So, the chief problem that some of us have with R&R ...
Ladislaus Glossary:
sedevacantist =
sedeprivationist =
sede-impoundism =
R&R =
So, the chief problem that some of us [sedes] have with R&R is that R&R undermines and guts the foundations of the Magisterium and the papacy, throwing the Church under the proverbial bus in order to save Bergoglio et al., to have the comfort of some clown prancing around in white vestments.I must say that this comes right out of a comic book because it would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.
I must say that this comes right out of a comic book because it would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.
But the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread is, there is no reason to get behind any flavor of sedeism.
This so laughable. When did Fr. Chazal say he is a sede-impoundist? And when did he ever say that anyone has to agree with his views anyway? There is no way that he would ever say that he is a sede-impoundist, and that everyone has to get behind him. How ridiculous.
He had a longer term for it, which I have abbreviated to sede-impoundist for conveniece. So go ahead and replace sede-impoundist with "Father Chazal's position" and answer the question, instead of distracting with stupidity.
Until recently, I'd never heard of this then I asked a friend about it. The description I received sounded basically just like the Thesis. Asked another friend about that and he said, 'yeah, it's basically the Thesis.' Not sure I can be bothered enough to check out Fr. Chazal's hair-splitting.
I know this wasn't directed at me/my position, but what is the difference between Fr Chazal's position and the Cassiciacuм Thesis? And if there really isn't one, why doesn't he just take on the CT position?
Sure, it doesn't matter to Old Catholics like yourself. It matters to actual Catholics, though, but feel free to recuse ourself from this discussion. What's really tragic, Stubborn, is all the Trads who have abandoned Catholicism in favor of a slight variation Old Catholicism just to keep having Bergoglio be their "pope" ... of course, a pope they ignore and who's good for nothing other than to put a picture of his smiling face in your vestibule. But, by all means, carry on.No, the status of the pope does not matter, not to me and not to you, we will both do what we need to do to keep the faith and save our soul regardless of the sins of heresy he commits, or the sins of apostacy he commits, and whatever other mortal sins he commits publicly or privately.
Wow. No offense against Fr. Chazal but, for all the grief that sedes receive, that is one seriously weak position. Any ideas on whether he reached that conclusion before or after his book 'Contra Cekadam'?
I suggest everyone get behind Father Noidea’s theory of Derelectionism. It is by far the most peaceful irresolution to this crisis.
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.
I suggest everyone get behind Father Noidea’s theory of Derelectionism. It is by far the most peaceful irresolution to this crisis.
I've never heard of this. Do you have a link?:facepalm: Lad, please, you cannot be serious. You want a link to Fr. Noidea's theory - of Derelectionism. :laugh1::laugh1:
If, as you imply, this just means igoring Rome and the hierarchy, that's really a non-starter for Catholics.
So ... what exactly is weak about it. It's a variant of sedeprivationism, which has the theological weight of a Guerard Lauriers behind it, and some variant of sedeprivationism / sedeimpoundism (Chazalism) solves the problems with both R&R and SV positions. It's actually brilliant and rests on solid foundations (including some of Bellarmine's distinctions).It's weak if it's a way to avoid any connection with sedevacantists which is what you said in so many words upthread, no?
Quote from: Melanie on Today at 12:12:59 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-why-don't-you-get-behind-father-chazal's-sede-impoundism/msg847085/#msg847085):facepalm: Lad, please, you cannot be serious. You want a link to Fr. Noidea's theory - of Derelectionism. :laugh1::laugh1::laugh1: I missed it too!
Fr. No Idea - get it?
Quote from: Melanie on Today at 12:12:59 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-why-don't-you-get-behind-father-chazal's-sede-impoundism/msg847085/#msg847085):facepalm: Lad, please, you cannot be serious. You want a link to Fr. Noidea's theory - of Derelectionism. :laugh1::laugh1:
Fr. No Idea - get it?
Well, 'Derelectionism' probably sounded like a fascinating new form of sedevacantism to Lad.I thought the post was masterfully done in harmless humor....."It is by far the most peaceful irresolution to this crisis." LOL
::)
I thought the post was masterfully done in harmless humor....."It is by far the most peaceful irresolution to this crisis." LOLAs I sat there reading it, I thought, "huh?" :facepalm:
I know this wasn't directed at me/my position, but what is the difference between Fr Chazal's position and the Cassiciacuм Thesis? And if there really isn't one, why doesn't he just take on the CT position?
Well, 'Derelectionism' probably sounded like a fascinating new form of sedevacantism to Lad.
::)
You should know! You coined the "Anything but sedevacantism" phrase. Pat317 didn't say that exactly but he hinted at it by defining the trad world into two groups - sedes vs non-sedes. They basically define themselves as non-sedes.I was actually thinking that the CT would be more palatable to the non-sedes because it isn't "straight" sedevacantism.
You should know! You coined the "Anything but sedevacantism" phrase. Pat317 didn't say that exactly but he hinted at it by defining the trad world into two groups - sedes vs non-sedes. They basically define themselves as non-sedes.
No, the status of the pope does not matter, not to me and not to you ...
:facepalm: Cf. quote from Archbishop Lefebvre and also Catholic dogma (with which you should be well acquainted) that there can be no salvation without subjection to the Holy Father.Nope, it does not matter to either of us, you should have quoted the rest of my post.
In a sense, it's correct that the final disposition of Bergoglio does't matter, but what does matter is this wretched non-Catholic ecclesiology you've developed Are you adhering to actual Roman Catholicism or are you basically an Old Catholic? So it SHOULD matter to you, because since your eternal salvation is on the line as you clearly veer into the latter category.
I am subject to the pope ...
No you're not. Simply claiming "he is the pope" doesn't make you subject to the pope. It's really a joke, and your ecclesiology is basicaly nothing short of Old Catholic.Do you purposely blind yourself to the rest of my posts, is your disdain for the most basic and universal Catholic principle of obedience to God before the pope so strong that it forces you to purposely selectively quote my posts in order to make me say what did not say and do not mean?
the most basic and universal Catholic principle of obedience to God before the pope
So, the chief problem that some of us have with R&R is that R&R undermines and guts the foundations of the Magisterium and the papacy, throwing the Church under the proverbial bus in order to save Bergoglio et al., to have the comfort of some clown prancing aroud in white vestments.Father Chazal's position is a reflection of the majority view of theologians and should be the position for faithful Catholics resisting the conciliarist/modernist sect. Isn't it also essentially the position of the Dominicans of Avrille? And given that +Bp. Williamson wrote the fwd to his book, the position of His Excellency as well? I don't know about the SAJM or other "resistance" groups or priests.
But Father Chazal has thrown you a lifeline. By adopting his sede-impoundist views, you don't have to attribute this evil to legitimate Catholic authority and therefore bring ill repute on the Church.
So please explain why you refuse to get behind Father Chazal's position ... which is perfectly acceptable to most "sedevacantists" in that it avoids the chief problem with R&R that most SVs have. It could also serve as a bridge behind the two camps.
So please explain why, given the Chazal option, you persist in smearing the Holy Catholic Church and the Catholic papacy as being responsible for the evils of the Conciliar erea. What's wrong with it that you find it unacceptable?
If R&R would rally around Father Chazal, then there's no longer any serious divide among Traditional Catholics, and the major differences would reduce to an academic debate regarding the finer points of sede-impoundism vs sede-privationism.
Christ is the head of the Church, the pope is His vicar. When the pope goes bad, we are still first under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man, in this case, the pope. This is the most basic, necessary and highest of all the principles in the Church, one everyone should have learned as a young child.
Yikes, what??! This is not and has not ever been a Catholic principle at all. The pope is the Vicar of Christ! :facepalm:
So Father Chazal had to back away from assertions that his position was nearly identical to sedeprivationism ... as the latter had become "associated" with sedevacantism, and we can't have that.Yep. That's pretty much what I find so weak about it.
I agree that any version of R&R that says that the Church can promulgate poisonous rites or teachings is as much of a heresy as sedevacantism.:laugh2:
1. It's above my pay grade. I.e., not required to save my soul. We're talking about the Crisis in the Church, NOT the Catholic Faith. So yeah, "I don't know", "leave me alone", or even "I don't care" is a valid answer.
2. The default position for a Catholic is not to declare the See vacant, but rather to assume validity. In this way, the Sede position is NOT equivalent to the R&R position, nor is it the "inverse" or a perfect mirror image of some sort. As I've said so many times, the Sede position is like taking an EXIT RAMP from the highway -- the default position is to keep going straight -- to accept that the Pope is Pope. Sedes might like to pretend it's a T-intersection, where some go to the right, others go to the left, and therefore the "move" of R&R and Sedes is of equal fundamental nature. BUT IT IS NOT. By default, we have a Pope. Taking the position the Pope is not Pope is a POSITIVE MOVE. We are not making a POSITIVE MOVE to declare the Pope is Pope, we are actually doing NOTHING. See the difference?
3. However, when the Pope is acting like the last several, one MUST disobey rather than commit sin or lose the Faith. In other words, I do the bare-minimum necessary to keep my Faith intact. That is what +Lefebvre did, and what I think is the most Catholic, safest, most prudent course of action.
5. I'm not dissing or even rejecting Fr. Chazal's position. I just don't have A) the training or B) the objective knowledge of the situation to know if it's correct or not.
6. We shouldn't get the mindset that we need to be wearing the right jersey (having the right opinion on every nuance of the Crisis) to save our soul. Even if I was fervently excited about Fr. Chazal's writings, then what? I still have to choose from the AVAILABLE positions that offer Mass in my country. I can't try to search the world over for a person exactly like myself, who shares all my opinions on the Crisis, denouncing everyone else as a heretic. That's how you end up with cults like the Dimond Bros. or Pfeifferville. Or how to end up very alone, probably despair, and ultimately to lose one's very soul for eternity.
8. It's just my opinion, but if I'm wrong then the ONLY OTHER OPTION is that the Crisis HAS been adequately solved (in a definitive manner, with all objections adequately answered and addressed) but that all the other "positions" are populated 100% by those of bad will. I don't buy that.
Father Chazal's position is a reflection of the majority view of theologians and should be the position for faithful Catholics resisting the conciliarist/modernist sect. Isn't it also essentially the position of the Dominicans of Avrille? And given that +Bp. Williamson wrote the fwd to his book, the position of His Excellency as well? I don't know about the SAJM or other "resistance" groups or priests.
But however you want to classify his position it is definitely not a sedevacantist position.
I agree that any version of R&R that says that the Church can promulgate poisonous rites or teachings is as much of a heresy as sedevacantism.
So you can make a judgment that the "pope" is not worthy of your obedience but you can't make a judgment about why he is not worthy of your obedience? It's not that hard to research the issue.Easy, logical Catholic argumentation for sedevacantism (and what is already utilized by everyone in the SSPX, Resistance, and Chazalian-sede-but-it's-not-really-sede-otherwise-people-would-get-upset camp).
Easy, logical Catholic argumentation for sedevacantism (and what is already utilized by everyone in the SSPX, Resistance, and Chazalian-sede-but-it's-not-really-sede-otherwise-people-would-get-upset camp).It really does not take much to understand. You can reduce the argument down to two simple statements:
What dogma of the Church does the sedevacantist position deny? If you can't say, you should retract your rash assertion.If there has been no pope since John XXIII or Paul VI then there are no more bishops with jurisdiction which means no more apostolicity which is one of the four marks of the Church. This is heretical.
If there has been no pope since John XXIII or Paul VI then there are no more bishops with jurisdiction which means no more apostolicity which is one of the four marks of the Church. This is heretical.
So you can make a judgment that the "pope" is not worthy of your obedience but you can't make a judgment about why he is not worthy of your obedience? It's not that hard to research the issue.
I must say that this comes right out of a comic book because it would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.Agreed, the modernists have the numbers and their popes.
But the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread is, there is no reason to get behind any flavor of sedeism. With the grace of God and all the helps He gave us, we can live a Catholic life and die a happy death and strive to save our souls without the self inflicted burden of concerning ourselves with something we can do nothing whatsoever about other than pray daily for the pope, which is the duty of every Catholic for a reason.
Why not try doing this sometime?
But, this is not what he said. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth not the King of England. This is a significant distinction which changes your example to not exactly being Catholic at all. St. Thomas More was, “the King’s good servant, but God’s first.” And we all know that he was a martyr because of this, for being subject to God in His Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pope.
After the example of St. Thomas More: "We remain the popes' good subjects, but God's first." You act as if this is error, or heresy or evil or something. It's not evil, IT'S CATHOLIC.
Nope, it does not matter to either of us, you should have quoted the rest of my post.
I am subject to the pope, but God first. It's not the least bit complicated and is summed up beautifully in my sig.
Hi Ladislaus, I myself am open to Fr. Chazal's thesis. Can you please explain what it is? Is it to say that these vatican 2 popes don't have any authority because of their manifest heresies, but that they remain Pope? Some would say that this contradicts vatican 1. Would this also mean that any act by Francis that is for the common good, would be supplied the jurisdiction?
5. I'm not dissing or even rejecting Fr. Chazal's position. I just don't have A) the training or B) the objective knowledge of the situation to know if it's correct or not.
