *my opinion* in the matter that like all NO ordinations, his ordination was doubtful, that is not the Church's opinion. To me it is doubtful, but in order to remove that doubt, he does not have to prove his validity, rather it is those of us with doubt that must prove his invalidity, which, far as I'm concerned, is an impossibility.
Francis might not be a validly ordained priest. But he's *definitely* the Pope?
I'm often irritated by the ultramontanism of sedes. But this is literally illogical.
I read the rest of the thread. I don't see how the citations from Pius X fixes anything. The Bishop of Rome does in fact have to be, you know, a bishop.
You misunderstood. I did not say he might not be validly ordained, rather I stressed it is only *my opinion* in the matter that like all NO ordinations, his ordination was doubtful, that is not the Church's opinion. To me it is doubtful, but in order to remove that doubt, he does not have to prove his validity, rather it is those of us with doubt that must prove his invalidity, which, far as I'm concerned, is an impossibility.Yeah, I think that IF he were not really a priest or bishop, and IF he were nevertheless validly elected, Sedeprivationism would seem to follow. I don't, at the moment, share the doubt regarding NO ordinations (I at least as much as I can understand found Salza and Siscoe convincing on the matter) but if I did, I'd also have comparable doubt that he's really the Pope, for the same reason. I do want to note, however, that there's a difference between "We're not SURE that he's the Pope, but we assume and act as though he is until the Church tells him otherwise" and "he's DEFINITELY the Pope." I think the latter demands that he's DEFINITELY a bishop as well.
I referenced Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis because that is the legislation, the law, the rules of papal election that the conclave of cardinals are bound to adhere to. The pope did all the necessary leg work to ensure that this law produces a genuine, valid pope, otherwise he would have wasted his time and should have gone fishing instead.
Although the conclave of cardinals can elect anyone, we can be pretty sure that one of the cardinals in that conclave is going to be elected the next pope.
In VAC it says this: "No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances."
So we can see it is possible that even if one or more of the cardinals was under some ecclesiastical impediment, even if he were excommunicated he could still be elected pope. Taking the sede theory to it's logical end, all the cardinals are excommunicated ipso facto anyway, yet per VAC, could be elected the next pope, so why worry about an ecclesiastical impediment of a doubtful ordination that is only my opinion?
Wait.... hold on.....
Francis might not be a validly ordained priest. But he's *definitely* the Pope?
I'm often irritated by the ultramontanism of sedes. But this is literally illogical.
I read the rest of the thread. I don't see how the citations from Pius X fixes anything. The Bishop of Rome does in fact have to be, you know, a bishop.
.I'll admit, maybe this is just personal bias talking . But I have a hard time believing the official hierarchy could err *that* badly. Mind, I'm like majorly not of the ultramontanist opinion that basically everything a Pope says has to be taken as gospel. I'm inclined to think the hierarchy at one particular time can err pretty badly. But to err so badly that we don't even know if the priests are priests? I have a hard time buying that one. Like I think that conclusion just makes more sense with the Sedevacantist conclusion that the hierarchy isn't the hierarchy. It would seem *Very* weird to say Paul VI butchered the rites of ordination so horribly that we can't even know if a priest is a priest anymore, but yet he's still a true pope. I don't know, I find that hard to believe. That seems more like a case of the shepherd *actually* poisoning the sheep, whereas some of the other stuff is more along the lines of just... the shepherd making it somewhat harder for the sheep to save their souls, if that makes sense.
There have been popes who were not bishops before-- Piccolomini, for instance, was only a Cardinal-deacon and died before he could be consecrated. Laws governing elections indicate that consecration must be secured within a certain amount of time after the election, but the man elected receives the fullness of the office of the papacy even before then. If he refuses to be consecrated that is a different matter of course, in which case I believe he is regarded as having resigned.
.
In the case of Bergoglio, I think his orders are mostly a red-herring and insignificant to the question of his papacy (not saying its absolutely insignificant because it isn't, only saying that arguments against his validity should more or less ignore his orders). The reason is that he obviously thinks he is a bishop, so we are dealing with an error in fact rather than an actual refusal to become consecrated.
