[W]e have only to ask ourselves in reference to any particular Pope — either the living Pope whom we are called upon to obey, or some past Pope in whom we are historically interested — whether the true Church adheres or adhered to him, or not, and then we can be sure at once, independently of all detailed historical investigations, whether the title by which he entered upon the See of Peter was valid or not.[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Wherefore, if the Cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition [i.e., that the one elected is the true pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the Pope himself defines anything. For it is not [just] any acceptance on the part of the Church, but the acceptance of the Church in a matter pertaining to the faith, since the Pope is accepted as a determinate rule of faith.”[2] (https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/#_ftn2)[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the Vatican Council truly ecuмenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecuмenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact. [3] (https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/#_ftn3)... (read on)
“The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
The very fact that Siscoe and Salsa have to write a book and produce volumes of "articles" like the one above, trying to prove Francis is pope, shows that "universal acceptance" doesn't exist.
They've spent the last five years or so trying to "quell the tide" of sedevacantism. Why? Because he isn't universally accepted.
My point is that this argument is as weak as it gets.
To be fair, Sisco and Salza (and Fr Chazal) are doing a good service of prudence in pointing out the limits of the sedevacantist theory. If someone doesn't rebuke the rabid, dogmatic sedevacantists, they would anathematize every single non-sede Trad (if they haven't already).
I don't agree with every conclusion of Sisco/Salza, just like I don't agree with every conclusion of the Diamond Bros, but their research is great.
Right. Absolutely, the principle is legitimate, that of peaceful universal acceptance. Problem is that the principle doesn't actually apply here, because such an acceptance does not exist.The idea of universal acceptance has to do with the conclave results. If person A is accepted the day he was elected, then he's the pope. (Unless it comes out later that there were issues with the conclave). It is wrong to base "universal acceptance" on a day to day or year to year basis. Because the pope's status does not depend on his personal sanctity or lack thereof. Was he elected legitimately or not? - this is the ONLY question which the "peaceful acceptance" principle can apply. The Church is not a democracy where the status of the pope is good on Monday but by Thursday it is in doubt, based on the whim of the people and his popularity.
If you asked Traditional Catholics if they believed with the certainty of faith that Bergoglio is a legitimate pope, i.e. whether they would believe it with the same certainty as that with which they believe the Holy Trinity, whether they would be willing to stake their eternal souls on it, you'd get maybe 1% who would actually say this. THAT is what "dogmatic fact" legitimacy means, that you're pretty much confident enough to stake your soul and your eternal salvation on it.If you base your acceptance of the pope on his personal sanctity or orthodoxy, then yes, your litmus test would be accurate. But none of this matters.
The idea of universal acceptance has to do with the conclave results. If person A is accepted the day he was elected, then he's the pope.
Because the pope's status does not depend on his personal sanctity or lack thereof. Was he elected legitimately or not? - this is the ONLY question which the "peaceful acceptance" principle can apply. The Church is not a democracy where the status of the pope is good on Monday but by Thursday it is in doubt, based on the whim of the people and his popularity.
Also, no catholic's eternal salvation depends on answering the question: "Who is pope?" or "Is person x a true pope?"
Sedes think that the status of the pope is more important than it is
“…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
Even if the conclave results were not challenged, if the Church didn't recognize the electee as Catholic, there would be lacking the acceptance.Ok, but this has to be challenged from the get-go, from day 1. (Not saying you're saying this) but one cannot say "He's not catholic (from what he said today or recently), therefore, retroactively, I don't accept his papacy." The fact that theologians in the past debated the question of 1) if a pope could be a heretic and 2) what would happen if he lost his faith? shows that this "universal acceptance" principle cannot apply to a pope once he's been elected. If it could, then all their debates were a waste of time. We would just react as follows: As soon as a pope becomes unorthodox, then boom, his papacy never existed and we ignore him completely. ...But there's no example in Church history for this reaction.
Not to mention that there was a lot of question regarding the 1958 Conclave results that brought us Roncalli.Ok, but that doesn't matter now and doesn't affect the papacy of +Francis.
Ok, but this has to be challenged from the get-go, from day 1.
Also, how do you measure "universal peaceful acceptance"? What is the % used?
This question must one day be answered…”By Church authorities, not by laymen, priests and non-jurisdictioned bishops.
But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.”It is important but there are limits to its importance because of our ability to do anything about it. I worry about the economy and about the health affects of the future 5G network, but what can I really do about these things? Not much, except pray. So, the amount of importance we should (and can) place on the papal question is limited.
If at any time the Pope became a heretic during his reign and the Church would repudiate him as such, i.e. cease to recognize him as a Catholic and head of the Church, then that would be an indicate that there's no longer peaceful universal acceptance.Ok, if you want to define "peaceful universal acceptance" as the church hierarchy recognizing him, then I agree. If you want to say that the hierarchy rebuking him for error and then formally charging him with heresy as a necessary step in ending "universal acceptance", then I also agree.
Theologians hold that widespread doubt based on grave reasons would justify Catholics withdrawing from submission.My problem with this is how do you define "widespread doubt"? You can't allow it (and I don't think theologians defined it) as "personal doubt". The Church is a monarchy; She does not operate on whim, or mob rule or personal "feelings". You have to define "widespread doubt" meaning that Cardinals, archbishops, bishops and priests start agreeing that there are problems. And they start putting pressure on the men in rome to do something.
My problem with this is how do you define "widespread doubt"? You can't allow it (and I don't think theologians defined it) as "personal doubt". The Church is a monarchy; She does not operate on whim, or mob rule or personal "feelings". You have to define "widespread doubt" meaning that Cardinals, archbishops, bishops and priests start agreeing that there are problems. And they start putting pressure on the men in rome to do something.You got it right Pax. The fact that the conciliar popes have enjoyed "almost unanimous" acceptance is all that would be needed if the Church were a democracy, whereas "widespread doubt" actually means nothing at all, not even in a democracy. Even in a democracy, it would only mean something to those who do indeed doubt.
In our present times, the "dubia" is a good example of the hierarchy leading the process. John Doe, in the middle of WV, can't say that his doubts about the pope matter (because they don't). Doubts only start mattering if some level of authority (and training/education) of the clerical rank act together. In our present time, many sedes take the "private interpretation" of the pope's status as a normal thing to do, when in fact, it is totally anti-catholic. This is my main beef.
whereas "widespread doubt" actually means nothing at all, not even in a democracy. Even in a democracy, it would only mean something to those who do indeed doubt.Widespread doubt does mean something, i'm not discounting the issues involved. I'm only arguing that if one has a doubt or if a whole community, or diocese or an entire country has a doubt about something, this doubt does not give you a right to decide something on a personal/individual level. This is anti-catholic thinking. A doubt is supposed to spur you to work with your bishop and other Church authorities to change the situation and to get rid of the doubt. There has to be a process; an appeal to authority; not an individual or personal decision.
The idea of universal acceptance has to do with the conclave results. If person A is accepted the day he was elected, then he's the pope. (Unless it comes out later that there were issues with the conclave). It is wrong to base "universal acceptance" on a day to day or year to year basis. Because the pope's status does not depend on his personal sanctity or lack thereof. Was he elected legitimately or not? - this is the ONLY question which the "peaceful acceptance" principle can apply. The Church is not a democracy where the status of the pope is good on Monday but by Thursday it is in doubt, based on the whim of the people and his popularity.Correct. Universal Acceptance is decided once and for all shortly after an uncontested election and it proves the Man Elected is a Validly Elected Successor of St. Peter. That is all. The question of whether he may possibly become a heretic later (which is denied by some, but admitted by others) is a separate question. Also, it is not the acceptance of Laymen that counts, but primarily the Acceptance of the Teaching Church or the Hierarchy, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church. The laity are subordinate to their Shepherds and not their judges; of course the Church taught will follow the Teaching Church.
Why? Because he isn't universally accepted.
Even if the conclave results were not challenged, if the Church didn't recognize the electee as Catholic, there would be lacking the acceptance.You need to add [Teaching] to your sentence. If the Teaching Church, i.e. the Hierarchy, the Cardinals, Roman Clergy, the Bishops and Ordinaries appointed by previous Popes didn't recognize the current Successor of St. Peter, that would be one thing. Can you prove that? It certainly appears they all did. That's why even Siscoe changed his opinion, "Before continuing, I should note that there was a time when I also had doubts, or at least questions, about the legitimacy of the Francis pontificate and was one of the first to raise the questions about Benedict’s abdication that are being widely discussed today.[1] But after studying the matter further, there is no doubt whatsoever that Benedict’s abdication was ratified by Christ, Who stripped him of the papal office and conferred it upon Francis on the day of his election." That is the right approach. It's not Siscoe's doubts but mainly the Hierarchy's Acceptance that counts here.
It's not a mathematical formula obviously. Imagine yourself living during the reign of Pius XII. No sane Catholic would ever give it a second thought about whether he was a legitimate pope.But does the question come up in the minds of 99.9% of Catholics today? Or is your argument more along the lines of "in normal times, the question would never come up in *anyone's* mind?
Now compare that with the view that Traditional Catholics (those who keep the Traditional faith) have with regard to the V2 papal claimants. Questions, doubts, +Lefebvre saying it's not impossible that they're illegitimate, probably 1% of Traditional Catholics who might assert a certainty of faith that Bergoglio is pope.
That first mindset is what constitutes "universal peaceful acceptance". Contrast that with that second midset regarding Bergoglio. Are these anywhere nearly the same thing?
Peaceful means that there's absolutely no churn, no disquiet about the question, that no minds are troubled by the question, that the question doesn't even arise in the minds of Catholics. That's the meaning of "peaceful" (not whether or not arms are being taken up). We absolutely do NOT have that with Bergoglio. Heck, I've seen Novus Ordo writers question whether Bergoglio was a heretic after Amoris Laetitia.
Widespread doubt does mean something, i'm not discounting the issues involved. I'm only arguing that if one has a doubt or if a whole community, or diocese or an entire country has a doubt about something, this doubt does not give you a right to decide something on a personal/individual level. This is anti-catholic thinking.Agreed.
A doubt is supposed to spur you to work with your bishop and other Church authorities to change the situation and to get rid of the doubt. There has to be a process; an appeal to authority; not an individual or personal decision.
My problem with this is how do you define "widespread doubt"?
A doubt is supposed to spur you to work with your bishop and other Church authorities to change the situation and to get rid of the doubt. There has to be a process; an appeal to authority; not an individual or personal decision.
So let's say you lived in the Arian crisis ... where the majority of the hierarchy became Arians. How do you take your objection against Arianism to your local Bishop, when he too is an Arian? That's what we have here.Absolutely agree. And looking back at Church history, did the Church ever retroactively say that the 90% of bishops who were arian had lost their offices or weren't real bishops? No. Why not? My opinion is that it's not necessary. The prudent course of action is to simply separate yourself from the quasi-heretic until the Church deals with it. If the Church is in such chaos that She can't deal with it, or most clerics don't see the error, then laymen and simple priests have the unenviable position of waiting...patiently... and relying on God to sort it out eventually. One can't take matters into their own hands, as some sedes do, and start declaring that this or that person 1) is a formal heretic and 2) their office is empty.
But Siscoe says after more carefully studying the doctrine of universal acceptance, he now has no further doubts that Pope Francis is the Successor of St. Peter.
Absolutely agree. And looking back at Church history, did the Church ever retroactively say that the 90% of bishops who were arian had lost their offices or weren't real bishops? No. Why not? My opinion is that it's not necessary. The prudent course of action is to simply separate yourself from the quasi-heretic until the Church deals with it.
Absolutely agree. And looking back at Church history, did the Church ever retroactively say that the 90% of bishops who were arian had lost their offices or weren't real bishops? No. Why not? My opinion is that it's not necessary. The prudent course of action is to simply separate yourself from the quasi-heretic until the Church deals with it. If the Church is in such chaos that She can't deal with it, or most clerics don't see the error, then laymen and simple priests have the unenviable position of waiting...patiently... and relying on God to sort it out eventually. One can't take matters into their own hands, as some sedes do, and start declaring that this or that person 1) is a formal heretic and 2) their office is empty.
At some point the Church cleared herself of the Arian heresy. Did it happen overnight? Heavens no, it took decades. So shall V2 take a while to flush down the toilet.
