Author Topic: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope. (Read 9922 times)

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #120 on:** March 26, 2019, 12:13:05 AM »

//Would you disagree, ByzCath?
//

I think so, but my disagreement isn't exactly principled. Neither is your position. To be clear, I don't mean this as an attack (I'm a new convert, though I've studied a decent bit, and I try to keep that in mind when I comment on things.)

The only black and white distinction I can make sense of when it comes to perpetuity of Petrine successors are the following two presups

1: There is no pope, never will be another pope until the 2nd coming (I don't know if anyone holds this as a dogma, but certain sede groups definitely tend toward it, MHFM is a good example)

2: there is currently no pope, but there will eventually be another pope.

This is kinda a stereotypical thing to point out, but #2 is held by every Catholic whatsoever any time the reigning pope dies. This has (fact: everyone accepts it) happened for at least 2 1/2 years.

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. And admittedly, that's where I'm at at the moment with the whole Sede issue. I think its a big claim (A 61 year vacancy) and I think the burden of proof, at least for me, hasn't been met to demonstrate that, but I don't know what else I can really say about it. I'm not sure by what objective principle I can say "OK, here's how long and any longer is heretical."

Admittedly, another objective principle that I think you could use are whether any *clergy* have doubts. There are some internet nutters who send the vacancy back before 1958, but there are (at least as far as I know) no priests or bishops who agree with them.

But beyond that this just seems like a continuum. "A 61 year vacancy is just too absurd for me to accept" seems fair, but doesn't seem provable.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #121 on:** March 26, 2019, 01:29:34 AM »

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.

There are many Proofs, but the one I will give you is, From the difference between the state of the Church during the sede vacante and sede plena.

(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.

In your example of a 2 1/2 year vacancy it will not happen. The vast majority of the Cardinals, Ordinaries and Roman Clerics appointed or incardinated under the prior Pope will remain alive when he is elected. But in a 61 year vacancy (because Bishops are usually Consecrated around 35, as I noted to you before), it will.

(3) And certainly 2(b) and 2(c) are impossible. Therefore, it is likewise impossible that the state of sede vacante lasts longer than, loosely, a man's lifespan.

It is not possible that the state of svism lasts forever. The Dimonds are schismatics of the very worst sort; they won't listen to any correction from authority, and reject everyone. Consider it Divine Mercy if you're spared from falling into their errors, schisms and heresies. The Dimonds not only believe the heresy that sede vacante can last forever, but also the heresy that all sees can be vacant.

How anyone wants to hold heretical opinions like that, remain separate from the Church and the Hierarchy, and still hope to go to Heaven is beyond me. May God have Mercy on them and deliver them from their errors in due time. Don't fall for it if you want to save your soul and that of your loved ones is all that I can say.

Climacus · « **Reply #122 on:** March 26, 2019, 07:04:15 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on March 25, 2019, 07:05:01 PM

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.

Climacus · « **Reply #123 on:** March 26, 2019, 07:17:14 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 25, 2019, 10:24:40 PM

Objectively, any catholic can attend any non-indult, Traditional Latin Mass without sin, per Quo Primum. Xavier can as well, in theory.

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.

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #124 on:** March 26, 2019, 09:27:07 AM »

Quote

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.
Yes, the details of Quo Primum should be separate thread. If you start it, with your question, i'll be happy to explain.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #125 on:** March 26, 2019, 09:34:50 AM »

Quote from: Climacus on March 26, 2019, 07:04:15 AM

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.

Archbishop Lefebvre strongly disagreed. R&R denies indefectibility with the assertion that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church have defected.

What is more incompatible with indefectibility, that some offices go unfilled for a long time or that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church have gone corrupted? That's the R&R vs. Sedevacantist debate in a nutshell.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #126 on:** March 26, 2019, 09:39:36 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 26, 2019, 01:29:34 AM

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.

No, what's "heretical" is the assertion that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline have failed.

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?

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #127 on:** March 26, 2019, 09:43:22 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on March 26, 2019, 12:13:05 AM

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.