I'll admit, maybe this is just personal bias talking . But I have a hard time believing the official hierarchy could err *that* badly. Mind, I'm like majorly not of the ultramontanist opinion that basically everything a Pope says has to be taken as gospel. I'm inclined to think the hierarchy at one particular time can err pretty badly. But to err so badly that we don't even know if the priests are priests? I have a hard time buying that one. Like I think that conclusion just makes more sense with the Sedevacantist conclusion that the hierarchy isn't the hierarchy. It would seem *Very* weird to say Paul VI butchered the rites of ordination so horribly that we can't even know if a priest is a priest anymore, but yet he's still a true pope. I don't know, I find that hard to believe. That seems more like a case of the shepherd *actually* poisoning the sheep, whereas some of the other stuff is more along the lines of just... the shepherd making it somewhat harder for the sheep to save their souls, if that makes sense..
I'll admit, maybe this is just personal bias talking . But I have a hard time believing the official hierarchy could err *that* badly. Mind, I'm like majorly not of the ultramontanist opinion that basically everything a Pope says has to be taken as gospel. I'm inclined to think the hierarchy at one particular time can err pretty badly. But to err so badly that we don't even know if the priests are priests? I have a hard time buying that one. Like I think that conclusion just makes more sense with the Sedevacantist conclusion that the hierarchy isn't the hierarchy. It would seem *Very* weird to say Paul VI butchered the rites of ordination so horribly that we can't even know if a priest is a priest anymore, but yet he's still a true pope. I don't know, I find that hard to believe. That seems more like a case of the shepherd *actually* poisoning the sheep, whereas some of the other stuff is more along the lines of just... the shepherd making it somewhat harder for the sheep to save their souls, if that makes sense.One thing you are not taking into account here, is that the people eat and drink the poison willingly, many even eagerly - and have done so since the revolution began. Without that ingredient, the revolution would have ended quicker than it began. Even now, if all the NOers renounced the NO and went wholly trad tomorrow, the conciliar church would self destruct.
.Well yes, we all believe there were masonic saboteurs in the Church who were the big pushers for Vatican 2 and especially the "spirit of Vatican 2". But the difference is, if you suppose that Paul VI was pope, then that means it was the pope who sabotaged the Church. I also find it hard to believe that the hierarchy could effectively destroy itself by promulgating and putting into use an invalid rite of ordination.
Well, in the sedevacantist-- and even just the broadly traditionalist-- account, it is not so much a matter of butchering the way that Bill Buckner let Mookie Wilson's grounder go through his legs. We're talking about a positively intended sabotage initiative, not a mistake-- not even a grave mistake. We're not talking about a simple lack of foresight, introspection, or failure to think critically. We're talking about a conspiracy to destroy the Church.
.
Do note that concerns about orders and the like originated with hierarchical figures, like Archbishop Lefebvre. It isn't something that unqualified laity just dreamed up.
Well yes, we all believe there were masonic saboteurs in the Church who were the big pushers for Vatican 2 and especially the "spirit of Vatican 2". But the difference is, if you suppose that Paul VI was pope, then that means it was the pope who sabotaged the Church. I also find it hard to believe that the hierarchy could effectively destroy itself by promulgating and putting into use an invalid rite of ordination..
Quote from: Stubborn (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=52893.msg661166#msg661166)Dear Stubborn, I understand what you mean, but that's not a problem, it's only a challenge. Obviously, no sede will agree with "R" and remain sedevacantist. The point is there are 3 positions, so we don't need a false dichotomy of 2. There is (1) SVism, (2) R&Rism, and (3) RPWR. Also, I think it can be fairly proved that RPWR derives directly from Archbishop Lefebvre, and not indirectly from Fr. Cekada.
The biggest problem with your idea, (not the only one though) is that many (most?) sedes cannot make it to the first "R", much less past it.
I think you are correct in that Cekada coined the descriptor of "R&R," and it is indeed a kind of derision, which is why I tend to not use it. The sedevacantists and sedewhatevers use it of course, since they go along with a lot of Cekada's views, and they do not support the Resistance.Yes, and so we who are non sede Traditionalists should consider steering clear of sede-invented terms coined for us by Fr. C.