Absolutely correct. I agree with you. But what does one do with Francis? He materially occupies the Chair of Peter. He promulgates via his magisterium the implementation of public adulterers receiving the sacraments and states via twitter that they are NOT ex-communicated. Stand aside and say "O well he is still the Pope and I will follow him come hell or high water no matter what he does." Does it get to the point where you have left the Church?In the post-V2 era, there is not one change introduced which has altered formal, catholic teaching. The changes/novelties are to the "pastoral implementation" of "new understandings" of doctrine. I'm not minimizing the pastoral changes or the novelties. I'm not minimizing the errors, confusion and heresies condoned either overtly or subtly or by omission. I'm simply saying that the OFFICIAL teachings of the Church have not changed. God would not allow that and He has not.
With Sisco's ideas what happens when Francis allows women deacons? He is still a fully empowered Pope with his thinking.
Stand aside and say "O well he is still the Pope and I will follow him come hell or high water no matter what he does." Does it get to the point where you have left the Church?As Our Lady of LaSalette said: "The Church will be in eclipse." This is the best analogy for our present situation. The real, true Church still exists; it's Truths have not been changed, nor its doctrines stained. They APPEAR to be changed; they APPEAR to be forgotten. But, legally, they have never been changed. The conciliar movement has simply setup its own false ideals (which, legally, are not enforceable nor does new rome claim that they are) which have taken root and been accepted by most new catholics, mostly through their want of an "accepting" church, and only rarely through coercion and social pressures. Whenever these heretics are called out on their novel errors, they quickly retort that the doctrines have not changed (which they have not) and they say that these new practices are a modern answer to modern problems and that the Church is adapting doctrine to the unique problems of our present day. So they always have plausible deniability that they changed doctrine, yet in practice, everything is changed due to the "pastoral implementation" of the doctrine. This is the evil genius of satan and his men.
I think the % of dogmatic sedevacantists is much larger than you think. Anyone who would not attend an "una cuм" mass is one. Anyone who would only attend a sede chapel is one. The sede priests support these ideals and gradually the laity accept the extreme positions. 90% of the conversations i've had with sedes end with them drawing some type of line in the sand and it's "their way or the highway" and anyone else is a heretic. I've never had ONE sede (not one, including on this site) admit that sedevacantism is a theory and it's only probable and not fact. This is divisive and dangerous.'Sede Vacantism' can hardly be probable when There is NO SUCH THING as 'sedevacantism'. Pope Gregory XVII is legally recognised by by Sirites as true Pope until 1989 & could very well have been succeeded by Card Pigntonello.... :cheers:
..........It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.
:applause: :applause:
When quoting Archbishop Lefebvre the most important part of the quote has been diminished.
The Archbishop gave the example of accepting Pope Francis as Pope.
He said that this hypothesis (may well be) confirmed by the Church
In sum - until we have a reforming Pope with the authority to decide the issue definitively sedevacantism remains a hypothesis.
On that basis it would be uncatholic for any priest to say a non una cuм Mass.
Saintly theologians would be horrified that any Catholic would use their opinions to act on, and justify his/her own private interpretation of Church law.
Well, that should settle it right thereNice. Cardinal Newman likewise modified his doubts and accepted Papal Infallibility after the Church Teaching taught him that it was true. Does it matter? We accept what the Teaching Church tells us, not what private individuals say. Siscoe or Newman is unimportant. It is the Church that settles every doubt, that's why Infallibility has been given to the Church for, as per Pope St. Pius X.
I’m not coming to this conclusion on my own. As I’ve quoted in the past, numerous theologians have said that V2 is fallible and not magisterially binding and can be questioned.
The pure subjectivism here is amazing. Doubts do not exist in reality but only in the intellect.
Suppose someone doubts the sun has risen: Will it change the fact? Not in the slightest.
In sum - until we have a reforming Pope with the authority to decide the issue definitively sedevacantism remains a hypothesis.Agree 1000%! In fact, i'd go further and say I don't even have a problem with priests leaving out +Francis' name from the canon. That's their private decision. The problem becomes when they look at sedevacantism as a fact, so they create divisions in Tradition by saying that if you're not a sede then you are a heretic by association. And the 100s of problems this causes...
On that basis it would be uncatholic for any priest to say a non una cuм Mass.
Again, you confuse "can be questioned" (i.e. not infallible) with not official or authoritative. AL was clearly official and authoritative ... though it also clearly did not meet the notes for infallibility.I think we have a different definition of "authoritative". AL was an official Synod but it's not authoritative in my understanding because it doesn't compel me to do anything. I doesn't compel any priest or bishop or any other catholic to do or believe anything (yes, the issue of divorced catholics receiving communion is a big issue, but is that a direct command to bishops/priests to allow this? Many are debating the limits on the Synod's commands (which no one did right after V2)). All it is, is a glorified commission where clerics voted on proposals and "pastoral" responses to problems. The conclusions of the commission/Synod are "advisory" and they are not absolute or clear enough to be considered a ruling or a decision or a command.
Agree 1000%! In fact, i'd go further and say I don't even have a problem with priests leaving out +Francis' name from the canon. That's their private decision. The problem becomes when they look at sedevacantism as a fact, so they create divisions in Tradition by saying that if you're not a sede then you are a heretic by association. And the 100s of problems this causes...For the sake of example: With respect to the Eastern schismatics (the Greek Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox), and avowed schismatics in general, the determination of union with the pope and the Church of Rome is in the fact of whether the celebrant "prays for the pope" in the Canon of the Mass. He who does not name the Holy Father according to the prescribed words of the Canon, is considered to be in schism. His state and act of schism are demonstrated by the omission, by the absence, of words that ought to be said... - Who Shall Ascend?
For the sake of example: With respect to the Eastern schismatics (the Greek Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox), and avowed schismatics in general, the determination of union with the pope and the Church of Rome is in the fact of whether the celebrant "prays for the pope" in the Canon of the Mass. He who does not name the Holy Father according to the prescribed words of the Canon, is considered to be in schism. His state and act of schism are demonstrated by the omission, by the absence, of words that ought to be said... - Who Shall Ascend?I think it was Fr Gueranger, who had a doctrine in liturgy, said that this is not the meaning or purpose of that prayer. You are not offering up the mass WITH the pope, but only FOR him. The prayer also says, specifically, that it's for all "orthodox members of the catholic faith." The idea that this prayer makes one have a connection with the pope or bishop's beliefs is a novelty.
an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.
I think we have a different definition of "authoritative".
Exactly. All this prayer is doing is recognizing him as the pope (or at least, the occupier of the material/govt office). It's not saying that the priest agrees with the pope's theology or his most recent encyclical or even his heretical remarks.Oops, did we forget this part, "the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism"?
which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.
Within authoritative (or "authentic") there are fallible and infallible.Ok, but you can further distinguish this idea. Fallible/infallible has to do with doctrine. But the pope can also be authoritative in non-doctrinal areas (i.e. using his power as temporal monarch and his universal jurisdiction in areas of law). But, again, if someone in authority issues an unclear and ambigious order, is this an example of authority? I would say no. It would be like the parents of a teenager calling a family meeting to set rules regarding a weekend trip the teenager is going to take. And the only rule they give is: "be a good person." Ok, is that an example of authority? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that it's an order from authority but no, in the sense that there isn't anything concrete to follow. One is left with much room for interpretation on how to "be a good person." This is how I view V2 and the synod and many theolgians and Cardinals agree.
Right. Mine is the one taught by Catholic theologians.Can you give me a specific example of where/how is the Synod authoritative?
It's a recognition of his office, around which Catholics are unified. It is NOT a recognition or an agreement (direct or indirect) of his personal theology, or his orthodoxy (or lack thereof). Catholics are united to and through the papal office, not to the person who occupies the office. This is why, assuming you believe that +Francis is pope, you are obligated to continue to pray for him, not because you agree with him, but because you owe his office respect for what it signifies spiritually..
Also, there is nothing in the Pope's encyclical about a "material office".
Well then if it's just a union with the office, sedevacantism should be no big deal (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)The office is pointless without an occupant. All priests are a symbol of Christ, and deserve respect for their office. They may not deserve PERSONAL respect as individuals. Do you not see the difference?
.
Who needs a pope when you have the papal office?
The office is pointless without an occupant. All priests are a symbol of Christ, and deserve respect for their office. They may not deserve PERSONAL respect as individuals. Do you not see the difference?.
You’re missing the point. You owe respect to your father, even if he beats you, mistreats you or abandons the family. There are 1,000s of stories where saints prayed for the humility to respect their superiors even when the superior was wrong or evil..
So, try answering my objection, XavierFem.
+Lefebvre has stated that it's not impossible that the Church will confirm that these men were not popes. So how does +Lefebvre hold their papacy to be dogmatic fact? If he considered it dogmatic fact, he could never make that statement.
Do you think that publishing and imposing a missal, approving an ecuмenical council, promulgating a new universal law, publishing a new universal catechism, and canonizing new saints for the Catholic world to venerate, etc. are all acts that the pope does "personally," i.e., without any connection to his office? If so, then what exactly is the office for if a pope can do all the things popes do without it? And to what exactly are Catholics united when they are united "to the office" of the pope? Since it obviously has nothing at all to do with his governing, teaching, and sanctifying role as supreme pastor of the Christian role.The V2 popes are obvious material heretics because they preach error which is contrary to doctrine, yet they do so by arguing that their errors are in continuity with Tradition. They are not FORMAL heretics because they are arguing that their interpretation is orthodox. Every post-V2 error was sold to the public by saying that it is Tradtional but is a new way to look at the doctrine, because our modern problems require a unique approach.
They are not FORMAL heretics because they are arguing that their interpretation is orthodox.
Well, I think that Bergoglio has dropped that facade. Now, one CAN be a formal heretic even while thinking that their position is orthodox and consistent with Tradition. In fact, how many heretics do NOT think/believe that? FORMAL heresy is not the same thing as "sincerity". Many/most heretics appear to sincerely believe that what they hold is the truth.I thought a formal heretic was someone who knew their position was non Catholic but holds to it anyway? And that someone who believes they're holding to the Catholic doctrine but is wrong is only materially heretical?
But, regardless, I agree that we cannot definitely conclude that the V2 Papal claimants are illegitimate ... not with the requisite certainty of faith. Only the Church can do that. But there's plenty here to put them in the state of positive widespread doubt, and to be refused submission until the Church clarifies the matter. It's why I coined the term "sededoubtist".
You seem to be arguing that Catholics are only united when the pope is good. When he is bad, then there is no unity. ?? This doesn't jive with Church history at all. Catholics are united in doctrine and Divine Law which is independent of the reigning pope but is connected with all the orthodox popes of the past, which represent Apostolic teaching. How is sedevacantism an answer to church unity? If a sedeprivationist ideal is wrong, what's your alternative?.
But more to the point-- regarding unity-- I see you are backpedaling from your initial claim that the office of the pope unites Catholics.I'm not backpedaling. The papal office is a unifying symbol because it represents the link to Apostolic times and the consistancy throughout the ages of doctrinal teaching and the reiteration of Divine Law. A specific pope is only unifying because he discharges the office. If the office is empty, then unity will eventually vanish. The Church is only legitimate because her doctrines are unchanging, which is only possible with the protection of infallibility, which is not promised to a person, but to one who excercises the papal office. A bad pope does not exercise the full papal office but only the material aspect since his spiritual capabilities are impaired through his own fault.
the pope is the principle of faith (and unity) because in this person... there are certain providential protections afforded which guarantee, a priori, the impossibility of certain errors.Right, infallibility protects against error, when it's used. Aside from this, in all other fallible matters, the pope can err. There is no Church teaching which says that the pope is protected from error outside of infallibility. At best, some theolgians argued his personal faith could not fail. But many others argued that it could, including +Bellarmine.
That makes unity with him unity with Christ, and especially an assurance that one has the correct doctrine when one learns from him and obeys his laws.This is an exaggeration of the pope's orthodoxy. If it were true, then the 4 requirements for infallibility would not need to exist because the pope would, according to your understanding, be infallible 100% of the time. Yet theologians have explained in great detail there are MULTIPLE levels of Church teaching, some infallible, some totally fallible and others in between. It's not as simple as "Well, the pope said it, so I have to follow." He can't say or command anything he wants.