6. We shouldn't get the mindset that we need to be wearing the right jersey (having the right opinion on every nuance of the Crisis) to save our soul. Even if I was fervently excited about Fr. Chazal's writings, then what? I still have to choose from the AVAILABLE positions that offer Mass in my country.
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.
Father Chazal's position is a reflection of the majority view of theologians and should be the position for faithful Catholics resisting the conciliarist/modernist sect. Isn't it also essentially the position of the Dominicans of Avrille? And given that +Bp. Williamson wrote the fwd to his book, the position of His Excellency as well? I don't know about the SAJM or other "resistance" groups or priests.
But however you want to classify his position it is definitely not a sedevacantist position.
I agree that any version of R&R that says that the Church can promulgate poisonous rites or teachings is as much of a heresy as sedevacantism.
Yep. That's pretty much what I find so weak about it.
What dogma of the Church does the sedevacantist position deny? If you can't say, you should retract your rash assertion.
If there has been no pope since John XXIII or Paul VI then there are no more bishops with jurisdiction which means no more apostolicity which is one of the four marks of the Church. This is heretical.
But that's accidental to the position itself. Position itself is very solid.I'd agree. I think the Thesis is probably the best way to look at an otherwise defected Church. It is weak, though, to be rabidly anti-sedevacantist when the position he's promoting is basically the same as des Lauriers's.
please provide a source for your contention that all the sees being vacant at the same time is equivalent to an end to the mark of apostolicity for the Church.Thank you. I've been asking this same question for years and I still haven't gotten a reply. All you get is a statement that it is dogma that the Church will always have a hierarchy. I agree, and the Church has a hierarchy now as well. It has an authority structure and a government and a means of teaching infallibly. It is just that those functions are not operative in the Church right now (which is something we all agree on, anyway, since nobody here treats what they call the hierarchy now as if they were the hierarchy) because those offices are vacant.
Agreed. And recognizing that we have a pope is a big part of being subject to him.
IMO, God has allowed a Modernist sect to occupy the Church. We tend to place the blame all on human error or heresy, but since God has allowed it, it would seem that certain amount of prudence is required. We have to do what we can to still be loyal to the papacy, and that means not going to the extreme of believing that there's no pope. (Though I'm not against Catholics, in principle, adopting sedevacantism - it's when they push it on everyone else that I have a problem, and that happens a lot around here - like this thread).
And yes, we are subject to God first. As you say, it's not complicated. It seems that sedevacantism is a lot more complicated.
But, this is not what he said. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth not the King of England. This is a significant distinction which changes your example to not exactly being Catholic at all. St. Thomas More was, “the King’s good servant, but God’s first.” And we all know that he was a martyr because of this, for being subject to God in His Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pope.Yes, the pope is not the king of England, the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, not Christ Himself - Who *is* the head of the Church - which is why we owe our obedience to Him before anyone else. Very simple.
So the "pope" not only allowed a modernist sect to occupy the Church but he championed it and led the way. And you recognize this false antipope as the true pope of the Catholic Church (without actually being fully subject to him, of course) and you count this as a virtue? And on top of that you think it is simple to understand how all this could be? Wow!
We have always had successors to St. Peter, since the beginning.Many times there has been periods with no pontiff, and sometimes for years.
Many times there has been periods with no pontiff, and sometimes for years.
Meg, I presume good will on your part even if I have a different understanding of the enemy. I hope you look on Catholics with sympathy and victims of a great crime still ongoing.
I appreciate your honesty. We are not enemies and I wish the best for you and your family.
My Our Lord Jesus Christ keep us from error. There but for the grace of God go I.
99.9% of my time and thoughts are not spent on the sinful. I know that grace is the difference maker.
Absolutely not. Every man has to work out their salvation.
I said that there have always been successors. I didn't say anything about the periods between successors, which we know has occurred. But the periods between successors didn't occur because laymen took it upon themselves to proclaim that there was or is no pope. You are aware of that, I hope.
So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "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 honor.
...
And since before all others [the Holy See] 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.
It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See ...
In both scearios, R&R or SV (or in between with sedeimpoundism and sedeprivationism), you have "laymen [taking] it upon themselves" to reject 60+ years of alleged Papal Magisterium, an Ecuмenical Council, the Church's Rite of Public Worship, and the canonizations of saints. So you can't play the old "laymen [taking] it upon themselves" game.
I said that there have always been successors. I didn't say anything about the periods between successors, which we know has occurred. But the periods between successors didn't occur because laymen took it upon themselves to proclaim that there was or is no pope. You are aware of that, I hope.Sure I understand that. That's the point I'm making. The Church can operate fine w/out a pope and apostates/heretics can't be popes. Because the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible it is impossible that the current men-in-white are pontiffs, or even Catholic.
Absolutely not. Every man has to work out their salvation.
Other than Ladi's statement on what Fr. Chazal's position is, I've read no clarification from the other side. How does Fr. Chazal's position really differ from the Thesis of des Lauriers?
Sure I understand that. That's the point I'm making. The Church can operate fine w/out a pope and apostates/heretics can't be popes. Because the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible it is impossible that the current men-in-white are pontiffs, or even Catholic.
Other than Ladi's statement on what Fr. Chazal's position is, I've read no clarification from the other side. How does Fr. Chazal's position really differ from the Thesis of des Lauriers?
I know you notice writing isn't my strong suit. Sorry for text misunderstandings.
What question are you answering here? Since you aren't quoting anything, it's unclear.I'm being gracious to a fellow Catholic. Didn't use quote's because of operator error. Nothing else.
What I'm trying focus on is the reason for an interregnum.
And that's entirely the wrong focus. There could be multiple explanations for why we're in an interregnum (or not). Until 1989, for instance, I hold that there wasn't an interregnum. Or you could argue that Paul VI and his successors were being blackmailed and therefore not acting freely. There are numerous possible theoretical explanations for what's going on. So yours is precisely the wrong focus.
What's critical in order to retain the Catholic Faith and not slide into Old Catholicism is to acknowledge that, if you believe that Vatican II, the NOM, etc. are gravely defective, harmful, even evil, that they did NOT issue from legitimate papal authority freely exercised (regardless of what explanation you may wish to entertain).
That's precisel what Archbishop Lefebvre did. He acknowledged that these evils are not possible given the Holy Spirit's protection of the Church and of the Papacy, but he simply prescinded from making a definitive conclusion regarding the "reason" for what's going on. And that's fine too. But he would completely reject (and did reject) the assertions of modern R&R that the Church and the Papacy can go corrupt like this.
You are just as dishonest about +ABL as you are about Fr. Chazal. And you always get away with it.
Meg, you lie and slander me. I have repeatedly cited Archbishop Lefebvre and Father Chazal. You on the other hand just say this without any evidence whatseover because you don't like the thought that they might no support your Old Catholicism.These discussions cut deep. Respect the process.
I have posted the audio of a speech given by Archbishop Lefebvre and transcribed it. I have posted an hour-long explanation by Father Chazal about his position, and took quotations directly from it. I have posted numerous quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre. And they say exactly what I posted above.
You have never once refuted a single line of it, but you hurl your slanderous nonsense at me about dishonesty and getting away with it
Then, by all means, Meg, don't let me get away with it. Refute all of the evidence I have cited to back up my statements.
And I am not going to let you get away with these garbage comments.
These discussions cut deep. Respect the process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzvNrX-FTyk
Archbishop Lefebvre here says exactly what I claim that he said.
You haven't been around here long enough. For a few here, there is no "process", or, rather, this "process" has plodded along for years, and a few people here have psychological blocks that cause them to adhere to a variant of Old Catholicism. They need to be called out and they need to be snapped out of it. So, with all due respect, you haven't been around here long enough to be giving advice about how to approach this subject given which poster is on the other end.I get it. That sounds like how I would handle me with respect to tenor.
Meg, you lie and slander me. I have repeatedly cited Archbishop Lefebvre and Father Chazal. You on the other hand just say this without any evidence whatseover because you don't like the thought that they might not support your Old Catholicism.Thank you ladislaus for explaining to me what Fr. Chazal's position is. Can you post the link to Fr. Chazal's explanation of his position?
I have posted the audio of a speech given by Archbishop Lefebvre and transcribed it. I have posted an hour-long explanation by Father Chazal about his position, and took quotations directly from it. I have posted numerous quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre. And they say exactly what I posted above.
You have never once refuted a single line of it, but you hurl your slanderous nonsense at me about dishonesty and getting away with it
Then, by all means, Meg, don't let me get away with it. Refute all of the evidence I have cited to back up my statements.
And I am not going to let you get away with these garbage comments.
I really don't care if they call me a sedevacantist if I hold this principle.
You seem to believe that any ol' reason for an interregnum is just fine, and that laymen can make up their own reasons for it, irrespective of the hierarchy.Outside of basic interregnums, the Catholic Church has existed w/out a pontiff on several different occasions. Not sure about "any ol' reason for an interregnum" being cited here. There is historical precedent, apostates cannot be pope and the Church cannot defect.
They have supplied jurisdiction, not ordinary jurisdiction. They are available for anyone who seeks the sacraments, and wants to keep to Tradition. Sedevacantists, however, (some of them) have a mission to force their views on any non-sede trad who disagrees with them. Do you see the difference?
Father Chazal at one point said:So, I don't get it. He doesn't care if he's called a sedevacantist but he does care if he's called a sedeprivationist?
I respect that a lot, that he does't care about the "terms" or "words". But then later he seemed to have recoiled at the thought of being identified as a sedeprivationist. And to this day, I'm not sure if he persisted in his mis-identification of sedeprivationism as he did in the 4th video.
I should probably read his Contra Cekadam to find out. I have requested that those who assert that his position is different from sedeprivationism to please articulate the differences, but I have not seen anything substantial offered.
Despite the fact that Father Cekada remained friends with Bishop Sanborn, I do not get the impression that Father Cekada ever embraced sedeprivationism. He continued mostly to be aligned with Bishop Dolan, and I think that Bishop Dolan had recently denounced sedeprivationism as "savoring of heresy". It's clear that he mis-applied (and slightly mis-spelled) sedeprivationism.
So, I don't get it. He doesn't care if he's called a sedevacantist but he does care if he's called a sedeprivationist?
Father Cekada never embraced sedeprivationism; however, he also never denounced it. To this day, I believe that if Father Cekada were still alive, Bishop Dolan would not have denounced it either. Personally, I can't get on board with it, but I don't believe it to be heresy either.
I don't actually know how much Father himself objects to being called a "sedeprivationist" ... thus I need to read his book. Mostly I've heard these protests from various R&R, and not directly from him.Did he believe this for all of them? I didn't think so. I thought this was his position for Bergoglio.
Thanks for the clarification on Father Cekada. Of course, Father Chazal incorrectly defined the term "sedeprivationist" in applying it to Father Cekada's modified SV position. Father Cekada did at one point shift from saying that the V2 claimants had fallen from the papacy to holding that they were ineligible to become popes right out of the gate, and Father Chazal incorrectly called that sedeprivationism.
As I said, when I have some time, I'll read Father Chazal's book.
This differs from classic R&R (and actually does most closely reflect the position of Archbishop Lefebvre) in that he states these men lack all authority, whereas classic R&R holds that they do have authority, but can be disobeyed on a case-by-case basis. He states that they must be categorically ignored and that they have no authority whatsoever.
This is not my glossary, and these terms are well understood here on the forum. Do some searches if you don't understand the terms.
To be noted, in the 4th Part, Father Chazal actually mis-defines sedeprivationism.
This is the kind of defining of terms I asked you for at the beginning of this thread, when you replied:
This is the kind of defining of terms I asked you for at the beginning of this thread, when you replied:
I understand the terms, but I am also well aware that not all Trads understand them or would define them the same way. Your inclusion in your definition of "classic R&R" as holding that they can be disobeyed on a case-by-case basis is something that needed to be defined so everyone is on the same page in the discussion. Because, sorry, not all Trads would define it / view it the same way.
I thought these terms were understood by all, and there was no need for definitions. ::)
I don't actually know how much Father himself objects to being called a "sedeprivationist" ... thus I need to read his book. Mostly I've heard these protests from various R&R, and not directly from him.
Fr. Chazal doesn't actually call himself anything but a Traditional Catholic. You are the one who has to attach a sedevacantist descriptor onto anyone whom you believe has any view that's similar to a sedevacantist view.(https://media.makeameme.org/created/shes-right-you-r9qbsp.jpg)
I have his book. He doesn't call himself anything relating to sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism or sedeimpoundism) at all.
Thanks Ladislaus for posting the links to those videos of Fr. Chazal explaining his position. Fr. Chazal's position is starting to become more plausible to me, because we need the visible hierarchy, but we also need to preserve the dogma that the Church cannot promulgate heresies or evil liturgies/disciplines, and not just in the extraordinary magisterium, but also in the ordinary and universal magisterium. Correct me if im wrong, but theologians before vatican 2 have written that encyclicals may have accidental errors or that they may be imprudent, but they can never teach susbtantial errors. The visibility of the Church with its hierarchy and the Church not being able to promulgate and impose heresies on the universal Church, are the two aspects of indefectibility. I believe Fr. Chazal's position preserves these two aspects of indefectibility.