It’s also not that we can take +ABL’s position from one quoteYou can read all his letters and writings throughout the years, and I doubt you'd hardly find a more convenient acronym for +ABL's work. Do read https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/index.htm (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/index.htm) and let us know if it is otherwise.
Dear Stubborn, I understand what you mean, but that's not a problem, it's only a challenge. Obviously, no sede will agree with "R" and remain sedevacantist. The point is there are 3 positions, so we don't need a false dichotomy of 2. There is (1) SVism, (2) R&Rism, and (3) RPWR. Also, I think it can be fairly proved that RPWR derives directly from Archbishop Lefebvre, and not indirectly from Fr. Cekada.I disagree for the simple reason that what you are suggesting doesn't really do anything to change their mind. I mean, how do you change a firm belief? Aside from their firm belief that we owe the pope blind obedience in all things, the sedes' core, unchanging belief, is foundationed upon a false premise of papal infallibility. That false premise is their foundation, their lex orandi lex credendi, their "immovable rock" if you will.
If there were no other reason to reject the acronym "R&R" going forward, the fact that Fr. Cekada, a sede, coined it, should suffice imo.
As for how to bring Sedes to admit "the first R", which is a challenge for both of those who hold 2 or 3, many possible ways were suggested in the OP. The simplest is from the Pope's appointment of Bishops to dioceses. If there is no Pope for 61 years, all dioceses will fall vacant. But that is heretical. Therefore, 61 year SVism is heretical, and it is necessary to recognize these Popes are True Popes.
All sedes won't immediately agree, but this refutation of their error is quite sound and can be easily defended.
.
Well to be honest I don't think that one who is sure Paul VI is pope has any room to positively doubt the validity of the sacramental formulas he approved. While it nevertheless is the habit of non-sedevacantists to do this, or at least those non-sede trads more in keeping with Archbishop Lefebvre's views of the issues, I don't think there is any logical ground for that view to be maintained. Such matters are boilerplate examples of items protected by the Church's infallibility.
.
The hierarchy is a bit more difficult to explain, but it is by no means inexplicable. Forget about the sacramental formulas and rituals for a second and just look at the doctrine. Is it any more credible to believe that the hierarchy could in such a scope commit to indifferentism, false religious liberty, etc.? These are expressly condemned in seminal papal teachings like the Syllabus of Errors. Point being, I do not think the pill gets any easier to swallow from a non-sede perspective.
Not for me, not since reading Pope St.Pius X's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, wherein it he says: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". Being that even all the conciliar popes, having followed the established legislation in the matter, have been elected by all the cardinals, well, his word is all I need to believe that the pope is the pope. Although I admit that sometimes the conciliar popes test my faith, but that's just part of keeping the faith. In order to strengthen it, God loves to test our faith all the time.Because of his pre-conclave Team Bergoglio lobbying (and his heresies), Jorge was canonically unqualified, hence the putative "election" was invalid. He was not elected. Q.E.D.
I disagree with the logic here TBH. Trent is addressing Protestants here. Protestants said the outward vestments, icons, etc. were distracting to true heart worship, and also said that the Sacrifice of the Mass *itself* is idolatrous. This isn't addressing a Novus Ordo type situation at all. And I'm not particularly married to a particular position on it.The "Novus Ordo type situation" is Protestant and Pharisaical.
You misunderstood. I did not say he might not be validly ordained, rather I stressed it is only *my opinion* in the matter that like all NO ordinations, his ordination was doubtful, that is not the Church's opinion. To me it is doubtful, but in order to remove that doubt, he does not have to prove his validity, rather it is those of us with doubt that must prove his invalidity, which, far as I'm concerned, is an impossibility.EXCEPT—THE N.O. changed the "rules."
I referenced Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis because that is the legislation, the law, the rules of papal election that the conclave of cardinals are bound to adhere to. The pope did all the necessary leg work to ensure that this law produces a genuine, valid pope, otherwise he would have wasted his time and should have gone fishing instead.
Although the conclave of cardinals can elect anyone, we can be pretty sure that one of the cardinals in that conclave is going to be elected the next pope.
In VAC it says this: "No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances."