So the reality of traditional Catholicism today-- which is a very divisive reality-- is perfectly consistent with what one would expect in the absence of a pope.Practically speaking, a bad pope is the same as no pope. Division happens with there is either bad leadership or none.
You can criticize it for having no solutions but it isn't supposed to be a solution, and any sedevacantist who thinks otherwise should take a step back. It's simply a description of the problem, and in my opinion an accurate one.I don't criticize sedevacantism for its theory or goals, which are good (i.e. keep the Faith). I criticize, very specifically, Fr Cekada's spirit of division in the "una cuм" controversy where he takes a theory and attempts to compel and coerce people to attend sede-only masses under the false and doctrinally-ridiculous idea that to say the pope's name in the canon is to be complicit in every heresy of the day, and consequently, to be in grave sin. This is not the purpose of the prayer and i've seen first hand the splits in families, the turmoils, the divorces and other consternation which has resulted from the false and extreme zeal that people have for this "una cuм" lie. By their fruits you shall know them and there are NO good fruits from the self-imposed, self-serving and self-authoritarian Cekada-doctrine of "una cuм".
First Catholics are united "through the office," next by the "faith," and now through a symbolic representation of Apostolic times... a modernist couldn't make it fuzzier, Pax.The office represents more than one thing, Mith. Why don’t you define it, if you’re so sure of its meaning. Excuse me for saying “apostolic Times” when I should have said “apostolic succession”. Potato, potatoe.
I thought a formal heretic was someone who knew their position was non Catholic but holds to it anyway? And that someone who believes they're holding to the Catholic doctrine but is wrong is only materially heretical?
What did I miss?
Pax Vobis, you are not reading Ex Quo, but only reiterating what the sedeprivationists have confused you with. There is no such thing as a "material office", nor a mere "recognition of his office". Even the Orthodox or Old Catholics could claim they recognize the office. That's not what Catholics are supposed to do, read it again: "recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter," so, the Bishops recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. And all who pray for the Pope as the Pope in the Canon by doing the same manifest for that reason "the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity." Sedevacantists/privationists on the other hand who of their own will drop the name of the Pope from the Canon or choose to attend the Masses of schismatic clergy who do so fall under the latter category here "the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism." - Dropping the name of the Pope is a sin of schism.Quoterecognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.
It's a recognition of his office, around which Catholics are unified.
There is no such thing as a "material office"Just because you're not familiar with the term doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That's not what Catholics are supposed to do, read it again: "recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter,"I'm not the one saying that we should drop +Francis' name from the canon; the sedes say that. However, just because one does not use the pope's name doesn't mean they are in schism automatically. It depends on the reason. For example, the prayer says you are praying for the pope and your local bishop "and all other orthodox members of the catholic faith". Well...my local bishop and +Francis are NOT orthodox, so even if I include their names, they won't get the spiritual benefit because they have tossed aside the Faith, of their own accord, and chose novelties.
And these bishops have a lawful mission to guard always, in their teaching and management of the Church, the unity of Faith and of communion with their head and center, the Roman PontiffAnd 95% of these bishops, including the last 5 popes did NOT guard the Church against error, nor did they promote the unity of the Faith, nor do they support communion with the Eternal Teachings of the Faith or the unchanging Apostolic teachings. If anything, new-rome and their V2 novelties have created a schism with the Truth and with consistent, universal teachings of the Faith for the last 1,960 years.
So say you tell someone their view is heretical. And you show them church teaching. And they just disagree with you, not because they on principle aren't willing to submit to whatever the Church teaches (indeed the person would believe whatever the Church teaches, if only they knew) but because they disagree with your interpretation of said Church teaching.
Yes, that's where it becomes tricky. Heretics can be slippery. They will SAY that it matters to them that their position be consistent with Church dogma. But the question is whether they really do. At the end of the day, no one but God can judge that.What does "rejecting the conciliar establishment as the Catholic Church" mean exactly? My question goes deeper than someone like Bergoglio here.
We have to deal with things as manifest in the external forum. That's why St. Robert Bellarmine speaks about MANIFEST heresy deposing from the Church rather than FORMAL heresy. So this is the wrong argument here. You could have someone who on the outside appears to be perfectly orthodox, but in his soul doesn't have the faith ... and vice versa, someone who's a heretic outwardly but inside has the sincere intention to accept Church teaching. But de internis Ecclesia non judicat, the Church does not judge regarding matters of the internal forum.
We can only judge the PERTINACIOUS adherence in the external forum to heretical doctrine. And there's no doubt that the V2 papal claimants adhere pertinaciously to their errors. I'm certain of it that if Bergoglio were to resign, and some orthodox Pope came along and ordered Bergoglio to submit to traditional Church teaching, he would refuse.
And I do believe that these men are active infiltrators and conscious destroyers.
But this is the wrong argument. Personal heresy doesn't even matter. If the V2 Magisterium had taught perfectly orthodox doctrine and we were still using the Tridentine Mass, etc. ... then I would not waste 10 seconds of my time attempting to resolve the question of whether Bergoglio's insane ramblings constitute pertinacious heresy.
So the problem we have here is whether the V2 Magisterium is in fact the Catholic Magisterium, and not the personal state of Bergoglio's soul. Do I even recognize this Conciliar establishment as the Catholic Church? I most certainly do not. As to how or why this has happened, God only knows. Archbishop Lefebvre famously speculated about the possible explanations. Was Paul VI drugged? Was Paul VI insane? Was Paul VI being blackmailed? Was there a double put in his place? Was Paul VI a heretic? At the end of the day, along with the Archbishop, we don't know for sure. All we know is that their Magisterium is not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and they are not (at least freely) exercising the papal Magisterium in a formal way.
Here's how faith starts. We look at the Church and recognize its marks. Then, based on these motives of credibility, we submit to this Church. So there's a lead up of natural reason towards supernatural faith. All this is taught at Vatican I. But we do not see these marks in the Conciliar Church, so we withdraw from submission to it ... categorically. R&R however says that we can recognize it as the Church and at the same time submit to what we like and not submit to what we don't like. That, in a nutshell, is the debate between Sedevacantism and R&R.
Sedeprivationism is hands down the best explanation for what is going on here.
On the R&R side you have emphasis on the material aspect (present), whereas with straight Sedevacantism, the emphasis is on the formal (absent).
Sedeprivationism gets it right, recognizing that the material aspect remains even while the formal is absent.
What does "rejecting the conciliar establishment as the Catholic Church" mean exactly? My question goes deeper than someone like Bergoglio here.
Say you meet a Catholic layperson who according to all appearances seems to love the Church and the faith. But he believes that Vatican II is in fact part of the magsiterium and interprets it through some sort of hermeneutic of continuity. Would you view him as outside the Church or presume he was a formal heretic?
I agree with you 100%.
At this time the current occupant is totally a material claimant. Anything else leads one into the briar patch of either extremism or compromise ad infinitum to the lose of the true faith. Thank goodness that the thesis of Lauriers by Sanborn was up on the internet when I needed it most.
The most compelling statement in Sanborn's writeup was that the Church is not run by a mob and Francis has to be removed by proper ecclesiastical authority which will take some doing. This, in my opinion, leads to the conclusion that Francis will have to be excommunicated and condemned after his death by an orthodox Pope.
In the meantime though we at least have a theology that protects us from falling into the pit of despair. A material occupant with no power to harm the Church but still has the ability to take many souls to hell. Maybe this is what God permits for the world and the members of the Church being a debacle of sin.
Sedeprivationism addresses many of the valid points made by Siscoe/Salsa but avoids their mistakes and errors; and then it also navigates away from the extremes of radical sedevacantism ... which would allow lay people even to usurp the prerogatives that belong only to the Church. Sedeprivationism avoids the pitfalls of both extremes.
At this time the current occupant is totally a material claimant. Anything else leads one into the briar patch of either extremism or compromise ad infinitum to the lose of the true faith. Thank goodness that the thesis of Lauriers by Sanborn was up on the internet when I needed it most.Great points, King W. Now if we could just get some of the extreme sedes to moderate their views, then I think the Trad world would get along better. We don't have to worry about the new-sspx's compromises, for soon, barring some Divine intervention, they will be indult. Then the trad world will be left with sedes (of some sort), the Resistance, and independents. I'm hoping this additional stress on all catholics will squeeze out some drops of charity within each chapel/priest. Times will get tougher when the new-sspx caves, masses will be less available, and many will be without the mass for weeks. We're all going to need to work together.
The most compelling statement in Sanborn's writeup was that the Church is not run by a mob and Francis has to be removed by proper ecclesiastical authority which will take some doing. This, in my opinion, leads to the conclusion that Francis will have to be excommunicated and condemned after his death by an orthodox Pope.
In the meantime though we at least have a theology that protects us from falling into the pit of despair. A material occupant with no power to harm the Church but still has the ability to take many souls to hell. Maybe this is what God permits for the world and the members of the Church being a debacle of sin.
I don't see how this is necessarily the case. Some of the most hardened tenants of sectarian sedevacantism, like Bishop Sanborn, are also sedeprivationists.
Nevertheless, it prevents the THEOLOGICAL extreme of claiming that any lay armchair theologian can despose a pope.
Great response here. XavierSem understands the papacy. Thanks for taking the time to explain something so simple and yet so grossly misunderstood by Sedes today Xavier. I am relatively new to this forum so I don't know what your positions are but you definitely grabbed my attention with this response. Thank you.
It's a recognition of his office, around which Catholics are unified.
Pax Vobis, you are not reading Ex Quo, but only reiterating what the sedeprivationists have confused you with. There is no such thing as a "material office", nor a mere "recognition of his office". Even the Orthodox or Old Catholics could claim they recognize the office. That's not what Catholics are supposed to do, read it again: "recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter," so, the Bishops recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. And all who pray for the Pope as the Pope in the Canon by doing the same manifest for that reason "the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity." Sedevacantists/privationists on the other hand who of their own will drop the name of the Pope from the Canon or choose to attend the Masses of schismatic clergy who do so fall under the latter category here "the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism." - Dropping the name of the Pope is a sin of schism.
Instead you say: "This is why, assuming you believe that +Francis is pope, you are obligated to continue to pray for him" - is that really what Pope Benedict XIV says? he says you are separated from the communion of the entire world if you don't.
Just read the CE on what it says about Apostolicity and it word for word refutes the sedeprivationists. The SPs believe Apostolicity of mission and the Apostolic Church is one thing and yet we have to separate and continue elsewhere apart from Rome. Wrong.
Is that what any Saint has ever taught? Please show me even one in such a case. I can show you a hundred, but I'll just cite one.
St. Anthony Mary Claret in his Catechism on Apostolicity: "The fourth note or mark of the Church is to be Apostolic. That is to say, it was founded by the Apostles and is governed by their successors, the bishops, who. since the Apostles, have succeeded without interruption. And these bishops have a lawful mission to guard always, in their teaching and management of the Church, the unity of Faith and of communion with their head and center, the Roman Pontiff ... All of us know that the Apostles fulfilled the mission that Jesus Christ gave them. And it is sufficient to read the list of the Catholic bishops, especially of the Supreme Pontiffs of Rome as the continuing Head or principal leader of Christianity - better said, of Catholicism - in order to see that ... You will notice above that with the word mission I added the word lawful, that is, coming from that one who has the keys of the kingdom of heaven or of the Church, who is the Pope ...
For this reason you cannot doubt that the only true Church is our Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, in which you must persevere, inwardly and outwardly." http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/03/eens-saint-anthony-mary-claret-from.html
XavierSem understands the papacy.
in my opinion...the problem with you non sedes is you are in danger of being schismatic..how do you get around the following while at the same time state the non catholic freemason , Christ destroying Borgolio is a true pope...
Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church… Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”
so do you non sedes submit to Borgolio the jew....if not tell me how you are not a schismatic
God bless
I'm not talking about dogmatic attitudes. +Sanborn is of course a dogmatic sedeprivationist, and his flavor of privationism heavily leans toward emphasizing the formal lack of authority. Nevertheless, it prevents the THEOLOGICAL extreme of claiming that any lay armchair theologian can despose a pope.I'm sorry but I don't understand how. How does it prevent any such thing?
I'm sorry but I don't understand how. How does it prevent any such thing?
:laugh1:He does understand the papacy. Everything he wrote is accurate. If you disagree, could you identify his errors in the response quoted?