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
Fr. Chazal doesn't actually call himself anything but a Traditional Catholic. You are the one who has to attach a sedevacantist descriptor onto anyone whom you believe has any view that's similar to a sedevacantist view.
I have his book. He doesn't call himself anything relating to sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism or sedeimpoundism) at all.
Dear Mr Chojnowski,
Perhaps some sede is trying to drown the fish in the water.
As a sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264ist the side discussion is interesting nevertheless.
God, when allowing this crisis, forced them to be flushed out into the open and show themselves, so that even the simple faithful (without theological degrees, etc.) can easily identify the Conciliar Church as something alien to Catholicism.I'd give this a thumbs-up but for some reason it's not letting me do that. Anyone know how I can or why it won't let me? Thanks
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/shes-right-you-r9qbsp.jpg)
We all probably need to start moving away from using these labels, as it leads to the impression that we are all just clusters of schismatic sects compared to the Novus Ordo
I can use the label of sedevacantist, or sedeplenist, or sedeprivationist to explain my position on the Pope. But that's already under the umbrella of "traditional Catholic". I am NOT a "sedevacantist" or a "Dimondite" etc. just a traditional Catholic who holds to one of these positions.
I'd give this a thumbs-up but for some reason it's not letting me do that. Anyone know how I can or why it won't let me? Thanks
I believe that you have to have 100 posts before you can start using the thumb system.Good to know. Thanks.
Yes, Father Chazal's position is very solid. If you want to see what theologians taught about Encyclicals, etc., here's a great overview:That's right. Theologians before vatican 2 wrote that even if the pope or the pope and bishops teach something in a non solemn manner, it is infallibly safe to follow.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
And we have a lot more here than an error or two in a Papal Encyclical. We have an entire Ecuмenical Council and 60+ years of Encyclicals teaching error, an entirely new Modernistic theological system, a Rite of Mass that harms souls and displeases God, and a large pile of bogus canonizations. Together, all this is tantamount to a New Religion that lacks the Marks of the Church and would cearly constitute a defection of the Church and the Church's Magisterium if one were to attribute all this to legitimate papal authority freely exercised.
God, when allowing this crisis, forced them to be flushed out into the open and show themselves, so that even the simple faithful (without theological degrees, etc.) can easily identifiy the Conciliar Church as something alient to Catholicism.
Yes, Father Chazal's position is very solid. If you want to see what theologians taught about Encyclicals, etc., here's a great overview:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
But you believe that any traditional Catholic who believes that Francis is the pope, but doesn't follow and obey everything he says is a heretic and schismatic, right? You called me a heretic and schismatic a few months ago, because I believe that Francis is the Pope, but I tend to ignore him. Fr. Chazal's position is not yours. He doesn't condemn anyone like you do.
You are, in reality, a dogmatic sedevacantist, who masquerades as a sort-of sedeprivationist.
Fr. Chazal's position is not yours. He doesn't condemn anyone like you do.
No. I believe that a Traditional Catholic who believes that a legitimate pope who is in possession of his authority and execising it freely can corrupt the Church's Magisterium, the Public Worship of the Church, and the cult of the saints to the degree that we see at Vatican II, that is in fact heresy and guts the very foundations of Catholicism. It's more akin to Old Catholicism than to Catholicism.
It's not my problem that you don't understand basic distinctions. I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist. My personal opinion is that the See was not in fact vacant from 1958-1989, but was occupied by Cardinal Siri as Pope Gregory XVII ... and I'm not sure after that. It's possible that Ratzinger was legitimately elected, but couldn't fully realize the protection of the Holy Spirit because he wasn't a bishop (due to invalid episcopal consecration), and therefore had no teaching authority. Bergoglio labors under the same problem, but there's also a chance that his election was rendered null and void by the conspiracy to get him elected. If you want to say that Paul VI was blackmailed but a legitimate pope, go for it, or even that he was locked away in a dungeon while his imposter double did all the damage, more power to you.
Father Chazal does not "identify as" a sedevacantist (and he's not), and I consider his opinion to be very solid (and not even remotely heretical).
But I urge you to abandon the heresy of attributing the destruction of the Church to legitimate papal authority that has been freely exercised (vs. under durress, such as blackmail). Vatican I clearly condemned that supposition as heretical, that remaining faithful to the True Faith might justify and even require separation from communion with and submission to the Papal Magisterium. Please wake up to how pernicious and heretical that supposition is. This is an act of charity on my part to try snapping people out of these heretical notions lest they lose their faith entirely.
That's right. Theologians before vatican 2 wrote that even if the pope or the pope and bishops teach something in a non solemn manner, it is infallibly safe to follow.In fifth-century Athens, a Greek philosopher named Diogenes the Cynic used to walk around the Acropolis in the middle of the day with a lantern, appearing to look for something. People asked him what he was doing, and he said he was looking for an honest man.
you condemn other traditional Catholics here. Fr. Chazal never does that. NEVER. He is a Catholic and a gentleman.
Can't sweet-talk your way out of the fact that you condemn other traditional Catholics here. Fr. Chazal never does that. NEVER. He is a Catholic and a gentleman.Meg,
You have been getting away with lying and manipulating others here for a long time, with the blessing of the owner of the forum. It isn't right; it's immoral. I can understand why Johnson doesn't post here anymore. I'm going to try to not post anymore. Waste of time, when you, Ladislaus, are allowed to deceive others.
In fifth-century Athens, a Greek philosopher named Diogenes the Cynic used to walk around the Acropolis in the middle of the day with a lantern, appearing to look for something. People asked him what he was doing, and he said he was looking for an honest man.
I don't know if he ever found what he was looking for, but if he did, I think he felt very much the same as I did when I read your post above.
Kudos, my friend, I'm glad I've finally found someone else around here who knows that. :cowboy: A one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind. Here's your monocle!
I heard that he refuses the sacraments to sedevacantists. If this is not true, I would like to know so I will have the correct facts.I have been to one of his Masses and there is not a sedevacantist check. Perhaps he would react differently to infamous individuals he recognized, but I don't know.
I have been to one of his Masses and there is not a sedevacantist check. Perhaps he would react differently to infamous individuals he recognized, but I don't know.
That's right. Theologians before vatican 2 wrote that even if the pope or the pope and bishops teach something in a non solemn manner, it is infallibly safe to follow.Pre-V2 yes, pre-V1, not so much if at all. This is a new and official V2 doctrine though, see Lumen Gentium 25.2.
Pre-V2 yes, pre-V1, not so much if at all. This is a new and official V2 doctrine though, see Lumen Gentium 25.2.
Question? Is there a difference between Anti- Pope and vacant seat people?
More evidence of Old Catholicism in this statement here, along with your repeated categorical rejection of all 19th and 20th century Catholic theologians.More evidence of what, my disagreement with Lad theology?
I invite you to read Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus ... which you ignore. You migth as well get on board with John Pontrello and those others.
More evidence of what, my disagreement with Lad theology?
Go ahead, read Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus, then post what you find and stop blowing hot air that's riddled with deceit to suit your narrative. You won't post anything that even remotely teaches the NO doctrine of all the bishops in unison with the pope are infallible - because that's a new doctrine found only in LG. You keep posting the same old lie, now put up or shut up.
Oh, and for the record, you already knew that I only reject only certain teachings of certain theologians of the last few centuries, not all of them.
More evidence of Old Catholicism in this statement here, along with your repeated categorical rejection of all 19th and 20th century Catholic theologians.
I invite you to read Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus ... which you ignore. You migth as well get on board with John Pontrello and those others.
I'm not sure what you mean. Those who believe that the See is fully vacant would hold that the V2 papal claimants are in fact Antipopes.Well, technically not "anti-popes", but false popes.
You labeled this as "Ladislaus' glossary" ... and that is what I took exception to, the implication that these are terms that I somehow coined or invented.
Only thing that's somewhat unique to myself is the distinction between Father Chazal and classic R&R, but I have explained that repeatedly on this thread. It is in fact, the entire point of the thread, pointing out that Father Chazal departs from the predominant R&R model, which hold that the popes have authority but may be disobeyed on case-by-case basis. As for not all Traditional Catholics defining things this way, what I described is in fact that way R&R has been defined by its proponents for at least the past 20 years. Archbishop Lefebvre's position was much more nuanced, as I have also pointed out on this thread, but among his followers, the subtleties have been lost, and the way it's repeatedly been defined is that we acknowledge the pope and his authority, but disobey various teaching/commands that are contrary to Tradition.
And, yes, all Trads who are informed know what is meant by sedeprivationism.
That would be refreshing: an actual quoting, and discussion, of the specific language in Pastor Aeternus.Since what he claims is taught at V1 (https://tinyurl.com/ybwzu5wz)is really not taught at V1, when he does not post what he claims is taught at V1 it will be because it's not taught at V1, but he will not let that stop him.
Since what he claims is taught at V1 (https://tinyurl.com/ybwzu5wz)is really not taught at V1, when he does not post what he claims is taught at V1 it will be because it's not taught at V1, but he will not let that stop him.
So, the chief problem that some of us have with R&R is that R&R undermines and guts the foundations of the Magisterium and the papacy, throwing the Church under the proverbial bus in order to save Bergoglio et al., to have the comfort of some clown prancing aroud in white vestments.
But Father Chazal has thrown you a lifeline. By adopting his sede-impoundist views, you don't have to attribute this evil to legitimate Catholic authority and therefore bring ill repute on the Church.
So please explain why you refuse to get behind Father Chazal's position ... which is perfectly acceptable to most "sedevacantists" in that it avoids the chief problem with R&R that most SVs have. It could also serve as a bridge behind the two camps.
So please explain why, given the Chazal option, you persist in smearing the Holy Catholic Church and the Catholic papacy as being responsible for the evils of the Conciliar erea. What's wrong with it that you find it unacceptable?
If R&R would rally around Father Chazal, then there's no longer any serious divide among Traditional Catholics, and the major differences would reduce to an academic debate regarding the finer points of sede-impoundism vs sede-privationism.
How does he deal with the indefectibility issue?
I suggest everyone get behind Father Noidea’s theory of Derelectionism. It is by far the most peaceful irresolution to this crisis. All we are required to do is live our own best Catholic lives. Leave the seat vacant or an apostate the Pope for our children to deal with. However one is comfortable framing the mysterious crisis, it will work for every stripe of Traditionalist and foster unity. If the Greatest Generation ignored Assisi and Wojtyla, certainly we can feel justified ignoring Jorge the apostate. If a problem is too complex it’s best to leave it for the next generation. Father was inspired by the Art of Manliness handbook, specifically the chapter on Home Invasion where it outlines how to run to your prie-dieu and pray to Our Lord that he remove the armed intruders or just end the world.Boomer tier take, ignoring things doesn't make them go away, they will continue to get worse. The bolded section really highlights the selfishness. It's because the previous generations didn't deal with their problems that we are now left with the mess..
Pope St. Leo the Great (400-461)
"He that sees another in error, and endeavors not to correct it, testifies himself to be in error."
Pope St. Felix III (†492)
"Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them."
Pope St. Pius V (1504-1572)
"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics."
Pope Innocent III
"Not to oppose erroneous Doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true Doctrine is to suppress it."
Boomer tier take, ignoring things doesn't make them go away, they will continue to get worse. The bolded section really highlights the selfishness. It's because the previous generations didn't deal with their problems that we are now left with the mess..:confused:
I suggest everyone get behind Father Noidea’s theory of Derelectionism. It is by far the most peaceful irresolution to this crisis. All we are required to do is live our own best Catholic lives. Leave the seat vacant or an apostate the Pope for our children to deal with. However one is comfortable framing the mysterious crisis, it will work for every stripe of Traditionalist and foster unity. If the Greatest Generation ignored Assisi and Wojtyla, certainly we can feel justified ignoring Jorge the apostate. If a problem is too complex it’s best to leave it for the next generation. Father was inspired by the Art of Manliness handbook, specifically the chapter on Home Invasion where it outlines how to run to your prie-dieu and pray to Our Lord that he remove the armed intruders or just end the world.Like the national debt?
He has to sidestep it, otherwise it leads necessarily to the 's' word - aaaaagh.
It's odd that he called his book 'Contra Cekadam' because nowhere does he actually state what Fr. Cekada's position is, and what is therefore being refuted. Indefectibility is a key element of Fr. Cekada's argument. Fr. Chazal agrees (p. 90) that they're heretics. He just disagrees that they lose the office automatically because the Church hasn't pronounced on it yet.
Funnily enough, the Catholic Church has pronounced on it - they're all canonized.
:confused:Sorry I did not realise.
satire
săt′īr″
noun
- 1. A literary work in which human foolishness or vice is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
- 2. The branch of literature constituting such works.
- 3. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose human foolishness or vice.
Quote from: Mithrandylan 13/05/2023, 00:42:41Yeah the last few lines I should have paid more attention to. The rest of it was a perfect example of the 'boomer mindset'....
Yeah, Anthony, Melanie's post was satirical. Top-tier, at that ;)
Try reading it again.
Another interesting implication of the Canon Law is that those with illicit and even invalid jurisdiction on account of excommunication are explicitly supplied jurisdiction via the code if the faithful approach them for the Sacraments.Which canon is this? Seems like a strong argument against home aloners.