So we can see it is possible that even if one or more of the cardinals was under some ecclesiastical impediment, even if he were excommunicated he could still be elected pope. Taking the sede theory to it's logical end, all the cardinals are excommunicated ipso facto anyway, yet per VAC, could be elected the next pope, so why worry about an ecclesiastical impediment of a doubtful ordination that is only my opinion?
Because of his pre-conclave Team Bergoglio lobbying (and his heresies), Jorge was canonically unqualified, hence the putative "election" was invalid. He was not elected. Q.E.D.Hmm, so you're saying then that this is something that Pope St. Pius X never considered when he said that. I disagree with you.
http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html#teambergoglio (http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html#teambergoglio)
EXCEPT—THE N.O. changed the "rules."I too disagree with the new rules, yet the pre-V2 popes allowed for heretical cardinals in the conclave, which means that their vote counts, and it also means that if one of the heretic cardinals should have been elected pope, that "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". That's pope St. Pius X's legislation, which makes your verdict of pope Francis being "canonically unqualified", absolutely null and utterly void.
"No Cardinal can in any way be excluded…" contrasted with "unless the Cardinal is over 80 years old."
Hmm, so you're saying then that this is something that Pope St. Pius X never considered when he said that. I disagree with you.So… you agree with "the rules" when it suits you and disagree with "the rules" when it suits you.
I too disagree with the new rules, yet the pre-V2 popes allowed for heretical cardinals in the conclave, which means that their vote counts, and it also means that if one of the heretic cardinals should have been elected pope, that "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". That's pope St. Pius X's legislation, which makes your verdict of pope Francis being "canonically unqualified", absolutely null and utterly void.
Hmm, so you're saying then that this is something that Pope St. Pius X never considered when he said that. I disagree with you.Are you saying that if a known heretic is elected Pope that somehow, magically or mystically, he will receive an resistible grace that will prevent him from doing any harm to the Church?
... if one of the heretic cardinals should have been elected pope, that "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". That's pope St. Pius X's legislation, which makes your verdict of pope Francis being "canonically unqualified", absolutely null and utterly void.
So… you agree with "the rules" when it suits you and disagree with "the rules" when it suits you.Be specific.
How familiar—the consistent inconsistency that we sedes recognize in your faction and resist.
:laugh2:
All sedes won't immediately agree, but this refutation of their error is quite sound and can be easily defended.
Yes, and so we who are non sede Traditionalists should consider steering clear of sede-invented terms coined for us by Fr. C.
But more basically, we should be asking ourselves, beside Recognizing the Pope, what are our main obligations. I think (1) Prayer, (2) Work, while aiming for (3) Restoration summarizes it quite reasonably well; it's also lifted from a para in +ABL, and moreover, we could reasonably say, His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre dedicated his whole life to Prayer, Work and Restoration.
Nevertheless, if someone - who is a non-sede Traditionalist himself or herself - has a better acronym, I'm all ears.
You can read all his letters and writings throughout the years, and I doubt you'd hardly find a more convenient acronym for +ABL's work. Do read https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/index.htm (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/index.htm) and let us know if it is otherwise.
I've read it and I believe "RPWR" summarizes Archbishop Lefebvre's teaching and thought much better than Cekada-coined "R&R".
Are you saying that if a known heretic is elected Pope that somehow, magically or mystically, he will receive an resistible grace that will prevent him from doing any harm to the Church?Of course I am not saying that, I posted the legislation given by Pope St. Pius X and XII - his law, not mine. And yes, God told us to beware of false prophets, it is my opinion that in this crisis, "false prophets" are those who spread scandal and teach error = popes and hierarchies.
Yet, didn't Christ and His Apostles warn us to be wary of wolves who could mislead the faithful. Aren't these heretics wolves? And if so, should not they be deposed?
Yes, Pope Francis should be deposed and even imprisoned. This heretic, Francis, has done tremendous harm to the Catholic Church.
Be specific. …
Specifically…If you do not believe pope St. Pius X had that authority but you do, then let's just end this discussion here.
If you believe Pope St. Pius X had the authority to make the rules for the conclave and if you believe that "St." Wojtyla the Second Worst was Pope, consistency demands that you believe Wojtyla had the authority to the change the rules for the conclave. Those changed rules disqualified Jorge.