If he understood the papacy, then he would not be a schismatic.
Because, according to sedeprivationism, deposition from material office requires the authority of the Church ... i.e. it excludes conclavism.OK true, it rules out conclavism, but it still allows for any individual to question whether any given pope holds the formal office. I don't see how the same infinite regression argument doesn't apply to it. It seems like everyone is in the same awkward epistemic boat, whether it be R + R, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, or heck even a conservative Novus Ordite can't accept everything Francis says.
Great response here. XavierSem understands the papacy. Thanks for taking the time to explain something so simple and yet so grossly misunderstood by Sedes today Xavier. I am relatively new to this forum so I don't know what your positions are but you definitely grabbed my attention with this response. Thank you.Sure, Climacus, happy to help. The sedes have definitely got it wrong, and I'll give you a simple means to be assured 61 year svism is not only wrong but in fact heretical to hold. Vatican I defined the Pope's Primacy of Jurisdiction and even the "last Pope" of the sedevacantists taught that only the Pope can grant ordinary jurisdiction to a Bishop. But a Bishop is generally consecrated around 35 years of age and resigns around 75. Now, it is defined dogma and de fide that there must always be Ordinaries in the Church. This is a requirement of Apostolicity, as is explained in the CE and numerous other sources. Therefore, even to stretch it to 10 or 15 more years, 50-55 years of an alleged interregnum is an absolute impossibility.
The question, Ladislaus, is whether you are willing and able to retract your opinion and submit to the judgment of the Church.Are you?
Their response is that they intend to submit, and that they do submit in all things lawfully commanded and truthfully taught.To put it another way, we remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first.
To put it another way, we remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first.for arguement sake I say you are schismatic, you have no real defence....the sede position is superior
Nothing profound, nothing complicated, just Catholic.
To put it another way, we remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first.We know God through the Church. The same Church that tells us not to go to the masses of priests without ministry or societies without canonical status. The same Church whose rites cannot be declared impious or unholy under pain of anathema. Yet you're happily willing to ignore all that.
Nothing profound, nothing complicated, just Catholic.
He does understand the papacy. Everything he wrote is accurate. If you disagree, could you identify his errors in the response quoted?
Vatican I defined "Pope" and when they did, "Infallibilty" defined, found anti-popes. Can we honestly list Francis as pope, with the words that follow: orthodox, is he a believer and professor of the Catholic and Apostoic Faith?
The question, Ladislaus, is whether you are willing and able to retract your opinion and submit to the judgment of the Church.
His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre, from the link given earlier: "Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid." To drop the name of the Pope from the Canon and then to declare this to others proudly is nothing less than public schism.
Did he frequently and respectfully allude to the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis?
1. “To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
2. “Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
3. “…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
4. “It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)
5. “If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)
Did he consider sedevacantists to be upright members of the Church?
Undoubtedly. He rebuked certain over-zealous Society priests who refused the sacraments to sedevacantists. He collaborated with Bishop de Castro-Mayer after the Brazilian prelate had made his sedevacantism quite clear. He accepted numerous seminarians from sedevacantist families, parishes or groups. He patronised the Le Trévoux “Ordo” with its guide to traditional places of worship throughout the world, which has always included (and still does) certain known sedevacantist Mass centres. He was at all times well aware of the presence of sedevacantists among the Society’s priests.
Did he avow that his persevering recognition of Paul VI and John-Paul II was due more to heroically cautious hesitation than to any solid conviction?
1. “While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
2. “It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
Did he envisage declaring the legal vacancy of the Holy See if the situation continued unchanged?
1. “That is why I beseech Your Eminence to …do everything in your power to get us a Pope, a true Pope, successor of Peter, in line with his predecessors, the firm and watchful guardian of the deposit of faith. The…eighty-year-old cardinals have a strict right to present themselves at the Conclave, and their enforced absence will necessarily raise the question of the validity of the election” (Letter to an unnamed cardinal, August 8, 1978.)
2. “It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)
“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
It's sad how many people have warped Catholic ecclesiology in order to justify R&R. Throw all of Catholic ecclesiology into the dustbin in order to defend the legitimacy of Bergoglio et al.Dear friend, I am not trying to justify R & R. I am on the side of truth, regardless of where it lies. With regard to the gentleman's post, I agreed with everything he wrote because it wasn't "warped Catholic ecclesiology." I then asked you if you could show us where any of it was in error. I am absolutely certain you cannot or you would have done so.
With regard to the gentleman's post, I agreed with everything he wrote because it wasn't "warped Catholic ecclesiology."
I then asked you if you could show us where any of it was in error. I am absolutely certain you cannot or you would have done so.
Yep, to put Bergoglio in there next to that phrases is very difficult to swallow. Latin is "cultores fidei" ... which means more along the lines of keepers/preservers/fosterers of the faith.Not only is it hard to swallow, it is objectively a lie.
for arguement sake I say you are schismatic, you have no real defence....the sede position is superiorFor myself, it's sufficient to say that I have no need to defend myself against a false accusation, but for argument's sake, my statement did not denouce the pope as pope at all, whereas schismatics refuse all subjection to the pope as they denounce the pope(s) as the visible head of the Church on earth.
We know God through the Church. The same Church that tells us not to go to the masses of priests without ministry or societies without canonical status. The same Church whose rites cannot be declared impious or unholy under pain of anathema. Yet you're happily willing to ignore all that.I do not ignore the crisis, I simply do not obsess upon the status of popes. I will be judged on what I did, and on what I ought to have done and did not do.
I'm not going to play your game, Ladislaus. If you want an answer from me, first answer my question: I gave you 5 clear proofs from Rome that the SSPX is not in schism.Xavier, i've responed to multiple of your posts (in this thread and others) and you never reply, so you're not the only one who avoids issues.
Xavier, i've responed to multiple of your posts (in this thread and others) and you never reply, so you're not the only one who avoids issues.If Quo Primum allows ANY trad Mass to be licit, forever, then why can't Xavier assist at illicit SSPX Masses under Quo Primum's protection?
Secondly, the new-sspx is not is schism, but new-rome has made it clear that to attend their masses, which are not allowed by the local bishops (because the sspx lacks jurisdiction), are illicit, therefore sinful. So if you attend an sspx mass, you commit a sin. You've yet to explain your contradiction here, which is what Ladislaus has pointed out multiple times.
On the contrary, Trads who attend an sspx mass (or any other Trad mass) do NOT commit a sin of attending an illicit mass because they believe, rightly, that Quo Primum allows any Trad mass to be licit, forever. Further, they consider this current Church crisis as an emergency situation, per Canon Law, which allows Trads to attend any mass with a valid priest, jurisdiction being supplied by Canon Law itself, whose highest law is the salvation of souls, and this law overrules all other laws. The emergency situation being the new mass itself and V2 by extension, which sacrilegiously poses as the True Mass and blasphemously ridicules the True Liturgy.
You, however, accept the new mass as only being a "lesser good", instead of the anti-Trent, anti-Catholic, anti-reverent abomination that it is. If you accept that the new mass is catholic, then there is no emergency situation in the dioceses, then there is no supplied jurisdiction for Trads/sspx, then the sspx has no reason to exist and their activities are GRAVELY illicit, since they directly oppose the authority of their bishops and the pope himself. If you attend such a mass, knowing their illicit stance, knowing that you have access to multiple masses in your diocese (latin or english), then you sin GRAVELY by supporting ALL their activities, since you are promoting known usurpers of church authority, which is a schismatic mindset, even if not technically a schism (yet...if it continues with no change, it would turn into schism).
You erroneously believe that you can attend any mass as long as they aren't in schism; this ignores the issue of jurisdiction/licitness and you are wrong to do so. Now that you are aware of the sspx's illicitness, to attend their masses is to sin gravely. I hope you please God, follow your conscience, and only attend diocesan masses in the future. Any other action is hypocritical to the nth degree.
If Quo Primum allows ANY trad Mass to be licit, forever, then why can't Xavier assist at illicit SSPX Masses under Quo Primum's protection?Objectively, any catholic can attend any non-indult, Traditional Latin Mass without sin, per Quo Primum. Xavier can as well, in theory.
I get the argument (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but I can at least follow it) that SVism is schism, but how could it possibly be heresy?Thanks for the question. To avoid misunderstanding, we could preface the number of years of sede vacante we are talking about. If someone believes in 5 year SVism, I would agree with you that that is probably not heretical; it is schism and wrong, but probably something less than heresy. But what about 61 year svism? What if someone proposed the See of Peter has been vacant the last 100 years? At some point, the person denies the Vatican I Dogma that St. Peter will have Perpetual Successors. My view is that - because of Bishops being appointed and consecrated around 35 and now resigning from office around 75 - 40 to at most 45 years of svism already stretches it to breaking point. Not only will the Cardinals and Roman Clergy appointed by the "last Pope" die or resign, so will the Ordinaries or diocesan Bishops in office. At that time, Apostolic Succession will cease and all episcopal sees throughout the universal Church will fall empty. Would you disagree, ByzCath?
XavierSam, I get the argument (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but I can at least follow it) that SVism is schism, but how could it possibly be heresy?Sedevacantism is heresy for several reasons and if we group the reasons under a single heading it is because it denies the indefectibility of the Church.
Objectively, any catholic can attend any non-indult, Traditional Latin Mass without sin, per Quo Primum. Xavier can as well, in theory.I haven't read Quo Primum in about 9 years but I am skeptical of your conclusions drawn from it. Perhaps it is time to revisit it to see if you are inferring your own conclusions from the actual text. Or since you said that QP makes your particular conclusions, would you be able to show specifically where QP supports your conclusions? (maybe this needs a new thread). Also, your either/or scenario is a bit confusing. Could you explain it another way? For example, you said that the view of the conciliar church is to believe that "the novus ordo/indult are illicit." It would seem that you meant to say "licit" not Illicit. Typo? Thanks.
But subjectively, since Xavier believes that the novus ordo is valid and acceptable, and since he believes that new-rome and the local bishops are allowed to put restrictions on the sspx/Trads (contrary to Quo Primum), then, Xavier must follow these commands and avoid any Trad mass because these are illicit and sinful, as the pope and bishops tell him.
You either believe that Quo Primum allows the Trad Mass without restrictions AND that the novus ordo/indult are illicit...or...you believe that the novus ordo/indult are illicit and the True Mass is allowable with restrictions. If you believe the former, this means you are a 100% Traditional Catholic. The latter view is one of the conciliar church. It's either-or. (An unbiased, studious reading of Quo Primum shows that the former/Trad view is the legal one.)
The "middle" of these 2 views, which is absolutely hypocritical, has been adopted since the advent of the "motu" in 2007 where people think they can go to any mass they want (latin or english), without thought to the history or legality of these masses. This has mostly been adopted by the millenial generation, who don't know the history of the V2 vs Trad struggle, and who also are ignorant that the main fight is not over the language of the mass (i.e. english vs latin) but over the Faith itself (and the liturgy which surrounds it). They never grew up with the True Faith, or if they did, they abandoned it, only caring about the "smells and bells" of the latin mass, which they prefer over the english, but will not condemn the english mass, as they don't know enough of theology to understand its problems (nor do they care). Xavier seems to follow this "middle" view, which is full of contradiction, as he shows a lack of knowledge of the issues at play.
For example, you said that the view of the conciliar church is to believe that "the novus ordo/indult are illicit." It would seem that you meant to say "licit" not Illicit. Typo? Thanks.Yes, sorry, a typo.
Sedevacantism is heresy for several reasons and if we group the reasons under a single heading it is because it denies the indefectibility of the Church.
One is the Catholic Intuition of the Faithful, that comes from their Sensus Catholicus. And another is the Theological Proof left to Priests or Seminarians like me.
The Faithful rightly sense that an ongoing 61 year vacancy seems absurd, and that something like an alleged ongoing 600 year vacancy is absolutely heretical.
I don't know what concrete principle would distinguish between a 2 1/2 year vacancy and a 61 year vacancy or even a 200 year vacancy. I grant that at a certain point it starts getting absurd, but that seems more like a continuum and not a hard and fast rule.
(1) During the time of sede vacante, no new Cardinal nor new diocesan Bishop or Ordinary can be appointed, no new Cleric can be incardinated into the Roman Church etc.