Thank you. I have long posed the question to those who claim that a lengthy vacancy is heretical. So a 2.5 year vacancy is OK? What about 3.5? At what point does it become "hertical"? At 7 years 5 months, 12 days, 3 hours, 5 minutes, and 42 seconds? This argument by itself is meaningless. Some other criteria need be established other than time. This is just basic logic. XavierSem, have you had that class yet?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #128 on:** March 26, 2019, 09:45:12 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 26, 2019, 01:29:34 AM

(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.

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #129 on:** March 26, 2019, 09:47:48 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 26, 2019, 01:29:34 AM

The Dimonds are schismatics of the very worst sort; they won't listen to any correction from authority, and reject everyone.

Now, the difference between you and them is that they refuse correction precisely because they consider the V2 hierarchy as having no authority. You, on the other hand, refuse correction all the while conceding that they do have authority. So, if they're wrong, their schism is material but not formal. You on the other hand, even if not materially in schism, are formally so. So which is worse?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #130 on:** March 26, 2019, 09:50:29 AM »

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.

Quote

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."

Not sure how this applies to the conversation.

Quote

(2) the fact that Priests outside Catholic communion cannot have the power to forgive sins,

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.

Quote

(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

The sspx does not have ordinary jurisdiction. This is why they want the prersonal prelature. They have jurisdiction for the sacrament of penance, nothing more.

Quote

(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

It does affect laymen, absolutely. A catholic is not allowed to attend illicit masses/sacraments under penalty of grave sin, per Canon Law.

Quote

(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.

Quote

Pax Vobis shows a lack of understanding of what vagrant clergy and episcopi vagantes are: 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.

That's why you couldn't confess to the sspx before the pope granted them jurisdiction a short while ago. It's also the continued reason why people like you aren't allowed to attend the sspx for mass, because you agree with new-rome that an emergency situation does not exist. Therefore, you must follow church/canon law, which bans you from attending illicit masses.

Quote

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.

Quote

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/ 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.

Quote

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.

Canon Law supplies jurisdiction when there is an emergency situation. New-rome's bishops force those in their dicocese to accept the new mass, in exchange for the indult latin mass. True, Traditional, Orthodox catholics can NEVER accept the new mass (because it is illicit and immoral and probably invalid). New-rome's bishop's also promote the heresies of V2 (and others) so we must separate ourselves from them, because Canon Law does not allow a Catholic to attend a doubtful, blasphemous, illicit or sacrilegous mass (which all new masses are). Therefore, since there is NO option for Trads to be obedient to their local bishop (since these bishops command sin), then Canon Law supplies jurisdiction to priests to provide the sacraments to the faithful.

Quote

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #131 on:** March 26, 2019, 10:52:21 AM »

Pax has a correct understanding of Catholic ecclesiology ... as per his prior post. XavierSem just makes up ecclesiology to suit his purposes, claiming that Rome's granting of jurisdiction for SSPX Confessions means that they are in communion with them and have ordinary juridiction, whereas in point of fact it has no broader scope than that Sacrament. So would Xavier leave SSPX is this permission were to be withdrawn? I hardly think so. He's made up his mind to cling to SSPX for entirely emotional reasons.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #132 on:** March 26, 2019, 11:07:02 AM »

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.

Incredulous · « **Reply #133 on:** March 26, 2019, 11:12:53 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 26, 2019, 11:07:02 AM

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"!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #134 on:** March 26, 2019, 11:53:16 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on March 26, 2019, 11:12:53 AM

Lads... you are sooo... "old school"!

Yeah, I'm a dinosaur. At the new STAS, I'm sure many seminarians stream Netflix movies to their rooms, and they have an XBox set up in the recreation room for Fortnite tournaments.

One of the biggest reasons they needed to move is that good internet connectivity could not be found in Winona. So now they have a dedicated T-3 line going to the seminary building.

If you could just go in there, you'd see the seminarians walking down the hallways texting each other ... and/or former (or present) girlfriends.

You might even find a number of @sspx.org e-mail addresses from the Ashley Madison data breach, or a future Tinder exploit, and significant traffic to gαy porn sites.

Author Topic: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope. (Read 9922 times)

ByzCat3000

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Nishant Xavier

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Climacus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Climacus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Pax Vobis

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Ladislaus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Ladislaus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Ladislaus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Ladislaus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Ladislaus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Pax Vobis

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Ladislaus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Ladislaus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Incredulous

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Ladislaus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.