I believe all Popes have the God-given authority to teach, sanctify, and govern.I'm pretty sure that all, or nearly all the popes for a hundred years before V2, all enacted their own laws as regards papal elections after they die, none of the conciliar popes changed Pope St. Pius X's rules as regards heretics in the conclave, here is what JP2 legislated (https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html):
Anti-Popes, not at all.
If you believe Wojtyla was Pope, he certainly had the God-given authority to change Pope St. Pius X's conclave rules.
Hence, your "Pope" Wojtyla's rules disqualified Jorge from being elected.
It's always made me chuckle how "R&R" has been internalized by non-sede traditionalists. It's a problem term not just because it doesn't actually describe what the SSPX, at its best, "is all about" but also because it's so vague that it applies to any position that obliquely criticizes something about Vatican II. For instance, Taylor Marshall-- who is boilerplate FSSP in his approach to the crisis-- described Michael Matt as an emblem of R&R. And that's just hilarious. Someone like Matt and the Remnant crowd might indeed recognize, but they resist nothing. If a given traditionalist position includes only behaving within the boundaries set by conciliar authorities, how on earth does that constitute resistance? Maybe it constitutes some internal preference, perhaps even an internal principle, but if when push comes to shove they won't even set foot in an SSPX chapel, it's obvious nothing is being resisted.Well, we have POPE FRANCIS now! The Crisis is obviously over now! (in case you couldn't tell, I'm being ridiculously sarcastic)
.
For the SSPX-types, the problem is with the other "R"(ecognize), quite obviously. Recognize what? That Bergoglio (or Ratzinger or whomever) are popes, or recognize that they promote heresy? There's a chasm between recognizing in practice and recognizing in theory. This has been said a million times by a million people, but if you don't use the same liturgy, sacraments, calendar, laws, teaching materials, etc. the pope has given you-- and in this case you positively reject them as far as you can-- you're really not recognizing anything. Certainly not to the degree that "recognize" should be factored into a description of your position!
.
I do actually think that the OP is more or less accurate describing the initial impetus of the SSPX. But I think we all do well to recognize that Archbishop Lefebvre was constantly re-assessing the situation. His only principle was Catholic Tradition, and over time the maintenance of Tradition was something that, in his opinion, called for different strategies. By the end of his life I think it is fair to say he had very little hope that the problem would be solved by his efforts, so he doubled down with the 1988 consecrations. This is not to say he was not committed to a restoration, only to say that time revealed to him that the conciliar authorities were not interested in it. By the end of his life, he had little hope that any deal would be facilitative of a restoration. What are the reasons to hope that 2019 is different?
I'm pretty sure that all, or nearly all the popes for a hundred years before V2, all enacted their own laws as regards papal elections after they die, none of the conciliar popes changed Pope St. Pius X's rules as regards heretics in the conclave…
The “Team Bergoglio” Scandal • disqualified by lobbying
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/25/team-bergoglio-scandal/ (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/25/team-bergoglio-scandal/)
Rome — Dec. 25, 2014: Since the scandal regarding Team Bergoglio broke, the From Rome blog has assiduously followed the news and studied what the consequences have been. On that account more than 25,000 visitors from more than 120 countries have visited this blog to find the news that was not being summarized or published elsewhere.
“Team Bergoglio” is the name given by Dr. Austen Ivereigh, former spokesman to His Eminence, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, ex-Archbishop of Westminster, England, to the group of Cardinals who campaigned for Cardinal Bergoglio in the 2013 Conclave.
The Scandalous consequences of the revelations of Dr. Ivereigh’s book, can be summed up thus: Dr. Ivereigh has written a book alleging as many as 30 cardinals did that which is apparently a violation of the papal law on conclaves, on which account they would be ipso facto excommunicated, Cardinal Bergoglio included, and the election of the latter by 2013 Conclave be null and void and of no effect. — As of this date, no substantial denial has been made by anyone of the accused, and Dr. Ivereigh has not substantially withdrawn, changed, or altered what he wrote.
To continue to assist Catholics and journalists world-wide who wish to know more about this scandal, we present here a summary and links through which readers can grasp the basic and detailed facts of the case which has arisen.