(2) Therefore, the first thing everyone will observe in an alleged long vacancy is (a) all Cardinals appointed by the "last Pope" as such will die. Then, (b) all Bishops appointed by the last Pope to office will die. Then, (c) all Roman Clergy in the Church will also die, and there is no Pope, per svism, to appoint more.
The Dimonds are schismatics of the very worst sort; they won't listen to any correction from authority, and reject everyone.
Here are 5 facts about the SSPX neither Pax Vobis nor anyone else touched, You repeat your personal claims about the SSPX, contrary to (1) the Pope who explicitly said to the District Superior in Argentina, "You are Catholic. I will help you."
(2) the fact that Priests outside Catholic communion cannot have the power to forgive sins,
(3) that SSPX Bishops after the Year of Mercy have ordinary jurisdiction, as Bp. Fellay has confirmed - and ordinary jurisdiction cannot exist outside the Church and
(4) that none of 1-3 affects laymen who attend SSPX chapels anyway, but of course you just want that rhetorical point. And I don't need to mention that
(5) Come Divine Mercy Sunday, the SSPX will probably have 2 more Bishops with Papal Approval.Who cares. We're talking about now, not the future.
Pax Vobis shows a lack of understanding of what vagrant clergy and episcopi vagantes are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopus_vagans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopus_vagans) and why the Catholic Church has always held that jurisdiction is not some mere technicality; no, the Catholic Church teaches Orthodox Bishops lack jurisdiction. That's why you can't normally confess to them or their Priests.
Auxiliary Bishops are a bit more complex, yet even they have to verify the supply of jurisdiction with the Pope. Purely vagrant ones are not complicated at all. If a bishop is vagans, he needs to be confirmed in the episcopacy and ask jurisdiction from the Pope.None of the sspx bishops have jurisdiction to operate independently from the diocesan bishops. They do not have a personal/univeral prelature (which is the jurisdiction they need to operate with new-rome's approval). Therefore, their masses are illicit and sinful for you to attend.
See Fr. Gueranger: "We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors." https://reginamag.com/saint-peters-chair-at-antioch/ (https://reginamag.com/saint-peters-chair-at-antioch/) Fr. Gueranger says you should not approach a cleric who is vagans.You should take Fr Gueranger's advice and not attend the sspx, because all their clerics are vagans, per new-rome.
I asked Pax Vobis (1) to prove from any traditional, pre-Vatican II source the idea of "material offices", (2) the false teaching of the sedeprivationists that one can continue a parallel sect without jurisdiction apart from the Apostolic Church. He hasn't done so.Sedeprivationism is a totally separate topic from licitness. If you want to know about "material office vs spiritual office", go read St Robert Bellarmine.
Pax also misrepresents some other things. SSPX and Indult Traditional Catholics have every intention to promote the TLM and see it more widely restored; we have full approval and authorization from Rome and the Hierarchy to do so. Therefore, SSPX Masses are not only valid and licit, but will obtain for you abundant efficacious graces to save your souls. They are arguably the best place to be now.The sspx does not say the new mass, therefore per the "motu" law, they are illicit because they refuse to submit to the local bishops. You contradict yourself again.
So, Xavier, are you an SSPX seminarian? How is it that you're posting at 2:30 AM when you're supposed to have Grand Silence from about 10:00 PM - 5:00 AM? Also, when I was at STAS, we were allowed no computer access. There was one computer in the facility ... in the main office, and it was not permitted for seminarians to use it.
Lads... you are sooo... "old school"!
:facepalm:
No, what's "heretical" is the assertion that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline have failed.I'm far from an expert on these matters, but this does raise a question. Why exactly couldn't this happen?
Where's your sensus catholicus about needing to be in submission to and in communion with the Holy Father?
You seem to have lost that part.
Theological proof left to seminarians like you?
:laugh1:
You base your theology on private revelations and exorcisms (except of course when they say things you don't like).
PS -- being a seminarian does not give you some special status as a "theologian". Neither does being a priest for that matter. To be a theologian in the Church required much more than a basic seminary education during normal times.
For myself and many other seminarians to whom this has happened, as soon as we began studying pre-Vatican II theological texts, specifically those related to ecclesiology, the problems with R&R became glaring.
For myself, it's sufficient to say that I have no need to defend myself against a false accusation, but for argument's sake, my statement did not denouce the pope as pope at all, whereas schismatics refuse all subjection to the pope as they denounce the pope(s) as the visible head of the Church on earth.do you believe John Paul 2 is a saint?
This is false. An excommunicated priest can forgive sins, in an emergency, per Canon Law. A priest is always a priest and he ALWAYS has the power to forgive sins. No one can take that power away from him, not even the Church, because you can't take away a sacrament. If a priest gives confession contrary to Church authority/law, then it is illicit, but it is not invalid. Until rome gave the sspx jurisdiction to hear confessions, their activities were valid but illicit. Now they are valid and licit. But this jurisdiction only applies to confession, not to their masses or anything else.That's not quite correct, Pax. The sacrament of penance requires not just orders but also jurisdiction for validity. The jurisdiction may be ordinary, delegated, or supplied.
I don't see how its "universal ordinary magisterium" unless the consensus is always and everywhere like St Vincent of Lerins says.People use "ordinary magisterium" in at least two senses. These may seem like just a semantics difference, but it might be helpful to be aware of.
Please help me out here. I'm not stubbornly clinging to any particular position.
Xavier, you correctly point out many good catholic principles but you don't know (or ignore) the many exceptions which exist, so your conclusions are false. You really need to do more reading on these topics; you are very wrong.
because they consider the V2 hierarchy as having no authorityYou notorious subjectivist, in that case, the Protestants and Orthodox are also justified! The Protestants "consider the Catholic Church as having no authority", the Orthodox "consider the Roman Church as not being the Church and having no authority"; so according to Ladislaus' ridiculous and persistent subjectivism, everybody is justified who believes the Hierarchical Church is not the Church. Not just the Dimonds, who according to him are perfectly ok because what they "consider" is all that matters. :facepalm: ;D
Except that this is not true according to the principles of sedeprivationism ... which is, again, why I hold to it as the most reasonable explanation for the current crisis.Well, that's a start; at least you see the problem a simple sedevacantism would cause upon the demise or resignation of all Ordinaries and Roman Clergy. But sedeprivationism doesn't solve the problem for 3 reasons (1) First, as many, I think even sedes have pointed out, sedeprivationism involves the same private judgment - an Old Catholic could say the Church lost authority at Vatican I, a Protestant at Trent, an Orthodox at Florence, an Arian at Nicaea etc. So, it is more of the same subjectivism instead of the objective fact of identifying where the Church is, by Petrine and Apostolic Succession, which is how the Magisterium and the Fathers proceed (2) sedeprivationism, by half measures, ends up applying to the Catholic Church what the Catholic Church has historically applied to the Orthodox Church - the Orthodox Church has no jurisdiction, the Patriarch of Constantinople is himself a vagrant Bishop. If now it has really become true according to the sedeprivationists that the Popes and the Catholic Hierarchy themselves are vagrant and have no jurisdiction, that would constitute a defection of the Catholic Church. (3) the original sedeprivationists, decades ago, claimed the Pope could designate Bishops, but these Bishops would lack authority. So if they now want to claim their "material Pope" can actually invest Ordinaries with habitual jurisdiction, they've firstly changed their story. Secondly, as for example that Bishops appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople would possess absolutely no authority, so also Bishops appointed by a "material Pope" would not. Therefore, sedeprivationism does not really solve the problem, and needs to be revised. It is very probable there was interference and more in the Church especially in the 60s and therefore these reforms are not free. But the absolutely minimum requisites are there.
You notorious subjectivist, in that case, the Protestants and Orthodox are also justified!
The Pope was trying to secure some freedoms for Christians in a Muslim country where Christians are oppressed; he did it badly but has clarified it means only permissive will. That's the end of that matter. How many of us have tried in any way to help persecuted Christians?
If you want a convenient acronym to describe the True Traditionalist position, it would be something like, "RSWR" (i.e. Recognize, Submit, Work for Restoration).
The Bishops and Priests of the Society know they have it.
Now, lest we forget, the article of Siscoe and the focus of this thread is not over the SSPX's canonical status, but over SVism and Schism
We should have an ongoing prayer crusade for the Holy Father.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Francis is indeed the Holy Father, how are someone like the Dimonds (or whoever) not schismatic?
How does the "material schismatic" argument not apply just as well to professing Protestants or EOs who are in good faith?
Again, material vs. formal isn't related to good faith or sincerity.That's a true point regarding the Great Western Schism, but that still raises questions.
SV Catholics have every intention of submitting to the Holy Father, but (assuming Bergoglio is legit) are in material error in considering him not to be Pope.
Protestants have no such intention of submitting to the Holy Father. They are not wrong merely with regard to the fact of identity, but do not submit IN PRINCIPLE to the Pope.
During the Great Western schism, neither side were formal schismatics, because all were Catholics ... but some of them were mistaken about the identity of the Pope. Protestants on the other hand do not submit out of principle to the Pope, and not due to a mere error of fact.
That is the difference between formal vs. material ... and it has nothing to do with sincerity. You could have sincere and insincere formal heretics, and sincere and insincere material heretics.
Because of the widespread doubt regarding his legitimacy.Widespread only among sedes, which represents what, less than .001% of the Catholic population. Hardly widespread. Other than that, +99% accept him as pope. A sad specimen indeed, pope none the less.
That's a true point regarding the Great Western Schism, but that still raises questions.
One: What counts as "widespread doubt"? I'm guessing 99% of Catholics have zero doubt regarding the identity of the Pope, or 99% of the world. That wouldn't have been the case during the Great Schism.
If during the reign of Pope Pius XII someone said that on principle they want to submit to the Holy Father, they just don't think that man is the Holy Father, would that be only material schism? What if they thought Pius IX was an antipope and rejected Vatican I on that ground?
Widespread only among sedes, which represents what, less than .001% of the Catholic population. Hardly widespread. Other than that, +99% accept him as pope. A sad specimen indeed, pope none the less.
Well, I'm guessing (and this is backed by their own polls) that 95% of nominal "Catholics" aren't actually Catholic and don't even have the faith. So of those remain, the vast majority of the TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC movement, those who still hold the Traditional Catholic faith, have doubts about the legitimacy of the Vatican II popes.By what standard are you judging that? Rejection of Vatican II? Are you assuming that someone who accepts Vatican II isn't Catholic? Or are you judging by some other standard?
No matter how it's sliced, it's widespread acceptance, not widespread doubt. Neither really matters though, since the Church is not a democracy.
By what standard are you judging that? Rejection of Vatican II? Are you assuming that someone who accepts Vatican II isn't Catholic? Or are you judging by some other standard?
Then, give me one or two texts from pre-Vatican II manuals that (1) speak of "material offices" (2) disagree with the CE's explanation of Apostolicity of mission (you won't find any) as I asked (or with that of Fr. Gueranger, St. Anthony's Catechism etc). You have not done this. When something is true doctrine, you will easily find it in multiple sources, widely attested.
If you think St. Robert has said something about "material offices", cite the text or give the reference. The Doctor never did.
There are only a few ways the Church will be saved, either (1) Pope Francis is miraculously enlightened by God, or (2) a good Tradition-leaning Catholic Cardinal becomes Pope, or (3) a good Traditional Catholic Bishop (like Bp. Fellay) becomes Cardinal and then Pope etc.
Nope. Polls indicating that 95+% of "Catholics" don't believe in the Real Presence, or Papal Infallibility, or any one of a number of basic/core Catholic dogmas.I'm gonna assume based on the wall those polls were done, those people knew the Church taught those things but still rejected them?
We've already discussed this. Widespread simply means that it's not localized, i.e. not just a single crackpot losing his mind. There are a great many Traditional Catholics who harbor doubts about their legitimacy (including +Lefebvre, +Williamson, and +Tissier). Bishop Castro de Mayer became a sedevacantist in his later days. And these doubts are based on very specific and grave reasons, thereby constituting positive doubt.Ladislaus, I know you ascribe to the sedeprivationist theory, which one of its great advantages is that doubt is irrelevant, since we only judge on the external matters, that the pope is not orthodox. If you truly belive in this theory, then arguing for a doubt-based theory (i.e. straight sedevacantism) is hypocritical.