Another interesting implication of the Canon Law is that those with illicit and even invalid jurisdiction on account of excommunication are explicitly supplied jurisdiction via the code if the faithful approach them for the Sacraments.Right, this is another argument in favor of "supplied jurisdiction". Home-aloners have no excuse. GET TO MASS! SAVE YOUR SOUL! You need the sacraments.
Fr Chazal's position could hold water, but then it's just an R&R thing anyway. I'd say yes to it, but to say the pope is pope, but not really pope, is not Catholic teaching. Who cares anyway? We've always been subject to heretical authorities. The people can request removal of a heretic bishop, perhaps even the pope, but then, the pope is specifically not subject to deposition, especially when a huge majority accept him as pope. The one thing I know is that no group or person has a satisfactorily complete handle on any of this. I tend to think the pope is the pope and I think he will be punished for all he's done, to include being declared an anti pope for his heresy. Just not by the laity. We don't have to accept sin as Bergoglio permits or promotes, but must resist his attempts to dismantle the faith where and when we can, since he's still the pope (imho). We have to combat his garbage with charity while avoiding divisive rhetoric and dogmatic propositions about his state within the church because it isn't going to make him go away. The best way to combat a guy like him is through prayer and sacrifice unless your position demands more. The one thing I can't stand is when people demand you believe what they believe or they try to excommunicate you.
Fr Chazal's position could hold water, but then it's just an R&R thing anyway. I'd say yes to it, but to say the pope is pope, but not really pope, is not Catholic teaching. Who cares anyway? We've always been subject to heretical authorities. The people can request removal of a heretic bishop, perhaps even the pope, but then, the pope is specifically not subject to deposition, especially when a huge majority accept him as pope. The one thing I know is that no group or person has a satisfactorily complete handle on any of this. I tend to think the pope is the pope and I think he will be punished for all he's done, to include being declared an anti pope for his heresy. Just not by the laity. We don't have to accept sin as Bergoglio permits or promotes, but must resist his attempts to dismantle the faith where and when we can, since he's still the pope (imho). We have to combat his garbage with charity while avoiding divisive rhetoric and dogmatic propositions about his state within the church because it isn't going to make him go away. The best way to combat a guy like him is through prayer and sacrifice unless your position demands more. The one thing I can't stand is when people demand you believe what they believe or they try to excommunicate you.
Well said; a good summary of the situation. Short, concise, and to the point.
Meg, do you hold that Jorge Bergoglio is a public manifest formal heretic?
The Catholic Church does not require me to make that decision.
Moral theology does require you to make that decision.
"The very act of submission to the pretended authority of an openly heretical enemy of the Catholic faith constitutes per se an objectively grave act not only of indiscreet obedience; but done in ignorance, constitutes an act of material schism as well. Thus, while the Recognize and Resist policy of Catholics towards the errant conciliar popes was morally justified from the time of the post-council up to the end of February 2013, when Pope Benedict went into what is increasingly seen to be a coerced retirement; it is no longer morally licit to adhere to it for so long as the heretical intruder (or another like him) remains in power, because it is morally wrong and schismatic to recognize and be subject to a manifestly formal heretic."
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
The Catholic Church does not require me to be obedient to your (Fr. Kramer) interpretation of theology. Sorry. That's just how it is.
Meg, do you submit to Vatican II and the New Rite of Mass?
And what sort of made-up theology causes you to ask me that? So bizarre. You think that I should submit to the Church of Fr. Kramer? Nope, not gonna do it.
Meg, does the Catholic Church require you to make the decision to reject Vatican II and the New Mass?
According to Fr. Paul Kramer, Fr. Francois Chazal wrote a book Contra Cekadam in which he “adopted the opinion of John of St. Thomas on the question of deposition of a manifest heretic pope from office. It was the opinion of John of St. Thomas that one who is manifestly a formal heretic would not fall from the papal office ipso facto; but would remain in office as pope until convicted of heresy by a council, and then would only fall from office upon being declared vitandus by the council. This is the fourth of the five opinions outlined by St. Robert Bellarmine in Book II of his De Romano Pontifice.” This is in opposition to Fr. Anthony Cekada’s position that public heretics automatically lose office. Fr. Kramer agrees with Fr. Cekada that public heretics automatically lose office, but he does not agree with the process by which Fr. Cekada claims they lose office. The quote I provided in the earlier post elaborates on Fr. Kramer’s disagreement with Fr. Cekada.
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan [322]. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined?
Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book [324], and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach [325]. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope. Cajetan responds in a defense of the aforementioned treatise, chapter 25, and in the treatise itself chapter 22, that a heretic is not a Christian simply; but is relatively. For since two things make a Christian, faith and the character, a heretic loses the virtue of faith, but still retains the character; and for that reason, still adheres in some way to the Church, and has the capacity for jurisdiction: hence, he is still Pope, but must be deposed, because he has been disposed due to heresy; after being disposed at the last, he is not Pope, as such he is a man, and not yet dead, but constituted at the point of death.
But on the contrary, since in the first place, were a heretic to remain joined with the Church in act by reason of the character, he could never be cut off and separated from her, because the character is indelible, yet everyone affirms that some can be cut off from the Church de facto: therefore, the character does not make a heretical man exist in the Church in act; rather, it is only a sign that he was in the Church, and that he ought to be in the Church. Just as the character impressed upon a sheep, when it was in the mountains, does not make it to be in the sheepfold, rather indicates from which fold it fled, and to where it can be driven back again. This is also confirmed by St. Thomas [326], who says that those who do not have faith are not united to Christ in act, but only in potency, and there he speaks on internal union, not external, which is made through the confession of faith, and the visible Sacraments. Therefore, since the character pertains to what is internal and not external, according to St. Thomas, the character alone does not unite a man with Christ in act. Next, either faith is a necessary disposition as one for this purpose, that someone should be Pope, or it is merely that he be a good Pope. If the first, therefore, after that disposition has been abolished through its opposite, which is heresy, and soon after the Pope ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot be preserved without its necessary dispositions. If the second, then a Pope cannot be deposed on account of heresy. On the other hand, in general, he ought to be deposed even on account of ignorance and wickedness, and other dispositions which are necessary to be a good Pope, and besides, Cajetan affirms that the Pope cannot be deposed from a defect of dispositions that are not necessary as one, but merely necessary for one to be a good Pope.
Cajetan responds that faith is a necessary disposition simply, but in part not in total, and hence with faith being absent the Pope still remains Pope, on account of another part of the disposition which is called the character, and that still remains. But on the other hand, either the total disposition which is the character and faith, is necessary as one unit, or it is not, and a partial disposition suffices. If the first, then without faith, the necessary disposition does not remain any longer as one, because the whole was necessary as one unit and now it is no longer total. If the second, then faith is not required to be good, and hence on account of his defect, a Pope cannot be deposed. Thereupon, those things which have the final disposition to ruin, soon after cease to exist, without another external force, as is clear; therefore, even a heretical Pope, without any disposition ceases to be Pope through himself.
Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto. Cyprian says: “We say that all heretics and schismatics have not power and right” [327]. He also teaches that heretics returning to the Church must be received as laymen; even if beforehand they were priests or bishops in the Church [328]. Optatus teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor loose or bind [329]. Ambrose and Augustine teach the same, as does St. Jerome who says: “Bishops who were heretics cannot continue to be so; rather let them be constituted such who were received that were not heretics” [330]. Pope Celestine I, in an epistle to John of Antioch, which is contained in Volume One of the Council of Ephesus, ch. 19, says: “If anyone who was either excommunicated or exiled by Bishop Nestorius, or any that followed him, from such a time as he began to preach such things, whether they be from the dignity of a bishop or clergy, it is manifest that he has endured and endures in our communion, nor do we judge him outside, because he could not remove anyone by a sentence, who himself had already shown that he must be removed.” And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople: “The Authority of our See has sanctioned, that the bishop, cleric or Christian by simple profession who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy, shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preaching, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”
Nicholas I confirms and repeats the same thing in his epistle to the Emperor Michael. Next, even St. Thomas teaches that schismatics soon loose all jurisdiction; and if they try to do something from jurisdiction, it is useless [331]. Nor does the response which some make avail, that these Fathers speak according to ancient laws, but now since the decree of the Council of Constance they do not lose jurisdiction, unless excommunicated by name, or if they strike clerics. I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy. Moreover, the Council of Constance does not speak except on the excommunicates, that is, on these who lose jurisdiction through a judgment of the Church. Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.
Next, what Cajetan says in the second place, that a heretical Pope who is truly Pope can be deposed by the Church, and from its authority seems no less false than the first. For, if the Church deposes a Pope against his will, certainly it is over the Pope. Yet the same Cajetan defends the opposite in the very same treatise. But he answers; the Church, in the very matter, when it deposes the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only on that union of the person with the pontificate. As the Church can join the pontificate to such a person, and still it is not said on that account to be above the Pontiff; so it can separate the pontificate from such a person in the case of heresy, and still it will not be said to be above the Pope.
On the other hand, from the very fact that the Pope deposes bishops, they deduce that the Pope is above all bishops, and still the Pope deposing a bishop does not destroy the Episcopacy; but only separates it from that person. Secondly, for one to be deposed from the pontificate against his will is without a doubt a penalty; therefore, the Church deposing a Pope against his will, without a doubt punished him; but to punish is for a superior and a judge. Thirdly, because according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality they are the same, the whole and the parts are taken up together. Therefore, he who has so great an authority over the parts taken up together, such that he can also separate them, also has it over the whole, which arises from those parts.
Furthermore, the example of Cajetan does not avail on electors, who have the power of applying the pontificate to a certain person, and still does not have power over the Pope. For while a thing is made, the action is exercised over the matter of the thing that is going to be, not over a composite which does not yet exist, but while a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over a composite; as is certain from natural things. Therefore, when Cardinals create the Pontiff, they exercise their authority not over the Pontiff, because he does not yet exist; but over the matter, that is, over the person whom they dispose in a certain measure through election, that he might receive the form of the pontificate from God; but if they depose the Pope, they necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person provided with pontifical dignity, which is to say, over the Pontiff.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.
Regarding the Chazal position specifically, I think I found something that may shed more light on where to place these different opinions vis a vis Bellarmine's list:
Here (https://ecclesiamilitans.com/2022/02/20/clarification-regarding-fr-paul-kramers-quote-on-sedevacantism/) is what Fr. Paul Kramer said about Fr. Chazal's position:
So, if Kramer's analysis is correct, Fr. Chazal's position reflects the Fourth Opinion in the Bellarmine list. Bellarmine attributes that opinion specifically to the Dominican Cardinal Cajetan (not the same person as St. Cajetan). John of St. Thomas as also a Dominican and Bellarmine says "according to Cajetan and the other Thomists" when discussing the Fourth Opinion.
If Fr. Chazal is essentially taking the Fourth Opinion listed by Bellarmine (i.e., the opinion of Cardinal Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and the other Dominicans of that era), we can use Bellarmine's argument to consider the matter further.
Father Kramer argues in his book that since the Vatican I council and its declaration of the injudicability of the pope by any authority on earth, and the codification of ipso facto loss of office for heresy in Canon 188 in 1917, the Cajetan/John of St. Thomas opinion is no longer tenable. I think he argues that all theologians post Vatican I and the 1917 code agree with him.
Key to Fr. Kramer's position was his contention that Vatican I, with its elevating to dogma certain claims about papal supremacy and jurisdiction, made the position of Cajetan, JST and hence Fr. Chazal untenable. He claims that, post-V1, there is virtual unanimity among theologians in rejecting the Cajetan/JST position.
Specifically, to quote myself earlier on this issue:
His claim in that regard has to be dealt with by proponents of the Cajetan/JST view. I'm not sure Sisco & Salza address it.
Hi Decem. So, you seem to agree with Fr. Kramer that Fr. Chazal is essentially taking the position in the Fourth Opinion in Bellarmine's list, right? My point, at the moment, is just to identify where exactly Fr. Chazal stands in relation to the other positions out there.
Both Bp. Des Lauriers, the author of the Cassiciacuм Thesis, (a Dominican, BTW) and Fr. Chazal seem, to me, to be somewhere within the Fourth Opinion discussed by Bellarmine. If we can establish that first, we can then get into why one opinion is better than the other, possibly by using Bellarmine or another respected theologian to guide us.
Does anyone think that Fr. Chazal is saying something essentially different from that found in the Fourth Opinion (Cajetan/JST)?
Why do you ask?
So it would appear that what Catholic Knight is proposing is not just Fr. Paul Kramer's opinion. It is, in fact, the current law of the Catholic Church. And references to the same principles can be found in the 1917 Code (it was just easier to copy/paste from the 1983 Code).
It is the interpretation of Fr. Kramer that the code of canon law pertains to the pope, and that the laity are required to believe that it involves the Pope, even when the Pope is not specifically mentioned, and that we are required to be sedevacantists by insisting that we are required to proclaim a heretical pope a manifest heretic. THAT is an interpretation. We are not required to agree with Kramer's interpretation.
We are also not required to agree with his (or your) interpretation of Ballarmine. Neither you, nor Fr. Kramer, are entitled to force the obedience of Catholics on this forum to your opinions.