First, our article, The Chronology of Reports on “Team Bergoglio” (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/the-chronology-of-reports-on-team-bergoglio/), contains the master-list of all the news reports of note and blog posts, videos, audios, tweets, etc. which regard crucial information or analysis of the story: this list is in Chronological order according to the date the information was published or presented.
But since the Chronology has already grown to 8 pages in length, for those wishing to grasp the facts, we suggest the following articles:
QuoteThe Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/the-great-reformer-francis-and-the-making-of-a-radical-pope/), which explains just what Dr. Austen Ivereigh has written in his new book, of the same title, about who did what before and during the Conclave of 2013.QuoteThe Improbity of the denials by “Team Bergoglio” (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/the-improbity-of-team-bergoglios-recent-denials/), which explains just what some of the Cardinals, alleged by Ivereigh to have engaged in vote-canvassing, have and have not denied. An analysis which shows the probability that Cardinal Bergoglio consented to and/or organized the effort.QuoteThe Monstrosity of Allegations against “Team Bergoglio” = Cardinal Bergoglio is not the pope (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-monstrosity-of-the-allegations-against-team-bergoglio-cardinal-bergoglio-is-not-the-pope/), which explains the canonical consequences of the violation of the Papal law on conclaves, which Ivereigh’s text apparently convicts Cardinal Bergoglio of.Quote4 Ways the “Team Bergoglio” revelations undo Francis’ Papacy (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/07/4-ways-the-team-bergoglio-revelations-undo-francis-papacy/), which is an editorial explaining the grave implications for the Church stemming from the scandal, be it true or not.QuoteNo, your Eminence, the Church is not a tyranny! (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/no-your-eminence-the-church-is-not-a-tyranny/), which rebuts the gross indifference of 1 Cardinal of the Roman Church to the scandal and pointedly indicates the grave Crisis into which the Catholic Church has been placed by the undenied allegations.
The other articles which reports facts of lesser interest, though important of themselves, can be found in the Chronology article link above.
Don't try bait-and-switch tricks with me.Lobbying? Well thanks, that's a new angle, a bit refreshing to hear something different for a change!
You asked me to "specify" and so I did specify that Jorge's Team Bergoglio pre-conclave lobbying disqualified his election, rules enacted under Wojtyla.
I specified lobbying, not heresy.
Deal with it.
The other articles which reports facts of lesser interest, though important of themselves, can be found in the Chronology article link above.
You are one arguing against Wojtyla's law. Mind you, I do not believe Wojtyla was a Pope, so I do not believe Wojtyla could bind even a parking ticket, but anyone who claims Wojtyla was a true Pope is bound to his governance (except in the case of sin or heresy). Since there is nothing sinful or dogmatic in Wojtyla's conclave laws, you are bound to his law.I am not arguing against JP2's law because he is using, as I posted, the same law as Pope St. Pius X.
You are dishonest.Yes, it is the same law. Heck, I even POSTED IT FOR YOU (#77).
Wojtyla's law is not "the same law as Pope St. Pius X" and the evidence is not just "one unsubstantiated doctor."
As I have repeatedly posted, Wojtyla added restrictions, not just the age restriction, but also the laws regarding pre-conclave lobbying, a delict to which one of the participants, Danneels, confessed.
Since you believe Wojtyla was a Pope, you are bound to his law, hence you are bound to the nullity of Jorge's "election" and the automatic excommunication of all participants, including Danneels and Jorge.
As the saying goes, "You are hoisted on your own petard."
This forum often reminds me of armchair theologians flinging feces at each other like monkeys. All anyone needs is an opinion, and it really doesn't matter how brilliant or stupid it is -- there will always be someone ready to fling road apples at him, and someone to come to his defense. And then it becomes a free-for-all.
Yes, it is the same law. Heck, I even POSTED IT FOR YOU (#77).It is NOT "the same law."
You did not answer my question....what exactly is it that you hope to gain by not believing that the pope is the pope?
It is NOT "the same law."You can't even quote me correctly - I said the doctor was a no-name doctor and that the ALLEGATION was unsubstantiated. Do you even read your own quotes? Do you know what an allegation even is? Apparently not, either look it up or I will tell you - an allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof. It is for this reason the allegation is unsubstantiated, not because I say it is unsubstantiated.