Ladislaus, I know you ascribe to the sedeprivationist theory, which one of its great advantages is that doubt is irrelevant, since we only judge on the external matters, that the pope is not orthodox. If you truly belive in this theory, then arguing for a doubt-based theory (i.e. straight sedevacantism) is hypocritical.
Just because one has a doubt, doesn't mean it's a legitimate doubt. Just because there's "widespread" doubt doesn't mean it's the kind that warrants positive doubt. Many people have doubts about the papacy because they have the wrong foundational understanding of the limits of infallibility and indefectibility. They read 1 part of +Bellarmine, where he argues that the pope's faith could never fail, and assume that our times indicates that the seat is vacant. Obviously, if this was the ONLY thing that +Bellarmine wrote on the topic, they would have a point. But he wrote much more. (And there are other non-Bellarmine texts that are taken out of context, like "cuм Ex").
Many other theologians, including +Bellarmine, say the pope's faith can fail and he can be a heretic. Thus, the question of having a doubt about a papacy solely based on the orthodoxy of the pope, is not a legitimate doubt. So, the high % of people today, who base their doubt on faulty theology and incomplete and partially outdated laws (i.e. cuм Ex was revised by both St Pius X and Pius XII, but that is purposefully ignored). All doubts are not equal. Only legitimate doubts, based on sound principles, count towards positive doubt.
“…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
Just because one has a doubt, doesn't mean it's a legitimate doubt. Just because there's "widespread" doubt doesn't mean it's the kind that warrants positive doubt.
Ladislaus, I know you ascribe to the sedeprivationist theory, which one of its great advantages is that doubt is irrelevant, since we only judge on the external matters, that the pope is not orthodox. If you truly belive in this theory, then arguing for a doubt-based theory (i.e. straight sedevacantism) is hypocritical.
"... the cardinals, when they create a Pontiff, exercise their authority, not on the pope as such, since he is not yet such, but on the matter, that is to say, on the person which they
dispose in some way by the election in order that he might receive from God the form of the pontificate."
I don't understand your criticism here. Our doubt is based on the external forum. Doubt suffices to impede the exercise of formal papal authority. But sedeprivationism holds that the Pope remains, nevertheless, materially in possession of the office even if impeded from formally exercising it. So doubt about legitimacy and sedeprivationism are not mutually exclusive.My criticism is that I don't think it is correct to mix the issue of positive doubt with sedeprivationism (which is just a fancy word which says that the pope is not orthodox, and explains what happens when he's not). The way I see it, if the pope says or acts in a heretical manner and we judge his actions in the external forum as anti-orthodox, then we have the facts available to ignore his errors. I don't see how doubt enters the equation, once it's determined that the error is a clear-cut departure from the Faith.
“Such power remains in the Church and in the College with respect to that which is material in the Papacy, since after the death of the Pope the College is able, through election, to determine a person to the Papacy, that it be such or such a one”; “if by the term ‘Papacy’ one means the election and the determination of the person, this is what constitutes in the Papacy the material element”; “(…) as to the election and the determination of the person, this is like to the material element.”
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Fr.-Ricossas-article-Pope-Papacy-and-the-Vacant-See.pdf
“Three points ought to be addressed. First, there are three elements in a Pope: the Papacy, the person who is Pope, e.g., Peter, and the union between the two elements, i.e., the Papacy in Peter, from which union results ‘Pope Peter’. Second, by recognizing and applying each cause to the effect to which it is proper, we find that the Papacy proceeds immediately from God; Peter comes from his father, etc.; but ever since the immediate institution of the first ‘Peter’ by Christ Himself, the union between the Papacy and Peter does not come from God but from man.
This is made evident from the fact that this union is produced through the intermediary of a human election. Two human consents contribute to this effect, namely that of the electors and that of the elect. It is indeed necessary that the electors elect voluntarily, and that the elect accepts the election voluntarily, for otherwise nothing happens (nihil fit). Therefore, the union of the Papacy in Peter does not proceed from God immediately, but from a human minister, on the part of the electors and on the part of the elect. (…) From the fact that the union between the Papacy and Peter is an effect of the human will, since this constitutes Peter as Pope. It follows that even though the Pope depends only on God in being and in becoming (in esse et in fieri), nevertheless Pope Peter also depends on man in the process of becoming Pope (in fieri). Indeed, Peter is made Pope by man when, elected by men, the elected man accepts, and thus the Papacy is united to Peter.”
They might put more qualifications on extra ecclesiam than you'd be comfortable with, but they'd definitely hold to it,I would say that most novus ordo catholics put many qualifications on EENS, which in effect, denies EENS. So, in this sense, they aren't catholic and are material heretics because they follow V2's heresies (unknowingly, mostly. But sin and error are punishments from God, so those of us who know the truth must thank God for His mercy. Those that do not know the truth - most are being punished for God knows they would reject it anyways; some may find it in the future, but that number will be small).
OK no offense, but this seems like kind of a self-serving definition (and I mean that objectively, not subjectively.) "Most people who aren't in communion with current Rome have doubts about the validity of the V2 Popes." I'd really, really hope so. I mean, if Francis is the pope, you'd be obligated (objectively) to be in communion with him. Now I could see a case being made that authority is limited and thus particular perameters have to be placed on being in communion with him, but it wouldn't make sense for someone who thought Francis was the Pope to want to reject communion with him and his Church outright.
When Ladislaus says that "most catholics doubt the legitimacy of the v2 popes" he's only talking about Traditional Catholics (i.e. no one in communion with new-rome).
OK no offense, but this seems like kind of a self-serving definition (and I mean that objectively, not subjectively.) "Most people who aren't in communion with current Rome have doubts about the validity of the V2 Popes." I'd really, really hope so. I mean, if Francis is the pope, you'd be obligated (objectively) to be in communion with him.
Now I could see a case being made that authority is limited and thus particular perameters have to be placed on being in communion with him, but it wouldn't make sense for someone who thought Francis was the Pope to want to reject communion with him and his Church outright.Right, I agree, most novus ordo catholics don't have a reason to reject the V2 popes. They may disagree with some things but on the whole, they accept the conciliar church. However, let me point out that the phrase "in communion with" is modernistic and has only been around since the V2 days, so what does this even mean? You're either in schism or you're not, right? New-rome wants to argue that Trads are not in schism but are not in "full communion". To me, this is modernist mumbo-jumbo and they invented a term to describe those Trads who aren't in schism (i.e. they are orthodox) but they are not "in communion with" the "new" interpretation of orthodoxy (i.e. V2).
Of course, I asked Ladislaus earlier, and he said he would *not* say that someone who accepts Vatican II is automatically not Catholic, rather he was saying most Novus Ordo Catholics aren't Catholic because they overtly deny some dogma of the faith (transubstantiation, papal infallibility, etc.)
And if you define a real Catholic *that* way (ie. someone who accepts every dogma of the Church they're aware of, and would on principle submit their judgment to that of the Church were they to be shown that one or more of their beliefs were not compatible with it) it seems most likely that more real Catholics than not do *not* doubt the legitimacy of the post Vatican II popes.Ok, that's true (from a certain perspective). But...as soon as you were to show these "good willed" catholics their errors and how they are not 100% orthodox, then they would see the contradiction of their old ways (i.e. V2) vs the true way (i.e. pre-V2). Ergo, they would immediately see the modernism/heresies of the V2 popes, and a doubt about their legitimacy would arise.
But yeah, if you define it as just people who aren't in communion with New Rome... would that even include the current SSPX? (as opposed to the SSPX Resistance.) Even if so, yeah, I would probably suspect that a good chunk of people in SSPX chapels at least have some amount of doubt about this.For the record, I disagree with the argument that a lack of orthodoxy on the part of the pope leads to doubt about his papacy because I believe that it's possible for a pope to lose his faith, become a heretic and still retain the papacy (until the Church removes him). Many theologians have argued this is possible, including +Bellarmine. Most Trads, due to the sede influence, think that an unorthodox pope loses his chair immediately, or automatically. Thus their "doubts" are more easily aroused and since, in their theory, they don't have to wait for a formal process to happen, then their rejection of a papacy is fairly hasty. I reject this thought process as leading to chaos and private interpretation, which is not at all consistent with the monarchical foundation of the Church.
And again, to be clear, I'm not necessarily arguing that the doubt isn't justified. I'm purposely not arguing for any particular opinion, but trying to understand the logic of the various opinions and how they reconcile with reality. Thanks for engaging.
I don't want to speak for Ladislaus, because he is usually never self-serving, but I agree, my definition came across that way.Yeah. Just to be clear, I have no reason to think any forum posters here are self-serving. I just thought that the particular definition you proposed (and I'm not sure if that was even the definition Ladislaus was using or not) seemed that way.
Right, I agree, most novus ordo catholics don't have a reason to reject the V2 popes. They may disagree with some things but on the whole, they accept the conciliar church. However, let me point out that the phrase "in communion with" is modernistic and has only been around since the V2 days, so what does this even mean? You're either in schism or you're not, right? New-rome wants to argue that Trads are not in schism but are not in "full communion". To me, this is modernist mumbo-jumbo and they invented a term to describe those Trads who aren't in schism (i.e. they are orthodox) but they are not "in communion with" the "new" interpretation of orthodoxy (i.e. V2).Is it modernist to ask whether someone is in communion with the Pope or not? I'm sincerely asking, there is no sarcasm here at all.
I agree. But the dogma of EENS is the most denied dogma of our day; most people believe (for sentimental reasons) that "good people" go to heaven, no matter their faith. Denying this dogma is just as heretical as denying transubstantiation or infallibility.That would be the loosest interpretation, with the strictest possible interpretation being that of Fr. Feeney or the Dimond Brothers. But there's a spectrum of opinion between "Good people automatically get in" and "all who are visibly outside the Catholic Church are damned" (And what I'm saying here is true even if feeney was right.) Lefebvre and the Baltimore Catechism, for better or worse, both disagreed with both of those opinions. I don't think St Justin Martyr (to be fair he was really early, so you could argue he was before extra ecclesiam was explicitly formulated) would've said all good people make it. Augustine thought that some of the Donatists weren't formal heretics. Even Vatican II says that those who know the Catholic Church is the true Church and reject it are damned. That's a bit vague but even Vatican II would rule out the Pelagian "all good people make it" view.
Ok, that's true (from a certain perspective). But...as soon as you were to show these "good willed" catholics their errors and how they are not 100% orthodox, then they would see the contradiction of their old ways (i.e. V2) vs the true way (i.e. pre-V2). Ergo, they would immediately see the modernism/heresies of the V2 popes, and a doubt about their legitimacy would arise.I think that assumes a lot about the way people's logic tend to be wired, but TBH I'm not arguing that they're of good will or not. I'm using people who don't deny any dogma, whether they're of good will or not. I think its fair definitionally to say that someone who says "I know the Church teaches Transubstantiation, but I reject it anyway" is not a Catholic. I think its fair to say someone who says "I know the Church teaches that Mary never sinned, but I just don't buy it" isn't Catholic. But I don't think you can say that about someone who says "You know what, I realize pre Vatican II doctrine says X, and Vatican II doctrine says Y, and I don't know how they can be reconciled, but I accept on faith that both have to be true and have to be reconciled somehow" is "not Catholic." Nor do I think you can say that about someone who (rightly or wrongly) attempts to provide a reconciliation for the apparent contradictions. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're even of bad will, but to say they're "not Catholic" and thus don't count when it comes to establishing whether widespread doubt exists or does not exist is what I was getting at when I was talking about the self-serving definition. If you limit "real Catholic" to anyone who accepts all dogmas he is aware of, and is on principle willing to submit to whatever the Church teaches on any issue, I think most people who fall under that category probably don't have any doubt that Francis is the Pope, though I grant that most people in the Novus Ordo probably don't even meet this standard. But if you define "real Catholic" in a way that's stricter than that, I think that's just kinda skewing the definitions to get the result you want, if that makes sense. If someone were a dogmatic Sedevacantist, such that they thought non Sedes weren't really Catholic, they could then say that every single "real Catholic" knows there's no pope, and based on their definition they wouldn't be wrong.