Regardless, Fr. Chazal clearly rejects the typical R&R (SSPX) position that "Pope who is a manifest heretic would not lose his office," which is the Third Opinion discussed (and destroyed) by Bellarmine, who says "that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd."
The basis of the Canons in both Codes regarding automatic loss of office due to public defection from the Catholic Faith is the doctrinal principle that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church. "Per se" allows for no exceptions.
Does anyone think that Fr. Chazal is saying something essentially different from that found in the Fourth Opinion (Cajetan/JST)?
Yes. It is the law of the Catholic Church that public defection from the Catholic Faith results in an automatic loss of office. The doctrinal principle behind this is that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church. This applies universally, be he layman, priest, bishop, or pope (if it were, hypothetically speaking, possible for a true pope to become a formal heretic).What about 'Pope' Honorius?
You claim that "per se" allows no exceptions, but where in Church teaching does it say that this specifically pertains to the Pope as well? Specifics are important in Catholic theology. Perhaps not in Kramer theology, of course.
What about 'Pope' Honorius?
The very meaning of "per se" is exactly that, no exceptions. For example, abortion is intrinsically (i.e., per se or in itself or by its very nature) evil. There are no circuмstances or ends that can justify abortion because the act itself, abortion, is evil. Likewise, the public sin of manifest formal heresy is such that it per se (or in itself or by its very nature) separates the heretic (regardless of his office) from the Church. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html) uses the term "suapte natura" to indicate that heresy (and schism and apostasy) by its nature separates the heretic from the Church:
"Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet."
I do not agree. Joachim Salaverri's opinion (as posted on your website) does not include the Pope. And it only an opinion. It is not Church teaching.
Then you don't agree with Pope Pius XII.
The very meaning of "per se" is exactly that, no exceptions. For example, abortion is intrinsically (i.e., per se or in itself or by its very nature) evil. There are no circuмstances or ends that can justify abortion because the act itself, abortion, is evil. Likewise, the public sin of manifest formal heresy is such that it per se (or in itself or by its very nature) separates the heretic (regardless of his office) from the Church. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html) uses the term "suapte natura" to indicate that heresy (and schism and apostasy) by its nature separates the heretic from the Church:(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/IMG_1786-1152x1536.jpg)
"Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet."
No, I don't agree with your interpretation of Pope Pius XII. There's the difference. All you have are your opinions.
"Suapte natura" is the term that Pope Pius XII uses in the Latin.
“Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)
Read that the sin of heresy "automatically" severs a man from the Church. Why? Because the sin of heresy "suapte natura" (by its very nature) does so.
We can go round and round about this, but again, the above does not apply to the Pope.
Meg, you are resisting the meaning of "suapte natura". In your wrong interpretation, "suapte natura" does not apply to the pope in regards to the effect of the sin of public heresy. You are resisting what is in the very definition of "suapte natura", that is, it applies in ALL cases. Abortion is "suapte natura" evil (i.e., in ALL cases). Likewise, the public sin of manifest formal heresy "suapte natura" separates the heretic from the Church (i.e., in ALL cases).
Suffice to say that the Catholic Church does not have a specific teaching on how to deal with a heretical pope.
Yes. It does. Heresy "suapte natura" separates the heretic from the Church, as taught by Pope Pius XII.
"The Canon Law commentary of the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca explains that the sole necessary condition for such a loss of office to take place, is that the act be freely committed, and then the loss of office follows necessarily: 'El hecho por el que se presupone la renuncia debe ser puesto voluntariamente, a tenor del canon 185; pero, cuмplida esta condición, la perdida del oficio se produce necesariamente.' That the canon is applicable to all ecclesiastical offices is stated explicitly with the words, 'quælibet officia vacant ipso facto' – and therefore necessarily includes the office of the Supreme Pontiff. The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac explained, in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, on Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices, that such loss of office (Canons 185-191) 'applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.' (p. 346)"
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
Where does it say that it applies to the Pope?
By the term "suapte natura".
I don't see the Latin "Papa" which would refer to the pope in the above Latin text.
Again, just someone's opinion. Not actual Church teaching.
It's in the very definition of "suapte natura".
No, it isn't. It's your opinion that it refers to the pope.
“In the encyclical (i.e., Mystici Corporis), the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins which, of their very nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De ecclesia militante.”
(Monsignor Joseph Fenton, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine’s Teaching about the Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Status_St_Robert_Bellarmine_Membership_Occult_Heretics_Church.pdf), The American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1950, p. 219)[Bold mine]
Where does the above encyclical refer to the Pope? Bellarmine's opinion is interesting, but it's not actual Church teaching. Interesting that you mention Fenton's interpretation of Ballarmine, since Fenton was very a Vatican II kind of guy, who seemed traditional, but wasn't.
".....the teaching of Mystici Corporis, which says that heretics 'miserably separated themselves from the unity of the Body'; and that the exclusion from membership in the Church due to heresy takes place by the nature of heresy, i.e. suapte natura, which means directly and immediately by the nature of the act itself, and therefore neither directly, dispositively, nor in any manner 'by legitimate authority'."
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (p. 213). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
Where is the Pope mentioned in Mystici Corporis?
Please go learn what "by its very nature" means.
Not necessary. You assume that the office of the papacy is just the same as the lay state, or priestly or bishop state, when actually the office of the papacy is above that of the lay state, or priest or bishop. Are you really not aware of that?
I know that the office of the papacy is the supreme office and hence unique to all other offices. That doesn't change the fact that heresy "suapte natura" separates the heretic from the Church.
The Sacrament of Baptism "suapte natura" requires water to be valid. Would you contradict that by saying, "Well, if the pope, who occupies the supreme Church office, uses coca cola instead, would baptize validly."?
In what way is the office of the papacy supreme, and hence unique to all other offices? That's a general question, but maybe you can answer in context of the subject at hand.
Bye bye, Meg. I have sufficiently proved my point.
That doesn't change the fact that heresy "suapte natura" separates the heretic from the Church.:facepalm: If it were THAT simple, then +Bellarmine and everyone else wasted decades debating/writing about the issue. :facepalm:
Meg, you are resisting the meaning of "suapte natura". In your wrong interpretation, "suapte natura" does not apply to the pope in regards to the effect of the sin of public heresy. You are resisting what is in the very definition of "suapte natura", that is, it applies in ALL cases. Abortion is "suapte natura" evil (i.e., in ALL cases). Likewise, the public sin of manifest formal heresy "suapte natura" separates the heretic from the Church (i.e., in ALL cases).To be fair, St Robert Bellarmine actually didn't believe a true pope COULD fall into heresy because Christ would not allow his faith to fail. His fifth opinion is answering the question "What if the pope could fall into heresy?" Of course, it still begs the question.
Presuming that you reject Vatican II and the New Mass, I would like to know what is the cause that impels you to reject them but not reject Jorge Bergoglio as pope.Good question. It really can be directed at all those who are R&R.
Abortion is "suapte natura" evil (i.e., in ALL cases).Actually, it depends. An abortion that occurs because of a surgery to the mother is not a sin. But, voluntary abortion, yes, is always intrinsically wrong.
Presuming that you reject Vatican II and the New Mass, I would like to know what is the cause that impels you to reject them but not reject Jorge Bergoglio as pope.
Why do you hold that the typical R&R (SSPX) position is the Third Opinion (https://ecclesiamilitans.com/2023/05/12/the-third-opinion-commentary-by-fr-paul-kramer/)? I hold, rather, that they adhere typically to the Fourth Opinion (https://ecclesiamilitans.com/2023/05/13/the-fourth-opinion-commentary-by-fr-paul-kramer/).
Quote from: Catholic Knight on Today at 08:15:16 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-why-don't-you-get-behind-father-chazal's-sede-impoundism/msg884291/#msg884291)It certainly is.
Good question. It really can be directed at all those who are R&R.
I always thought this was the best meme showing the cognitive dissonance of my former R'n'R position.
(https://i.imgur.com/A0vaWuw.png)
Presuming that you reject Vatican II and the New Mass, I would like to know what is the cause that impels you to reject them but not reject Jorge Bergoglio as pope.
Some do "more" Recognizing and "less" Resisting, hence R and R. I promote the Great Sacrilege (New Mass is sacrilegious) , maintain that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation, avoid ecuмenism, etc. How much more am I able to RESIST? Aside from doing door-to-door evangelism or writing a book - which most will not read anyway - what more can I do? Whether Francis is a pope or not is a matter of utter irrelevancy when it comes to my salvation. It might be a matter of interest to academic minds who enjoying mulling over the issue, but for the practical Catholic, it does not matter one bit. I know some sedes refuse to enter a church if the priest mentions Francis in the Mass, and this seems asinine to me. And besides, I have served Mass thousands of times and not once have I heard the priest mention any pope by name. He says these things in silence. What if a priest does not reveal whether he is sedevacantist? Or what if a priest says, I do not care whether Francis is pope? Or what if he says, the situation in the Church is so crazy right now, don't bother me about the pope question, I have other things to worry about?Well said!
Everyone must know that if we had a conservative pope - let us say today Francis died - there is a conclave, WW III breaks out and the bishops at the conclave are killed, all but a few who opted not to attend. So now we have Francis, the dead quasi-pope, dead quasi-cardinals, and a few cardinals who elect some "conservative pope." What now? Talk about chaos! We will all sit and think about the good-ol-days when we were sitting at our keyboards typing away at the question, 'Is Francis a pope or not?'
When I hear the term "sede-impoundism," I think about my car being in the impoundment lot because my car was towed by the Popo. I own my car, but I temporarily do not enjoy the use of it because it is under the authority of another power; in this case, the police.
Whether Francis is a pope or not is a matter of utter irrelevancy when it comes to my salvation. It might be a matter of interest to academic minds who enjoying mulling over the issue, but for the practical Catholic, it does not matter one bit. I know some sedes refuse to enter a church if the priest mentions Francis in the Mass, and this seems asinine to me. And besides, I have served Mass thousands of times and not once have I heard the priest mention any pope by name. He says these things in silence. What if a priest does not reveal whether he is sedevacantist? Or what if a priest says, I do not care whether Francis is pope? Or what if he says, the situation in the Church is so crazy right now, don't bother me about the pope question, I have other things to worry about?
The Man of Sin
1 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-1.htm) And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: 2 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-2.htm) That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. 3 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-3.htm) Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-4.htm) Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-5.htm) Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-6.htm) And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-7.htm) For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-8.htm) And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-9.htm) Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-10.htm) And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-11.htm) Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 12 (https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-12.htm) That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
But some say that neither Jerusalem nor the temple will ever be rebuilt, but that their desolation will last until the final consummation. And even some Jєωs believe this. So this text is explained to mean in the temple of God, i.e., in the Church, since many from the church will accept him. Or according to Augustine, he sits in the temple of God, i.e., he rules and governs as though he himself with his messengers were the temple of God, as Christ is the temple with his adherents. (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~2Thess.C2.L1.n40 (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~2Thess.C2.L1.n40))
Francis cannot be more evil than Paul VI, who gave us the New Mass. Francis is just continuing the nonsense given us by Paul VI. Does Angelus think that because we think that Paul VI was a valid pontiff, that we therefore consent to his wickedness? That would be a ridiculous conclusion.
If you can prove of Montini/Paul VI that ...
If you can prove from ANY Catholic sources (Popes, Fathers, Doctors, etc.) that the Magisterium and Public worship of the Church can become so corrupt as to justify severing communion with the Catholic hierarchy ... well, you can't, because no Catholic sources have ever written such a thing, and would rightly consider you a heretic for proposing this blends of Old Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. You're also anathematized by Trent.
No one has to prove anything about Montini et al. If you want to theorize that he was being blackmailed or drugged or even replaced by an imposter, go for it. But to claim that a legitimate Pope of sound mind and acting freely could destroy the Magisterium and the Mass is heresy.
As far as Bergoglio being THE man of Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were just as bad ... if you take the time to study their "teaching". Bergoglio is simply more brazen about it, and he's actually served to wake people out of their slumber regarding Vatican II.
"But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will."
You used the word "brazen." Good word, meaning he's not ashamed of "coming out" so to speak. The other guys you mentioned, if heretics at all, were more "secretive." They stayed "in the closet," as they say. You might even use the word "occult" to describe the "heresies" of those predecessors of Bergoglio.
You used the word "brazen." Good word, meaning he's not ashamed of "coming out" so to speak. The other guys you mentioned, if heretics at all, were more "secretive." They stayed "in the closet," as they say. You might even use the word "occult" to describe the "heresies" of those predecessors of Bergoglio.
Miracle of the Sun beat me to it. ;)
So, one will need "to prove" that a lawfully-elected Pope manifestly taught formal heresy and was obstinate in that teaching before he loses his office. That is, if you use Bellarmine and Canon Law as your guide.
Many hours have been spent digging through obscure writings of those earlier Popes. They bring up many statements that approach heresy. But they fail to establish manifest formal heresy as required by Bellarmine. With Bergoglio, we do not have that problem.
Yes, Ratzinger was/is the poster child for Vatican II Modernists who left us with miles of terrible writings. Not 'secretive' by any stretch.
Right. Angelus' ignorance of the public writings of Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger doesn't make them "secretive" or "occult" or "obscure."