You already admitted that Wojtyla added the age restriction for voting in the conclave.
Pope St. Pius X's law, the one you rely upon, requires that all Cardinals vote. Preventing Cardinals over 80 from voting means that all cardinals are not voting, thereby violating Pope St. Pius X's law.
Pius X: ALL Cardinals vote. Wojtyla: NOT all Cardinals vote. Therefore, not "the same law."
A ≠ ~A
Additionally Wojtyla's conclave law nullifies Jorge's "election" and excommunicates all of Team Bergoglio latae sententiae (automatically), Jorge included.
In response to your asinine 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' kind of question, I will respond in kind—What do you have to gain by believing an anti-Pope is Pope?
I believe a Pope is a Pope. I do not believe an anti-Pope is a a Pope.
Further, I notice that you completely avoided Danneels's confession, a confession that sinks your gratuitous "one unsubstantiated doctor" dissembling.
The Scandalous consequences of the revelations of Dr. Ivereigh’s book, can be summed up thus: Dr. Ivereigh has written a book alleging as many as 30 cardinals did that which is apparently a violation of the papal law on conclaves, on which account they would be ipso facto excommunicated, Cardinal Bergoglio included, and the election of the latter by 2013 Conclave be null and void and of no effect.That the law since PPVI denied cardinals over 80 years old voting privileges does nothing to the validity of the voting or election, so you're grasping at straws with that one.
You can't even quote me correctly - I said the doctor was a no-name doctor and that the ALLEGATION was unsubstantiated. Do you even read your own quotes? Do you know what an allegation even is? Apparently not, either look it up or I will tell you - an allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof. It is for this reason the allegation is unsubstantiated, not because I say it is unsubstantiated.For brevity I paraphrased your argument as "one unsubstantiated doctor," still a fair paraphrase of your attempt to pretend there was only one "no name" accuser who had no proof. In point of fact, not only was the named doctor Invereigh an accuser, but one of the perpetrators, Danneels, confessed his role precisely as Invereigh described.
At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, the cardinal said (http://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/159605-danneels-zat-soort-maffiaclub) he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.(http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Reformer-Francis-Radical/dp/1627791574)
He called it a "mafia" club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it "much more modern", and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been docuмented in Austen Ivereigh's biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Reformer-Francis-Radical/dp/1627791574)
For the record, "lobbying" is not a violation and does not nullify the election, see my post #77 where JP2 states: "...as was already established by my Predecessors..." - his predecessors state: "No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort."
The official English translation from the Vatican Website, renders this text, thus:81. Cardinales electores praeterea abstineant ab omnibus pactionibus, conventionibus, promissionibus aliisque quibusvis obligationibus, quibus astringi possint ad suffragium cuidam vel quibusdam dandum aut recusandum. Quae omnia, si reapse intervenerint, etiam iure iurando adiecto, decernimus ea nulla et irrita esse, neque eadem observandi obligatione quemquam teneri; facientes contra iam nunc poena excommunicationis latae sententiae innodamus. Vetari tamen non intellegimus, ne per tempus Sedis vacantis de electione sententiae invicem communicentur.
This translation is not exact. Here is my own exact translation:81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.
81. Let the Cardinal electors, moreover, abstain from all pacts, agreements, promises and any other obligations you like, by which they might be constrained to give or refuse support (suffragium) for anyone (sing. & plural). All of which, if these were to occur, even when with a foreswearing, We decree are null and void, and none of them are to be held by any obligation of observance; those acting against (this), We now, hereby, bind up with the punishment of excommunication latae sententiae. Yet, We do not understand to be forbidden, that they communicate with one another concerning the election, during the time of the Sedevacante.
You still have not answered why you argue against the law, so it can only be because you have no idea why, which explains your last few posts.Do not lie.
Do not lie.Which law are you talking about that binds me but not you?
I am arguing against your inconsistency.
You claim Wojtyla was Pope, hence you are bound to his law.
Though bound to Wojtyla's changes in the law, you claim the law was "the same."From my previous post:
You acknowledge Wojtyla's age restriction that was not part of St. Pius X's conclave law. In fact, Wojtyla's law turned "all cardinals" into "not all Cardinals," a diametric inversion of St. Pius X's law.