For the record, I disagree with the argument that a lack of orthodoxy on the part of the pope leads to doubt about his papacy because I believe that it's possible for a pope to lose his faith, become a heretic and still retain the papacy (until the Church removes him). Many theologians have argued this is possible, including +Bellarmine. Most Trads, due to the sede influence, think that an unorthodox pope loses his chair immediately, or automatically. Thus their "doubts" are more easily aroused and since, in their theory, they don't have to wait for a formal process to happen, then their rejection of a papacy is fairly hasty. I reject this thought process as leading to chaos and private interpretation, which is not at all consistent with the monarchical foundation of the Church.Fair enough. I don't know enough about this subject to comment on it.
I think if more people were to remember that the papacy has a human element to it, instead of just concentrating on the spiritual element (i.e. orthodoxy), then they would see that the vast majority of theologians did not have a problem with the idea of a pope becoming a heretic and that this does NOT lead to doubts about his papacy, it only leads to doubts about his personal salvation. God gives us bad leaders as a punishment for sin. No amount of bad popes will change the Truth of His Church, so it is unnecessary to doubt the legitimacy of a bad pope. A bad pope or no pope - practically it's the same result.
Widespread only among sedes, which represents what, less than .001% of the Catholic population. Hardly widespread. Other than that, +99% accept him as pope. A sad specimen indeed, pope none the less.Yes. And among about 5350 Ordinaries of the Catholic Church, all have accepted him almost from Day One, and pray for him as Pope.
Cantarella, thank you for the citation. That's interesting. Did either Cardinal St. Robert or Cardinal Cajetan say that a Pope who falls into heresy loses the form of the Papacy? If I recall the argument correctly, Cardinal Cajetan had argued that as the Cardinal electors unite the Pontificate to the Person elected, they can also disjoin the Pontificate from that person later on, and in this case, they do not exercise authority over the Papacy, but only over the link that unites the man to the papacy. Cardinal St. Bellarmine rejects this opinion saying, in the case of election, the Pope doesn't yet exist, but if they exercised authority against the Pope after his election, they would necessarily be exercising it over the Papacy itself. And also that as when the Pope deposes Bishops, we deduce the Pope is superior to Bishops; so, if Cardinals could depose the Pope, then it would seem to follow the Church is superior to the Pope. I do not know what Cardinal Cajetan would have said; but St. Robert's opinion on this hypothetical case seems to be that the Pope would lose everything.
Do you think that a Pope, after having become a public and formal heretic, can still appoint Bishops to episcopal sees, and incardinate Cardinals or Roman Clergy, such that these latter would have full authority? I think he would lose the authority to be able to do that.
It's an interesting speculation. My person view is that a Pope can never be a formal and notorious heretic, though he may err or make mistakes. The Lord prayed the faith of St. Peter would not fail, and while Vatican I did not formally define anything on whether a Pope would or would not become a heretic, it did seem to endorse the theological opinion that a Pope would not become a heretic as at least a probable one, saying, "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his Successors", now faith does not fail if a man falls into lesser errors, or even more serious and grave ones without pertinacity; but faith does fail if a man becomes a heretic. Therefore, it seems likely that as St. Peter was weak during the Passion of Christ, the Popes will also be weak during this Passion of the Church; until the Triumph of the Church, through the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart by the Pope and the Bishops, comes. But as St. Peter according to the Saints and Doctors did not actually lose faith on the night of the Passion when he denied Our Lord, but only was negligent in outwardly professing it, so also imho it is more likely than not that the Popes will never be heretics. Would you disagree? Let us pray the Pope and the Bishops do God's Will.
The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, CANNOT fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion
“The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.”
“The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.”
Having said that, I do believe it possible that a true conspirator may usurp the Seat of Peter, in which case, he was never Pope; but a political infiltrator. That situation would explain what has occurred in the Vatican (as of today, I really think it is the ONLY possible explanation). What is the alternative? Admit that the Church of Christ has defected, making a mockery of the promises of Our Lord?
I hold the belief, as most theologians do, that the Pope cannot ever become a heretic, let alone teach heresy to the whole Church. It is impossible. I also think that the Pope cannot lose His Faith personally. Whereas it is within the realm of possibility that he commits a mistake here and there as an individual, he will never lose his Faith and he will never err doctrinally. Christ has prayed for that intention.If you actually do believe this, then you necessarily must hold the belief that all popes are impeccable (incapable of ever sinning), as such, you are bound by this belief to be Novus Ordo.
Having said that, I do believe it possible that a true conspirator may usurp the Seat of Peter, in which case, he was never Pope; but a political infiltrator. That situation would explain what has occurred in the Vatican (as of today, I really think it is the ONLY possible explanation). What is the alternative? Admit that the Church of Christ has defected, making a mockery of the promises of Our Lord?If such a thing were possible, it would, at the very least, reduce the papal election laws, ceremonies and procedures, both before and after the election, which laws btw, have themselves been established by popes, to nothing more than ceremonies used as instruments designed to deceive the whole world - if such a thing as electing a usurper to the Seat of Peter were even possible.
If you actually do believe this, then you necessarily must hold the belief that all popes are impeccable (incapable of ever sinning), as such, you are bound by this belief to be Novus Ordo.
If such a thing were possible, it would, at the very least, reduce the papal election laws, ceremonies and procedures, both before and after the election, which laws btw, have themselves been established by popes, to nothing more than ceremonies used as instruments designed to deceive the whole world - if such a thing as electing a usurper to the Seat of Peter were even possible.
:facepalm:It's only illogical to sedes.
Ah, the logic is not strong in this one.
Sounds like the same slur that Prots employ against their strawman view of papal infallibility.
I hold the belief, as most theologians do, that the Pope cannot ever become a heretic,Define "most". Many hold this position, but not most.
Unless you believe, as I do, that no usurper was actually ever elected.I do believe that no usurper was ever elected.
Siri, IMO, was elected and uncanonically deposed by the conspirators. Some day the full truth will come out.But there is no basis, it is nothing more than, as you say, an opinion-become-belief, an opinion founded upon an entirely unsubstantiated event, which was denied by Siri himself.
I do believe that no usurper was ever elected.
But there is no basis, it is nothing more than, as you say, an opinion-become-belief, an opinion founded upon an entirely unsubstantiated event, which was denied by Siri himself.
If however, Siri was actually elected and deposed (there is no method within the Church at all to depose a pope, canonical or uncanonical), Siri himself would in fact be guilty of at least a grave sin of omission by his denial or silence in the matter, which under those terms, he would be guilty of doing what sedes (wrongfully) say popes cannot do - sinning via the breaking the Church's "universal law" (which it really isn't) of papal elections, thus ipso facto he vacates the office anyway. So why believe in that conspiracy theory?
Yeah, we know, you think these guys who have been elected are actually Catholic.I believe, as Pope St. Pius X put it, the man elected is "instantly the true pope". That's all there is to that.
Wrong. Siri stated that grave things happened at the conclaves but that he could not speak about them due to the secrecy oath. And there's a lot of evidence (albeit no smoking gun proof) that he was in fact elected.Talk about a totally lame excuse, especially if he was elected the pope (and accepted). He'd have been way better than any of the conciliar popes - not. :facepalm:
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/f0578cf9e89cfce724255d5ab10df86f/tenor.gif)Reality proves that not even manifest heresy or apostasy has caused a pope to vacate the office, either that, or the popes are not guilty of manifest heresy.
... confusing personal sin with public heresy.
Personal sin does not vacate the office, only manifest heresy or apostasy.
Reality proves that not even manifest heresy or apostasy has caused a pope to vacate the office.
Talk about a totally lame excuse, especially if he was elected the pope (and accepted). He'd have been way better than any of the conciliar popes - not. :facepalm:
What reality are you looking at? I see a Concilar Church that doesn't resemble the Catholic Church of old. That's the reality I'm confronting.It's two different churches, that much is for sure - that's just reality again. The reality of the matter is that, like all the conciliar popes, he is still holding his office.
Nobody said it was an excuse. It was a rebuttal to your statement that Siri denied it. Uhm, yes, the man had the Catholic faith, unlike the Conciliar imposters ... so, certainly he would have been better. What are you smoking, man?We would not expect one who does not even defend his own election to the papacy to defend the faith, quite the opposite. A man such as that is expected to defend the faith just the same as he defended his election, iow, just the same or, likely even worse that the conciliar popes, i.e. not at all.
Was he a weak man? Maybe. But you find yourself confronted by Communists threatening to execute all the Iron Curtain bishops and see how you respond.
We would not expect one who does not even defend his own election to the papacy to defend the faith, quite the opposite. A man such as that is expected to defend the faith just the same as he defended his election, iow, just the same or, likely even worse that the conciliar popes, i.e. not at all.
By what standard are you judging that? Rejection of Vatican II? Are you assuming that someone who accepts Vatican II isn't Catholic? Or are you judging by some other standard?Let Archbishop Lefebvre answer your question:
“To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
Wrong. Siri stated that grave things happened at the conclaves but that he could not speak about them due to the secrecy oath. And there's a lot of evidence (albeit no smoking gun proof) that he was in fact elected.There was smoking chimney proof.
The smoking chimney only proves that an election was THOUGHT to have occurred. It’s circuмstantial evidence only. But when added to other circuмstantial eveidence (Siri comments, FBI investigator comments) it paints a picture. But hardly an airtight case.For the sake of argument.
Secondly, even if it could be proved that Siri was elected, it doesn’t matter at all for today. Because Siri is dead, JPII is dead and the conclave after both of them would’ve been legitimate (ie Benedict XVI). So now, are we dealing with ANOTHER forced resignation (Benedict), which allows a false pope (Francis) to rule just as Siri’s forced resignation potentially allowed Paul VI and JPII to falsely rule? I don’t know, but the Siri thesis has no bearing on the Francis problem today.
“I have been told to pray much for the Church and the Pope…The people must pray earnestly for the extirpation (rooting out) of the dark church ...
“She (the Holy Mother) said a great many others things that it pains me to relate: she said that if only one priest could offer the bloodless sacrifice as worthily and with the same disposition as the Apostles, he could avert all the disasters (that are to come). To my knowledge the people in the Church did not see the apparition, but they must have been stirred by something supernatural, because as soon as the Holy Virgin had said that they must pray God with outstretched arms, they all raised their arms. These were all good and devout people, and they did not know where help and guidance should be sought. There were no traitors and enemies among them, yet they were afraid of one another. Once can judge thereby what the situation was like ... “I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church…But God had other designs…”
“I came to the Church of Peter and Paul (Rome) and saw a dark world of distress, confusion, and corruption, through which shone countless graces from thousands of saints who there repose…” “I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church: I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds flocking to the city. I saw the ever-increasing tepidity of the clergy, the circle of darkness ever widening…”“Again I saw in the midst of these disasters the twelve new Apostles laboring in different countries, unknown to one another, each receiving streams of living water from on high They all did the same work. They know not whence they received their tasks; but as soon as one was finished, another was ready for them…”“The Jews shall return to Palestine, and become Christians toward the end of the world.October 22, 1822“Very bad times will come when non-Catholics will lead many people astray. A great confusion will result. I saw the battle also. The enemies were far more numerous, but the small army of the faithful cut down whole rows of enemy soldiers. During the battle, the Blessed Virgin stood on a hill, wearing a suit armor. It was a terrible war. At the end, only a few fighters for the just cause survived, but the victory was theirs…”
By what standard are you judging that? Rejection of Vatican II? Are you assuming that someone who accepts Vatican II isn't Catholic? Or are you judging by some other standard?Let Archbishop Lefebvre answer your question:
“To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
Say Siri was elected, and was really pope, and John XXIII to JPII were antipopes. That could arguably make the cardinals appointed by those 4 popes not real cardinals.Great points. Maybe those Cardinals weren't true Cardinals, but there were still other Cardinals who voted. Would the election still be binding? Maybe? I don't know.
But even aside from that, if the 1968 rites of episcopal consecration were set up by antipopes, they could be invalid, which would mean Benedict could have not truly been a bishop. In which case he couldn't be a bishop of Rome.
I'm not saying that's true, but if it was why wouldn't it matter?I think it doesn't matter, for a number of reasons:
The episcopal rites are not 100% invalid, so his episcopal orders could've been ok. My understanding is that his election would've still been valid, even if he's not a bishop. He would've been "pope elect" until receiving full orders. In theory, any catholic male can be elected pope (i'm sure there's an age threshold), they just do not receive full papal powers until they are made a bishop.