Yes, glad you mentioned Bergoglio, since he's the only one that really matters at the moment.Every single one of them taught and promoted a false religion to the Universal Church. This is not about personal heresies. They are popes of a different religion.
You used the word "brazen." Good word, meaning he's not ashamed of "coming out" so to speak. The other guys you mentioned, if heretics at all, were more "secretive." They stayed "in the closet," as they say. You might even use the word "occult" to describe the "heresies" of those predecessors of Bergoglio.
But Bellarmine's Fifth Opinion, the one he calls "true," says that "secret" or "occult" heresy is not enough for the ipso facto loss of office. Those who hold the Second Opinion, rejected by Bellarmine, hold that "secret" heretics lose their office. Bellarmine says (https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/),
So, one will need "to prove" that a lawfully-elected Pope manifestly taught formal heresy and was obstinate in that teaching before he loses his office. That is, if you use Bellarmine and Canon Law as your guide.
Many hours have been spent digging through obscure writings of those earlier Popes. They bring up many statements that approach heresy. But they fail to establish manifest formal heresy as required by Bellarmine. With Bergoglio, we do not have that problem.
:facepalm: If it were THAT simple, then +Bellarmine and everyone else wasted decades debating/writing about the issue. :facepalm:
To be fair, St Robert Bellarmine actually didn't believe a true pope COULD fall into heresy because Christ would not allow his faith to fail.
Actually, it depends. An abortion that occurs because of a surgery to the mother is not a sin. But, voluntary abortion, yes, is always intrinsically wrong.
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-papal-heresy-part-6b
Fr. Gleize splits the matter in two: the prudential and the speculative.
1. Prudential: Archbishop Lefebvre said "recognize" and pray for "the Pope," meaning whoever the Pope is. Don't discuss deposing or loss of office. Not important. Just pray and "resist" on certain things to be decided by "prudence."
2. Speculative: Gleize takes Billot as his guide over Bellarmine and Cajetan. He says that Billot makes it clear that "Cajetan’s explanation in reality does not avoid saying that the Church is above the pope." This principle, then, that one can NEVER SAY that "the Church is above the pope" is sacrosanct for Fr. Gleize and the SSPX. Therefore, all Speculative attempts (e.g., Bellarmine, et. al.) are worthless to the extent that they violate that principle.
So, as I see it, the SSPX position, formulated by Fr. Gleize amounts to The Third Opinion listed by Bellarmine. Since there is actually no way to resolve the speculative problem, Fr. Gleize would say, one must resort to the prudential solution of Abp. Lefebvre, i.e., to always Recognize and Resist (when we feel like it).
Many hours have been spent digging through obscure writings of those earlier Popes. They bring up many statements that approach heresy. But they fail to establish manifest formal heresy as required by Bellarmine. With Bergoglio, we do not have that problem.
Fr. Paul Kramer, in Volume II, defends Joseph Ratzinger from those who accuse him of public manifest formal heresy.
CK,
And what is your opinion of the defense?
"Therefore, it cannot be maintained that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic, on the basis of the specious and false pretext that he has asserted heretical disbelief in dogmas by incorrectly explicating those dogmas which in their proper content include in themselves the notion of created substance composed of matter and form, or that he has explained other dogmas in such a manner that involves his argument in some basic contradiction. He has professed belief in the dogmas, but has explained them in a logically incoherent and sometimes contradictory manner, but without directly, immediately, explicitly, and knowingly asserting disbelief in the dogmas themselves, which alone would be an indicium of formal heresy that constitutes proof of formal heresy; yet, as I have explained, his exposition on their meaning contain propositions which, considered in themselves, contain material heresy in that the contrary part of his contradictory assertions are opposed to the dogmas which he does profess, and, due to his faulty understanding of the philosophical concepts which underlie some dogmas, he does not always profess those dogmas according to their proper sense as the Church has defined them. Hence, there are not to be found the indicia of formal heresy in the writings of Joseph Ratzinger, who is still at present, Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ on earth."
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 602-603). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
I agree with Fr. Paul Kramer.
St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching was confirmed by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.
"Therefore, it cannot be maintained that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic, on the basis of the specious and false pretext that he has asserted heretical disbelief in dogmas by incorrectly explicating those dogmas which in their proper content include in themselves the notion of created substance composed of matter and form, or that he has explained other dogmas in such a manner that involves his argument in some basic contradiction. He has professed belief in the dogmas, but has explained them in a logically incoherent and sometimes contradictory manner, but without directly, immediately, explicitly, and knowingly asserting disbelief in the dogmas themselves, which alone would be an indicium of formal heresy that constitutes proof of formal heresy; yet, as I have explained, his exposition on their meaning contain propositions which, considered in themselves, contain material heresy in that the contrary part of his contradictory assertions are opposed to the dogmas which he does profess, and, due to his faulty understanding of the philosophical concepts which underlie some dogmas, he does not always profess those dogmas according to their proper sense as the Church has defined them. Hence, there are not to be found the indicia of formal heresy in the writings of Joseph Ratzinger, who is still at present, Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ on earth."Is not praying with muslims in mosques apostasy? Or praying with Jєωs in ѕуηαgσgυєs?
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 602-603). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
I agree with Fr. Paul Kramer.
Is not praying with muslims in mosques apostasy? Or praying with Jєωs in ѕуηαgσgυєs?
"Therefore, it cannot be maintained that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic ...
Fr. Paul Kramer, in Volume II, defends Joseph Ratzinger from those who accuse him of public manifest formal heresy.
Is not praying with muslims in mosques apostasy? Or praying with Jєωs in ѕуηαgσgυєs?
961. Participation of Catholics in non-Catholic services may happen today in so many ways, and it is so difficult at times to draw the line between lawful and unlawful communication, that it is well before considering these cases to state the general rules that apply here.(a) It is lawful to perform an act from which two effects follow, one good and the other bad, if the act in itself is good or indifferent, if there is a sufficiently grave reason for performing it, if the evil effect is not intended, and if the evil effect be not prior to the good effect (see 104).(b) Circuмstances vary in different localities and countries, and communication that would signify unity of belief in a place where Catholics and non-Catholics are very unequal numerically might be very harmless in a place where there is no great numerical difference. Offense to non-Catholics should not be given needlessly.(c) In doubtful cases the decision whether or not a particular kind of communication is lawful or unlawful pertains to the Ordinary (Canon 1258).
Actions make someone suspect of heresy, and Canon Law presumes it after 6 months of such activity, but Canon Law is not above the pope.
Nevertheless, the track record of heresy from Ratzinger is overwhelming, to the point that even Bishop Tissier referred to him as a heretic "worse than Luther."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkPiaS1z6Vs
St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching was confirmed by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.:laugh1: Which one? He wrote multiple books on many topics. Unless "Mystici Corporis" referenced specific statements, we can't say that any of +Bellarmine's "teachings" were confirmed.
Nevertheless, the track record of heresy from Ratzinger is overwhelming, to the point that even Bishop Tissier referred to him as a heretic "worse than Luther."Yes. Unfortunately, +Ratzinger was a heretic, and held/wrote heretical things before, during and after his papacy. The worst heretical actions of his papacy were his multiple visits to the ѕуηαgσgυє where he worshiped the jooish religion, as both equal to, and above, catholicism.
It is a very long video with many accusations mentioned that definitely do not approach "heresy" as defined by the Church.What about in regards to the Novus ordo ordinations of Benedict 16 and Francis?
To be considered relevant for ipso facto loss of ecclesiastical office, an action must be a clear sign of obstinate, formal, and manifest defection from the Catholic faith. So an action that would merely "make someone suspect of heresy" would not rise to the level of formal, manifest, obstinate heresy.
Can you please pull out what you believe to be the most damning offense of Ratzinger from that video? I guess it would not be that he wore a business suit at VII or that he took photos with religious leaders from around the world (which is part of the Pope's job). I addressed the issues related to communicatio in sacris in another post. Those actions do not signify heresy. Maybe a bad wardrobe choice or bad judgment about who to take photos with. But not heresy as that term is defined by the Church.
It is a very long video with many accusations mentioned that definitely do not approach "heresy" as defined by the Church.
You've got to be kidding. I doubt you watched any of it. This evidence is absolutely damning. Even I was surprised by how many overly heretical statements Ratzinger has "taught" over the years.
Even Bishop Tissier, who studied the works of Ratzinger, characterized him as a heretic "worse than Luther". I have no idea what you're smoking, but it's a pretty sad case of denial and wishful thinking.
Where in Mystici Corporis is Bellarmine's teaching confirmed?
Mystici Corporis Christi (June 29, 1943) | PIUS XII (vatican.va) (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html)
You've got to be kidding. I doubt you watched any of it. This evidence is absolutely damning. Even I was surprised by how many overly heretical statements Ratzinger has "taught" over the years.
Even Bishop Tissier, who studied the works of Ratzinger, characterized him as a heretic "worse than Luther". I have no idea what you're smoking, but it's a pretty sad case of denial and wishful thinking.
7. Contribution of Jєωιѕн reading of the Bible22. The horror in the wake of the extermination of the Jєωs (the Shoah) during the Second World War has led all the Churches to rethink their relationship with Judaism and, as a result, to reconsider their interpretation of the Jєωιѕн Bible, the Old Testament. It may be asked whether Christians should be blamed for having monopolised the Jєωιѕн Bible and reading there what no Jєω has found. Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jєωs do, in order to show proper respect for its Jєωιѕн origins?In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.As regards the first question, the situation is different, for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jєωιѕн reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jєωιѕн Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible.On the practical level of exegesis, Christians can, nonetheless, learn much from Jєωιѕн exegesis practised for more than two thousand years, and, in fact, they have learned much in the course of history.45 For their part, it is to be hoped that Jєωs themselves can derive profit from Christian exegetical research.
Maybe he is a heretic. Maybe he isn't.
:laugh1: Which one? He wrote multiple books on many topics. Unless "Mystici Corporis" referenced specific statements, we can't say that any of +Bellarmine's "teachings" were confirmed.
You always write about Father Kramer in the third person, but I strongly suspect that you're actually Father Kramer.
He never publically abjured/corrected/apologized for any of these heresies. History will show him as an anti-pope.
You always write about Father Kramer in the third person, but I strongly suspect that you're actually Father Kramer.
I think you should keep in mind Joseph Ratzinger's "hermeneutic of continuity". This was evidence that he did not want to break from Tradition.
Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.
I think you should keep in mind Joseph Ratzinger's "hermeneutic of continuity". This was evidence that he did not want to break from Tradition.
Correct. Even if one thinks Benedict XVI's argument is unreasonable or incorrect, he clearly professes that he holds to the teachings of "the Church which the Lord has given us."
they pervert the view of the Deposit of Revelation as being something "static", making it instead something that grows and evolves. That's in fact at the very root of their heresy, and that's why it's the synthesis of all heresies.
As to what Newman would have thought of the system of the Modernists as a whole there can be little room for doubt. The entire fabric of his theology rested on the truth, which is elementary, that man by his intellect can know God, and can recognise a revelation, when proposed with due credentials, as coming from Him, and, consequently, he would have dealt very summarily with the Subjectivism which the Pope now condemns.
Few will question this conclusion, but there are some who either through prejudice, or defective training {iv} in theological studies, seem to think that, while they admit that this is Newman's position, and affirm that it is their own, they are free to uphold in detail as many as they like of the doctrines of Modernism.
I'm sede-vacantist and accept the Cardinal Sirii Thesis. Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice", and the folks who can't tell there's something wrong with the voicings of Vatican II don't have very good ears.
I'd have to go look through those docuмents again to find the quotes, but they said themselves that they called the Council because of the world, the modern world, and isn't that special? To do something like that and all that followed because of the modern world rather than the faith? Let the V2 notion that the world comes first be anathema.
For all those imbibing of the Siri theory, Matthew posted a good piece in the library that debunks it pretty well:.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/was-siri-the-pope/
I think it's an evasion, like the Paul VI body double stuff, etc. Some simply can't deal with the reality of the Conciliar papacy, and have to come up with things like the Siri theory to maintain some semblance of mental equilibrium to avoid the otherwise inevitable cognitive dissonance with what was thought about the "indefectible" Church.
Yes, I wrote a short summary of that guy's arguments.
...
Well, the Church certainly is indefectible, that's Catholic doctrine.
Well, I thought the paper was junk. We all know that there's no smoking gun proof regarding the election of Siri, and that's why it's called a theory. I find it credible and the most plausible explanation of what happened at V2. This guy's paper basically begged the question, assuming that it was untrue because there was no smoking gun proof, which is a huge logical fallacy, and he admits his bias..
That actually is the point of this thread. Father Chazal's sede-impoundist position gives R&R a means of backing away from the absolutely non-Catholic notion that the Church has become corrupted through the free exercise of legitimate papal authority. Archbishop Lefebvre, BTW, upheld the proposition that freely-exercised legitimate papal authority could not do this to the Church ... despite the fact that these R&R who deny that proposition claim to have +Lefebvre on their side. +Lefebvre merely prescinded from coming up with THE explanation for how this came about, saying that SV was a real possibility, and going through the other theories and finding them implausible, but not implausible enough where he felt he could commit to the SV conclusion with any kind of certainty ... and that too is an acceptable Catholic opinion.