A diametric inversion is not "the same."
It is you who "argue against the law," Wojtyla's law.
Please explain how "all" and "not all" are "the same."
I am not arguing against JP2's law because he is using, as I posted, the same law as Pope St. Pius X.You said that Wojtyla's law and St. Pius X's law are "the same law."
You said that Wojtyla's law and St. Pius X's law are "the same law."They are the same law. This law applies to all cardinals IN THE CONCLAVE, only all *those* cardinals are bound to abide by the same law of all popes since Pope St. Pius X. The voting cardinals are the only ones who are "all cardinals" IN THE CONCLAVE.
How are "all cardinals" and "not all cardinals" "the same"?
I am not arguing against JP2's law because he is using, as I posted, the same law as Pope St. Pius X.
You:Your problem is that you are not differentiating. The law for voting *is* the same law and applies only to those within the conclave. This is indisputable so please, no sense arguing this point any further.
I quoted you verbatim. You said they are "the same law."
A law that says "all cardinals vote" is NOT "the same law" as the law that says "cardinals over 80 may not vote."
You might as well argue that "black" and "not black" are the same color.
I have frequently opined that one of the marks of modernism is the schizo-illogic that finds men holding mutually exclusive propositions as true.
How can rational discussion ensue with a man who insists "the same law" while also referring to "new law" and "different" laws?
Bottom line:
- Wojtyla changed the conclave laws.
- Anyone who believes Wojtyla was Pope, is bound to those changed conclave laws.
- Hence, Team Bergoglio in its entirely was automatically excommunicated for the pre-conclave lobbying to which Danneels confessed.
- Further, excommunicated cardinals are not valid electors and an excommunicated cardinal cannot become Pope of . a Church to which he does not belong.
So you're saying that the R&R folks, since they hold Wojtyla was legitimate pope, must as a result hold that Bergoglio is not. Rather ironic that their R&Rism actually should compel them to be sedevacantist now.Indeed, the irony and schizo-illogic of the R&R position is stunning.
I have frequently opined that one of the marks of modernism is the schizo-illogic that finds men holding mutually exclusive propositions as true. - This is exactly what you are doing by holding that a law which does not effect the voting, effects the voting.
How can rational discussion ensue with a man who insists "the same law" while also referring to "new law" and "different" laws? - You have proven that it can't
Bottom line:
- Wojtyla changed the conclave laws. - Which law(s) did he change?
- Anyone who believes Wojtyla was Pope, is bound to those changed conclave laws. - Explain how believing a pope is a pope, binds us to laws that pertain only to cardinals in a conclave?
- Hence, Team Bergoglio in its entirely was automatically excommunicated for the pre-conclave lobbying to which Danneels confessed. - +Daneels retired 3 years before the conclave and as NO is unreliable at best
- .Further, excommunicated cardinals are not valid electors and an excommunicated cardinal cannot become Pope of . a Church to which he does not belong. - Exactly false, the law says: "No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort."
- So, Señor "Jesus made Himself the devil" Bergoglio may "subsist in" the Chair of Peter, but he surely is not a valid Pope. - This is your opinion, you have no proof of this allegation. Having no proof, he is pope until proven otherwise.
What kind of dishonesty motivates a man to say "allegation" when one of the perpetrators has already confessed? - +Daneels retired 3 years before the conclave and +Daneels retired 3 years before the conclave and as NO is unreliable at best. And even if he is reliable it does not matter because the law states that all censures are suspended for all those in the conclave.
You are looping.Right, that's why I asked them. You not answering questions only means you have no idea what you're talking about. Same o same o.
All your questions and objections have been answered.
If/when you come to realize that (1) "all cardinals" and "no cardinals over 80" are not "the same," (2) an action is no longer an "allegation" the moment a perpetrator confesses the action, (3) automatically excommunicated "cardinals" cannot be valid electors, and (4) an automatically excommunicated "cardinal" cannot be a true Pope, we can resume the discussion.
Until that time, perhaps we can agree that Señor "Jesus made Himself the devil" Bergoglio "subsists in" the Chair of Peter (laughing).
…blah, blah, blah…Whatever.