2) We don't have concrete proof that Siri was forced to resign, so we cannot draw any conclusions from this situation. We must presume that Siri was not elected. I think this is a situation where the Church will re-write the history books, when facts come to light in the future, proving the Siri thesis.
I agree. Yes, here's another situation where the material and formal distinction applies. He could not exercise the authority formally until he were to receive episcopal consecration, but he would still have material possession of the office. Material Pope but not Formal Pope.Laymen can not be validly elected or appointed to an ecclesiastical office. Only clerics can possess an ecclesiastical office. Only clerics are members of the hierarchy. And only members of the hierarchy can exercise jurisdiction over the flock. A layman could not validly accept the nomination to the papacy. He would have to receive first tonsure before accepting the nomination and upon accepting the nomination, the cleric would immediately receive the office with all its authority even before being ordained and/or consecrated. But a refusal to be ordained and/or consecrated would be an indication of at least a tacit resignation from the office and consequent sede vacante. However, I would not claim that it is impossible for a layman to accept the nomination. It would be irregular if that happened but if he immediately received first tonsure, ordination and consecration, and the Roman Clergy (either the Cardinals or if the Cardinals are impeded, the clerics attached to the Roman See) peacefully accept the results of the election then it would be valid. But he would not have received the authority of the office until he had received first tonsure and entered into the clerical state (the hierarchy). Also, peaceful acceptance is nothing if there is no valid matter. This should be obvious upon reading cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. A non-Catholic even if supposedly peacefully accepted by the Roman Clergy (peaceful acceptance by the whole Church is not required for validity) cannot validly possess the office. That is metaphysically impossible. So how could the Cardinals accept a non-Catholic? Easy, first infiltrate the priesthood with very talented communists and freemasons and then wait for them to rise into the ranks of the College of Cardinals. When you have enough in there along with some dirt on some of the more influential true Catholic Cardinals (or maybe just some wicked threats), you can make your move to elect one of your own. Would the supposedly peaceful acceptance prove a fraud was legit? No. No more than putting lipstick on a pig would make a valid marriage. Valid marriage requires one man and one woman. Valid papal elections require one Catholic cleric. Also, please define conclavism. If by conclavism you mean invalid elections done by people who have no authority to do so, then yes, conclavism is a thing to be avoided. But if you mean any election not approved by the Novus Ordo hierarchy, then you are badly mistaken. The true Catholic clergy of Rome have a right to hold an election. Normally it would be done by the Cardinals (who are members of the Roman Clergy) but if the Cardinals are not available for whatever reason, then the lower ranking members have the authority and the duty to hold an election and provide the Roman See with a pontiff.
Now, along these lines, let's say that a layman had been elected Pope. He accepts but then doesn't bother to receive Ordinaton/Consecration. Let's say he's too busy with his secular affairs (as perhaps some of the corrupt Medieval Popes might have been). Could the Church then strip him of the material office? It would be akin to a non-consummated marriage, which can be annulled. I say that the Church in those circuмstances could rescind the election and elect another because the material designation remains within the power of the Church until the man assumes the formal authority of office. Once God unites the form to the matter, however, the Church would be powerless to strip the office from him. Only way the form can be removed is if the matter becomes so corrupted as to be unable to sustain the form (death, insanity, and heresy/apostasy). Casuitical analyses like these, even if merely hypothetical, are great for illustrating principles. This is another example where the material/formal distinction makes eminent sense. Without that it would be hard to make any sense of this kind of scenario.
I believe a heretical Pope would be essentially in the same category (vis-a-vis sedeprivationist theory) as the non-ordained Pope in this prior example.
Also, peaceful acceptance is nothing if there is no valid matter.
namely, that whoever is elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a Pope in her name, by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately elected, is in fact Pope.
John of St. Thomas also addresses issues related to the conditions for a valid election
Go ahead, XavierFem, keep arguing that it's dogmatically certain these men are legitimate popes (contrary to the opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre) ... and you're only digging your grave deeper in formal schism. +Lefebvre was not guilty of schism, since he withheld the certainty of faith regarding their legitimacy.Archbishop Lefebvre 1983 (https://archive.org/stream/LefebvreRidgefield8283A/Lefebvre%20Ridgefield%2082%2083%20a_djvu.txt):
Notice. Legitimately Elected + Accepted by the ChurchBut if so, he obviously never accepted that election.
Both are required.
Siri was the man who was legitimately elected in 1958.
But if so, he obviously never accepted that election.
I don't want to get derailed by quibbling over whether a layman can be elected. Let's just say it's a tonsured cleric who is not a priest and not a bishop.He receives the power of jurisdiction immediately. The power of order would be a separate thing. A cleric with ordinary jurisdiction could indeed rule over an auxiliary bishop who has no ordinary jurisdiction.
You're claiming that the second he accepts the election, he receives full papal power. But that's nonsense. He cannot suddenly exercise Magisterium if he's not even part of the Ecclesia Docens. He can receive the material aspects of power, such as making appointments, but he cannot formally exercise the office of teaching and ruling. How can a mere cleric rule over bishop?
If that was true, which personally I totally doubt (it is far more likely that if anything at all really did happen, all it was is that he did not accept his election), then what I said earlier stands - a man who whimpers away like that and will not stand up for himself in that situation, is most assuredly not going to stand up for Our Lord, or defend or promulgate the faith. If such was the case, then it's most likely that Pope Paul VI was the lesser of two evils.
No, the Siri Thesis narrative is that he did in fact accept, but then was intimidated into stepping down, which resignation would have been invalid due having been made under duress. That one source cited by the FBI guy Paul Williams states the the CIA had intelligence that he was elected, accepted, and chose the name Gregory XVII.
a man who whimpers away like that and will not stand up for himself in that situation, is most assuredly not going to stand up for Our Lord, or defend or promulgate the faith. If such was the case, then it's most likely that Pope Paul VI was the lesser of two evils.
…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved?
He receives the power of jurisdiction immediately. The power of order would be a separate thing. A cleric with ordinary jurisdiction could indeed rule over an auxiliary bishop who has no ordinary jurisdiction.
Otherwise, how could Archbishop Lefebvre have allowed Fr. Schmidberger to rule over the bishops of the SSPX?
Fr. Schmidberger's role in the SSPX has nothing to do with jurisdiction. Leaving aside that the SSPX has no ordinary jurisdiction, religious obedience is not the same thing as jurisdiction. In point of fact, however, THE reason Archbishop Lefebvre asked that no bishop be the head of the Society is precisely to make the statement that the SSPX is not claiming jurisdiction and therefore setting up schismatic counter-Church.Sorry, I think I misunderstood or missed your point in that post that I was responding to. I understand that in the case where a cleric is elected to the papacy he must seek ordination and/or consecration or he risks losing the office. But as soon as he accepts the nomination he truly does possess the office and he does exercise ordinary and universal jurisdiction over the whole Church. But now I think you never said otherwise and I agree with you that he doesn’t exercise Magisterial authority until he is consecrated. Which is why he is required to seek consecration if he isn’t already a bishop. And this is why we will probably never see anyone but a bishop nominated. I remember reading about a cleric appointed to a see who delayed a long time before being ordained and consecrated. Meanwhile he was exercising his power of jurisdiction. It was seen as a big scandal.
But the power to exercise Magisterium is not merely an aspect of jurisdiction. It's part of the TEACHING office of the Church, and only Bishops are part of the Ecclesia Docens. No mere-cleric Pope could issue an Encyclical to the Universal Church that would have binding force.
No offense to John of St Thomas, but his analysis is very outdated.Not at all. His analysis is clear and perfect. The Church's declaration that a man is Pope is tantamount to the Church's defining of an article of faith. In either case, it is certain and infallible and what the Church has declared must be believed as entirely true. There have been sedevacantists before our times, like William of Ockham and Savonarola. They were in error because they did not understand this principle. You have the benefit of having had it clearly explained by John of St. Thomas.
The rules for a conclave and elections have been changed many, many times in the last centuries.And the current positive legislation of the Church states that no Cardinal by reason or pretext of any excommunication may be prevented from being elected Roman Pontiff. But beside that, universal acceptance is a guarantee that the election is valid.
You have to look at the current laws in place for the conclave, since the rules for elections are a disciplinary matter.Pope St. Pius X has explained that as soon as the man elected accepts the elections, he possesses in act, and can exercise, the supreme jurisdiction over the whole world. If there be any doubts in the matter, they can be cleared up by the Church's acceptance of the man elected.
And the current positive legislation of the Church states that no Cardinal by reason or pretext of any excommunication may be prevented from being elected Roman Pontiff.
You have to be kidding. Paul VI was the lesser of two evils compared to Siri? I've heard a lot of things, but this takes the cake. Has your rabid support of R&R made you insane?You're viewing the whole scenario through rose colored glasses. All you see, for whatever reason, is a holy man who was forced to renege - on being the Supreme Authority of the Church on earth. Think about that won't you?
Archbishop Lefebvre:
So I'd love to see what Pope Siri would have done.
Not at all. His analysis is clear and perfect. The Church's declaration that a man is Pope is tantamount to the Church's defining of an article of faith. In either case, it is certain and infallible and what the Church has declared must be believed as entirely true. There have been sedevacantists before our times, like William of Ockham and Savonarola.Great, now you can apply the same to Vatican 2 and start attending Novus Ordo instead of illicit Masses in a Society with no canonical status.
He would exercise the material/govt jurisdiction but not the spiritual aspect, until consecrated.
I'm not "R&R" (which means Recognize and Resist, for those whom this is new - coined by Fr. Cekada). If you want a convenient acronym to describe the True Traditionalist position, it would be something like, "RSWR" (i.e. Recognize, Submit, Work for Restoration).Amazing, you just took the view that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong and you didn't even notice it. :fryingpan:
Amazing, you just took the view that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong and you didn't even notice it. :fryingpan:
Yeah, LOL, he came up with R&S, Recognize and Submit. That last part about working is just silly and not central to characterizing the position.Yep. He "submits" to Rome by rejecting their Mass, calling it a lesser Mass, and attending the masses of a society with no canonical status. And apparently +ABL was submitting when he knowingly put himself under pain of excommunication to consecrate his Bishops. And the SSPX as a whole submitted by saying a mass priests were barred from saying, and letting priests with no ministry in the Church say masses.
So, then, Xavier, go ahead and "SUBMIT". Submit to the New Mass, to Vatican II, to everything.
That's just stupid. In fact, the entire Traditional movement is defined by RESISTING (rather than conforming to and submitting to) the Modernist teaching and discipline coming out of Rome.
I recall sitting at table with Father Peter Scott, then SSPX US District Superior, at Regina Caeli House, alongside a couple of priests. During the discussion, a couple of the priests claimed that the SSPX were not being disobedient. I said, "Of course we're disobedient." We all looked to Father Scott to chime in. He paused for a moment, thought, and said, "Yes, yes were are." and then began laughing (in typical Father Peter Scott fashion, a very distinctive laugh). It's some kind of bizarre delusion that some in the SSPX have that they are in fact "submitting" to Rome and being "obedient". It's an almost Clinton-esque, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
Amazing, you just took the view that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong and you didn't even notice it.Archbishop Lefebvre never coined the term "R&R", it was Fr. Cekada who did that. And Fr. Cekada, as I have shown, held wrong opinions on the validity of the new rite (and still defends them now even after they have been falsified; Fr. Marie has said, the passage of 40 odd years (now 50+) since that rite was introduced already shows that it could not have been invalid, otherwise there would be no residential Bishops in the Roman Church, which is contrary to Her indefectibility), and tried to lead the SSPX itself into a practical sedevacantism. Archbishop Lefebvre, in hindsight, said he had given too much power to the SVists, and they used it to steal his chapels, take him to a court case, and do various other foolish things like that, but above all, they corrupted the theology of the Society, from its original intent when it was founded as a canonically regular society. The right purpose of the SSPX from the beginning was to preserve and continue Catholic Tradition in communion with Rome. You look at the letter of the 9 and Archbishop Lefebvre's response to them and this becomes clear:
Archbishop Lefebvre, in hindsight, said he had given too much power to the SVists, and they used it to steal his chapels, take him to a court case, and do various other foolish things like that, but above all, they corrupted the theology of the Society, from its original intent when it was founded as a canonically regular society.A canonically regular society which still, to this day, has no canonical status.