.
There are various ideas, both public facts and also rumors and similar things, that are adduced as evidence of the Siri thesis. That is what the author of the paper addressed. If it's not possible to refute an idea by refuting the evidence used to support it, then I'm not sure how you would do so.
For example, the most public fact used to support the Siri thesis is the fact that white smoke came out of the chimney for five minutes, followed by black smoke. This has been used by people to argue that it means a pope was elected.
The author refutes this by saying it is false to suppose that white smoke indicates a papal election. The reality is more complex. The true signals are as follows:
Positive result: white smoke
Negative result: white smoke followed by black smoke
This information comes straight from the man in charge of the conclave, who was in charge of three conclaves all together: Pius XI, Pius XII and Roncalli. His name was Prince Chigi, and he was an Italian aristocrat. He gave a simple explanation for how the smoke works. Basically, the white smoke comes from burning the ballots. The black smoke results from putting wet straw into the ballots while they are burning. You cannot simply ignite wet straw (Prince Chigi explained) because being wet it will not light. So, when no pope is elected in a ballot, the ballots themselves must first be burned, causing white smoke, and then the straw must be added, making the smoke black.
And what was the type of smoke that came out on that Sunday afternoon in 1958? It was white and then black -- the signal for a null election result.
Chigi went on to explain that the correct way to interpret the smoke is that you have to wait until the smoke stops coming out before you call it, to be sure that black smoke never comes out. Only after the smoke stops flowing can you know what the true result is. The priest announcing the result on the radio failed to do this and announced that a pope had been elected while the smoke was still flowing; I believe this was the first ballot of the conclave so he would not have a lot of experience on how this works yet.
The exact same mistake had been made in 1939 when Pius XII was elected. The announcer called it too early, said a pope was elected, the bells rang, the Swiss Guards went to their place, etc., but then the black smoke came out. Later, Pius XII came out of the conclave, and no one questions the validity of his election. The author of the article provided photographs of scans of newspapers that reported on this.
All of this makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise, what? The cardinal at the stove started burning white smoke and then some modernist cardinal snuck up behind him and put him in a full Nelson while other modernist cardinals started stuffing wet straw into the stove -- all in a matter of two minutes or so? Or what exactly is the scenario that Siri theorists think happened?
I guess people could say Prince Chigi is part of some sort of conspiracy. This makes little sense to me because this guy was a layman, was not in the conclave, and was not part of Vatican 2. He had been in two conclaves before 1958 and had been trusted by true popes. What motive would he have to be part of a modernist conspiracy? And what evidence is there that he promoted modernism anyway?
Do you hold Jorge Bergoglio to be an antipope?:confused: He's not dead yet. His conversion, however unlikely, is still possible.
You really have to laugh your ass off, every time Loudestmouth destroys the Church under the pretext of saving it. He's crazier than a rat in a tin shithouse.
:confused: He's not dead yet. His conversion, however unlikely, is still possible.
And I don't think "Mystici Corporis" did any of this. It was not a doctrinal encyclical.
Meg, you are resisting the meaning of "suapte natura". In your wrong interpretation, "suapte natura" does not apply to the pope in regards to the effect of the sin of public heresy. You are resisting what is in the very definition of "suapte natura", that is, it applies in ALL cases. Abortion is "suapte natura" evil (i.e., in ALL cases). Likewise, the public sin of manifest formal heresy "suapte natura" separates the heretic from the Church (i.e., in ALL cases).
How does the Church define "the public sin of manifest formal heresy"? Obviously, we have to know the definition of the term before we can determine if someone meets the definition. And where does she teach that the public sin of manifest formal heresy separates a person from the Church by its nature?
.
There are various ideas, both public facts and also rumors and similar things, that are adduced as evidence of the Siri thesis. That is what the author of the paper addressed. If it's not possible to refute an idea by refuting the evidence used to support it, then I'm not sure how you would do so.
For example, the most public fact used to support the Siri thesis is the fact that white smoke came out of the chimney for five minutes, followed by black smoke. This has been used by people to argue that it means a pope was elected.
The author refutes this by saying it is false to suppose that white smoke indicates a papal election. The reality is more complex. The true signals are as follows:
Positive result: white smoke
Negative result: white smoke followed by black smoke
This information comes straight from the man in charge of the conclave, who was in charge of three conclaves all together: Pius XI, Pius XII and Roncalli. His name was Prince Chigi, and he was an Italian aristocrat. He gave a simple explanation for how the smoke works. Basically, the white smoke comes from burning the ballots. The black smoke results from putting wet straw into the ballots while they are burning. You cannot simply ignite wet straw (Prince Chigi explained) because being wet it will not light. So, when no pope is elected in a ballot, the ballots themselves must first be burned, causing white smoke, and then the straw must be added, making the smoke black.
And what was the type of smoke that came out on that Sunday afternoon in 1958? It was white and then black -- the signal for a null election result.
Chigi went on to explain that the correct way to interpret the smoke is that you have to wait until the smoke stops coming out before you call it, to be sure that black smoke never comes out. Only after the smoke stops flowing can you know what the true result is. The priest announcing the result on the radio failed to do this and announced that a pope had been elected while the smoke was still flowing; I believe this was the first ballot of the conclave so he would not have a lot of experience on how this works yet.
The exact same mistake had been made in 1939 when Pius XII was elected. The announcer called it too early, said a pope was elected, the bells rang, the Swiss Guards went to their place, etc., but then the black smoke came out. Later, Pius XII came out of the conclave, and no one questions the validity of his election. The author of the article provided photographs of scans of newspapers that reported on this.
All of this makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise, what? The cardinal at the stove started burning white smoke and then some modernist cardinal snuck up behind him and put him in a full Nelson while other modernist cardinals started stuffing wet straw into the stove -- all in a matter of two minutes or so? Or what exactly is the scenario that Siri theorists think happened?
I guess people could say Prince Chigi is part of some sort of conspiracy. This makes little sense to me because this guy was a layman, was not in the conclave, and was not part of Vatican 2. He had been in two conclaves before 1958 and had been trusted by true popes. What motive would he have to be part of a modernist conspiracy? And what evidence is there that he promoted modernism anyway?
On October 26, 1958, white smoke was seen emerging from the Sistine Chapel. White smoke indicates that a new Pope has been elected. But no Pope emerged. This was reported by newspapers throughout the world and heard on radio. Cardinals were even seen from the windows of the apostolic palace waving to the crowd – something not permitted if the conclave is still in session. They, too, thought a Pope had been elected. Here is a newspaper report from Oct. 27, 1958:
"VATICAN CITY (AP) - Cardinals balloted Sunday without electing a pope. A mix-up in smoke signals made it appear for about half an hour that Pius XII's successor had been chosen. For a time 200,000 Romans and tourists in huge Saint Peter's Square were certain the church had a new pontiff. Millions of others who listened to radios throughout Italy and Europe also were certain. They were certain. They heard the Vatican speaker shout exultantly: 'A pope is elected..’
"The scene around the Vatican was one of incredible confusion. White smoke from a little chimney atop the Vatican is the traditional signal announcing the election of a new pope. Black smoke indicates failure. Twice during the day smoke billowed from the chimney. At noon the smoke at first came white but it quickly turned unquestionably black. [normal white->black] This was the sign the cardinals had failed to elect on the first two ballots, at nightfall white smoke billowed from the slender chimney for a full five minutes. For all the outside world knew, a new pontiff had been chosen.
"Clouds of smoke were caught in search lights trained on the Sistine Chapel chimney. 'Bianco! Bianco!' roared many in the crowd. 'White, white.'
"The Vatican Radio announced the smoke was white. The announcer declared the cardinals at that moment probably were going through the rites of adoration for a new supreme pontiff. For a long time Vatican Radio stuck to its insistence the smoke was white.
“Even high Vatican officials were fooled. Callori di Vignale, governor of the conclave, and Sigismondo Chigi, the conclave Marshall, rushed to take up the positions assigned to them. The Palatine Guard was called from its barracks and ordered to prepare to go to St. Peter's Basilica for (the) announcement of the new pope's name. But the guard was ordered back to barracks before it reached the square. The Swiss Guard was also alerted.
"Chigi, in an interview with the Italian radio, said uncertainty reigned in the palace. He added that this confusion persisted even after the smoke had subsided and until assurances were received from within the conclave that black smoke was intended. He said he had been at three other conclaves and never before seen smoke as varied in color as Sunday's. He told newsmen later he would arrange to have the cardinals informed of Sunday's smoke confusion in the hope that something can be done to remedy the situation Monday. [from Chigi himself, debunking the fact that this was normal]
"Priests and others working within the Vatican grounds saw the white smoke. They started to cheer. They waved kerchiefs enthusiastically, and figures of conclavists – cardinal's assistants – in the windows of the apostolic palace waved back. Possibly they, too, believed a pope had been elected.
"The crowd waited in agony of suspense. Any pope elected would ordinarily appear on the balcony within twenty minutes. The crowd waited a full half hour [not the matter of a couple minutes as alleged] now wondering whether the smoke was meant to be black or white. Doubt set in swiftly. Many in the vast crowd began to drift away. But still there was confusion. News media had flashed around the world the word that a new pope had been chosen.
“Telephone calls poured into the Vatican, jamming its exchange. As time wore on and doubts increased, the callers all asked one question: "Black or white?"
"After a half hour, radios began to chatter excitedly that the answer was still uncertain. Only well after the time when a new pope should have appeared on the balcony above St. Peter's Square was it certain that the voting would have to resume Monday at 10 a.m. (3 a.m. CST). The crowd now aware of this, dissipated quickly. Grayish wisps of smoke still spiraled from the chapel chimney..." (Cardinals Fail To Elect Pope In 4 Ballots; Mix-up In Smoke Signals Causes 2 False Reports," The Houston Post, October 27, 1958, Section 1, pages 1 & 7.)
[Now more evidence.]
This white smoke clearly indicated the election of the new Pope; but something strange had occurred inside the Sistine Chapel which prevented the newly elected Pope from appearing, and which left the crowd – and the waiting world – confused and bewildered. It was only two days later that Angelo Roncalli [John XXIII] was elected, and after his election John XXIII held a mysterious multi-hour post-election meeting with all the participants in the conclave. Why did John XXIII have to hold this post-election meeting? Did it concern the first set of white smoke and the election of the real Pope?
“John XXIII asked the cardinals to remain in the conclave another night instead of leaving immediately as was customary…to caution them again against revealing the secrets of his election to outsiders...” (Alden Hatch, A Man Named John, NY, NY: Hawthorn Books Inc., 1963, p. 163.)
“After greeting and blessing the cheering throng in St. Peter's Square . . . John XXIII ordered the Cardinals not to disperse. He wished to meet with them in secret. This was a burden on several of the Cardinals who were in their nineties and in failing health, but in deference to the new Pope they all stayed. It must have been a very sensitive meeting, for when Secretary of State Tardini tried to enter, mistakenly believing the conclave was over, he was promptly excommunicated by France's Cardinal Tisserant.” (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 154)
The mystery behind the white smoke and the secret post-election meeting of the 1958 Conclave may not have been uncovered if it were not for Mr. Scortesco. Scortesco was the cousin of two members of the Vatican’s Noble Guard, including the President of the Noble Guard, which was responsible for guarding the conclaves of 1958 and 1963 and making sure that no communication occurred with the outside. Scortesco revealed the following in a published letter:
Scortesco: “In the case of John XXIII (1958) and of Paul VI (1963), there were communications with the outside. It was thus known that there were several ballots in the first conclave [1958] which resulted in the election of Cardinal Tedeschini and in the second [1963], Cardinal Siri.” (Excerpt from the French Newsletter, Introibo, No. 61, July-August-September, 1988, Association Noel Pinot, Angers, France, p. 3.)
Scortesco obtained this shocking information from members of the Noble Guard. The letter was published in Introibo. And Scortesco was found burned alive in his bed shortly after the publication of this letter. So Scortesco, prior to being knocked off, revealed that Cardinal Tedeschini, not Antipope John XXIII, was actually elected first in 1958. And Cardinal Siri, not Antipope Paul VI, was elected first in 1963.
In the letter quoted above, Scortesco also mentioned communication with the “outside.” His later writings indicate that this communication involved the B’nai Brith (Jєωιѕн Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ). If communications with the “outside” unlawfully influence a Papal election, this means that such an election is invalid. The “outside” communication with the Freemasons most probably prevented Tedeschini and Siri from having the free ability to accept their elections, probably by various threats, including death. The Communists and the Freemasons knew that neither Siri nor Tedeschini would go along with their evil attempts to destroy the Catholic Church; so they had to block their elections. If the “outside” communication mentioned by Scortesco did influence Tedeschini and Siri from having the free ability to accept their elections, then the subsequent elections of Roncalli [John XXIII] and Montini [Paul VI] were absolutely invalid for that fact alone.
"...A valid Abdication of the Pope must be a free act, hence a forced resignation of the papacy would be null and void, as more than one ecclesiastical decree has declared.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 1, 1907, p. 32.)
"Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony" (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185).
"It may be noted at once, with [the canonist] Wernz, that a papal election held outside of a properly organized conclave is canonically null and void" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm).
Besides Scortesco’s admission that Cardinal Tedeschini was elected in 1958, and Cardinal Siri in 1963, there is evidence showing that Cardinal Siri was also elected before Cardinal Tedeschini and Angelo Roncalli [John XXIII] in 1958. In other words, Cardinal Siri wasn’t only elected in 1963, as Scortesco revealed, but also in 1958. Adding credence to this is the fact that the phenomenon of the false-smoke-signals occurred in both 1958 and 1963! According to The Sheboygan Press of June 20, 1963, the white-smoke/black-smoke phenomenon-of-confusion occurred for 8 minutes in the 1963 conclave. The false-smoke-signal-phenomenon occurred in both conclaves precisely because the same thing happened in both: a true Pope was elected only to be intimidated into not accepting the office so that the enemies of the Church could implant their own man.
According to a knowledgeable Italian priest who had conferred with Cardinal Siri, as well as U.S. intelligence docuмents (see below), a conservative bloc of Cardinals had been successful in electing Siri on the fourth ballot of the first day of the conclave, October 26, 1958. This election of Siri on the fourth ballot in 1958 was when the white smoke emerged.
Former FBI Consultant Acknowledges Siri’s Election
Former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams cites declassified U.S. intelligence docuмents showing that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope Gregory XVII at the conclave that, two days later, produced John XXIII. In 2003, Paul L. Williams published a book called The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia (Prometheus Books). Williams, who is not a Catholic, asserts:
“In 1954 Count Della Torre, editor of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, warned [Pope] Pius XII of [Cardinal Angelo] Roncalli's Communist sympathies. Other members of the ‘Black Nobility’ expressed similar concerns.[5]
“Nor did Roncalli [later known as "Pope John XXIII"] escape the attention of the FBI and CIA. The agencies began to accuмulate thick files on him and the questionable activities of other ‘progressives’ within the Vatican, including Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Paul VI).
[...]
“Pius XII had appointed Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as his desired successor.[7] Siri was rabidly anti-Communist, an intransigent traditionalist in matters of church doctrine, and a skilled bureaucrat. . . .
“In 1958 [on October 26], when the cardinals were locked away in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope, mysterious events began to unfold. On the third ballot, Siri, according to FBI sources, obtained the necessary votes and was elected as Pope Gregory XVII.[8] White smoke poured from the chimney of the chapel to inform the faithful that a new pope had been chosen. The news was announced with joy at 6 P.M. on Vatican radio. The announcer said, "The smoke is white. . . . There is absolutely no doubt. A pope has been elected."[9] . . .
“But the new pope failed to appear. Question began to arise whether the smoke was white or gray. To quell such doubts, Monsignor Santaro, secretary of the Conclave of Cardinals, informed the press that the smoke, indeed, had been white and that a new pope had been elected. The waiting continued. By evening Vatican radio announced that the results remained uncertain. On October 27, 1958, the Houston Post headlined: ‘Cardinals Fail to elect pope in 4 Ballots: Mix-Up in Smoke Signals Cause False Reports.’[10]
But the reports had been valid. On the fourth ballot, according to FBI sources, Siri again obtained the necessary votes and was elected supreme pontiff. But the French cardinals annulled the results, claiming that the election would cause widespread riots and the assassination of several prominent bishops behind the Iron Curtain.[11]
“The cardinals opted to elect Cardinal Frederico Tedischini as a "transitional pope," but Tedischini was too ill to accept the position.
“Finally, on the third day of balloting, Roncalli received the necessary support to become Pope John XXIII. . . .” (Paul L. Williams, The Vatican Exposed, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003, pp. 90-92.)
The footnotes that Williams' references are: [5] Department of State confidential biography, "John XXIII," issue date: no date, declassified: February 15, 1974; see also Avro Manhattan, Murder in the Vatican, p. 31. [7] John Cooney, The American Pope, p. 259. [8] Department of State secret dispatch, "John XXIII," issue date: November 20, 1958, declassified: November 11, 1974. [9] The announcer's words appeared in the London Tablet, November 1, 1958, p. 387. [10] Houston Post, October 27, 1958, pp. 1 and 7. [11] Department of State secret file, "Cardinal Siri," issue date: April 10, 1961, declassified: February 28, 1994.
The testimony of this former FBI consultant, based upon FBI intelligence, confirms that Cardinal Siri was elected and took the name “Gregory XVII.” It confirms what others have said: Cardinal Siri was prevented from feely assuming the office by the French pack of conspirators and threats. If this FBI intelligence is correct, then the subsequent “election” of Angelo Roncalli [John XXIII] was absolutely and totally invalid. It is worthy of note that Cardinal Siri’s election is not the subject of Mr. Williams’ book. He simply mentions it, almost in passing, and with no apparent motive for making this up – lending further credence to its veracity.
Thus Cardinal Siri, who was therefore the fifth Pope elected last century, is said to have promptly accepted the office and announced that he would take the name "Gregory XVII." Then, a strident outcry of protest was heard from some of the radical French Cardinals, some of whom were said to be Freemasons, who jumped to their feet to intimidate the new Pope with the threat that they would immediately establish an international schismatic church, if he emerged from the conclave as pope. Shaken badly, Siri is supposed to have replied: "if you do not want me, then elect someone else." By this one statement, which was taken as his abdication, would come the apocalyptic nightmare that has resulted with the Vatican II “Church.”
But again, Church law provides:
"...A valid Abdication of the Pope must be a free act, hence a forced resignation of the papacy would be null and void, as more than one ecclesiastical decree has declared.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 1, 1907, p. 32.
This means that the subsequent election of John XXIII would not have been valid if Siri was forced to resign. Exactly when Cardinal Tedeschini was elected is not known, but it is clearly stated by Williams above, and in Scortesco's writings, that during one of the ballots he was elected. This must have been after Siri's third or fourth ballot election. Perhaps Tedeschini was elected after Siri in the confusion that reigned after the first election, but then Tedeschini was also set aside in a similar manner to Siri so that they could implant Angelo Roncalli [John XXIII].
All of this explains why at 6:00 p.m. on October 26, 1958 white smoke billowed from the Sistine Chapel for a full five minutes; it explains why the Palatine and Swiss Guards were called to prepare to greet the new Pope. It explains why Cardinals in the Conclave were seen waving happily to the crowd, and why the governor and marshal of the conclave prepared to greet the new Pope.
Even Malachi Martin, a best-selling author, a Vatican insider, and a hero of many defenders of Antipopes John XXIII and Paul VI, blows this story wide open (at least concerning the 1963 election), by admitting in his book The Keys of This Blood (pages 607-609) that it’s well known that Cardinal Siri received the required number of votes to make him Pope in 1963, but that Siri’s election was “set aside” by what Martin calls “a little brutality.” Martin explicitly mentions that “communication” (interference) occurred between a member of the conclave and an “internationally based organization” concerning the Siri candidacy. He noted that this dealt with a “grave matter of [Vatican] state security.” (It is said that the Communists may have threatened to drop nuclear explosives on the Vatican if Siri accepted the election, as well as killing every bishop behind the Iron Curtain.) So even Malachi Martin, a defender of Antipopes John XXIII and Paul VI, admitted that Cardinal Siri received pressure not to accept the office to which Martin admits he was elected. This confirms what Scortesco revealed and demonstrates, again, that the election of Giovanni Montini [Antipope Paul VI] was fraudulent.
Cardinal Siri’s Own Testimony
But besides the testimony of Martin and Scortesco, an interview that Cardinal Siri gave before his death is worthy of note. In a published interview with the Marquis de Franquerey, Louis Remy and Francis Delay, Siri was asked questions on various topics, including what Scortesco revealed about his election. While denying other things in the interview, Siri would not deny that he was elected Pope. All he would say was that:
“I am bound by the secret. This secret is horrible. I would have books to write about the different conclaves, very serious things have taken place, but I can say nothing.”
The interviewers concluded that since Siri denied other things they asked him, but would not deny that he had been elected, what Scortesco said must be true. One should note that Siri was mistaken about being bound by the secret of the conclave. The secret of the conclave would not bind when the salvation of millions of souls are at stake – and when it had already been totally violated by the pack of French apostates and conspirators who had conferred with the B’nai Brith. And the horrible secrets of the conclave to which Siri alluded without a doubt refer to the unlawful intervention of outside forces which blocked his ability to accept the Chair of Peter.
It’s obvious from the evidence that the notorious set of white smoke that was seen by everyone on October 26, 1958 indicated the election of the true Pope, Cardinal Siri. Everyone, even the Cardinals, believed we had a new Pope. But then the Freemasons and the Communists got involved and prevented the new Pope from assuming the office. This was the outside communication which Scortesco revealed. Then the white smoke changed to black smoke and two days later the Freemasons and the Communists implanted their man, the Freemasonic agent, Angelo Roncalli [Antipope John XXIII]. The same interference occurred in the 1963 conclave, although, in this case, Cardinal Siri had his election illegally blocked in favor of the infiltrator Giovanni Montini – Antipope Paul VI.
30 Days Magazine, a magazine favorable to the Vatican II Antipopes, held an interview in 1994 with the head of Italian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy.
The Grand Master stated: “As for that, it seems that John XXIII was initiated into a Masonic Lodge in Paris and participated in the work of the Istanbul workshops.” (Giovanni Cubeddu, 30 Days, Issue No. 2-1994, p. 25.)
So it’s obvious that Antipope John XXIII was a Freemasonic agent whose mission was to begin the attempted demolition of the Church of Christ by means of his false council. And, as our material shows, Paul VI was frequently seen wearing the breast-plate of a Jєωιѕн High-Priest, in addition to his attempt to demolish Catholic Tradition as soon as he assumed power.
Some ask: if Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 and 1963 or either one, why didn’t he stand up for his office more vigorously? Our purpose here is not to examine this question (see note at the end of article). Our purpose is simply to establish that the evidence of his elections, as well as the communication with the outside, demonstrates that something uncanonical went on in the conclaves of 1958 and 1963, as Scortesco revealed. This makes perfect sense because we know, by divine faith, that Antipope Paul VI could not have possibly possessed the keys of Peter, since he solemnly bound his subjects to the heresies of Vatican II. Vatican II could not have been bound in heaven, so we know that Antipope Paul VI had no power to bind on earth, for he did try to bind Vatican II on earth. And Antipope John XXIII also could not have been a true Pope, since he set the table for the apostasy while being a heretic himself.
In the Sept. 2004 Issue of Inside the Vatican there is an interview with Fr. Charles-Roux. Fr. Charles-Roux says:
"There were certain irregularities about the election during that 1958 conclave, as Cardinal Tisserant has himself acknowledged. Some say Agagianian was elected, others Siri, others some other cardinal, and that the camerlengo [=chamberlain] then annulled the election. In any case, I'm quite sure John XXIII chose his name, the name of an antipope [of the 15th century], quite consciously, to show he had been irregularly elected." – Fr. Charles-Roux, Inside the Vatican, 09/04, p. 41. Fr. Roux was a priest who said Mass on the set of The Passion of the Christ.
CONCLUSION
The information about the elections of Cardinal Siri in 1958 and 1963 is not necessary to prove that the apostates John XXIII and Paul VI were not valid Popes; nor is it necessary to prove that the Vatican II heretics who subsequently came from their line, John Paul I and John Paul II, were not valid Popes. But these facts show that the “elections” of John XXIII and Paul VI were uncanonical. This is extremely valuable and important because it explains how this false church of the Vatican II Antipopes got started, and why its official decrees and teachings are not protected by the Holy Ghost. It explains that it was an uncanonical election which started this entire schism of the Vatican II sect, which will probably go down in the Eternal Book of Judgment – with the Great Eastern and Great Western Schisms – as “The Final Schism.”
Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226): “There will be an uncanonically elected Pope who will cause a great schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissensions and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)
We believe that St. Francis of Assisi was definitely predicting the invalid and uncanonical election of Antipope John XXIII. This uncanonical election started the apocalyptic nightmare of the Great Apostasy that is now upon us.
Bl. Joachim (d. 1202): “Towards the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
The Cardinal Siri information should help people realize that those who accept the Vatican II “Popes” from John XXIII to John Paul II are not only accepting non-Catholic apostates who have implemented a counterfeit religion, but men who weren’t even canonically chosen by the College of Cardinals.
Those who want more proof that the elections of Antipopes John XXIII and Paul VI were invalid need only to examine the revolution they caused. One needs only to think of the desolation of the faith that ensued, and the millions of souls that have been lost. And one needs only to consider how they wasted no time in systematically trying to dismantle the Catholic Church. In this regard, see also the photo galleries on our website dealing with Antipopes John XXIII and Paul VI.
Utterly idiotic. As I wrote in my debunking of the stupidity, the book cherry-picks out of context one or two clues about what happened at those conclaves but ignores a lot of the other evidence. In 1958, there was no matter of "two minutes or so", but THIRTY MINUTES where the smoke was wrong. You don't even know the basic facts..
.
Um, Ladislaus, did you even read what you posted? It doesn't say the smoke flowed white for 30 minutes. It says "A mix-up in smoke signals made it appear for about half an hour that Pius XII's successor had been chosen." If you read the whole article, what this means is that it took 30 minutes for the misunderstanding of the smoke signals to get resolved. In fact, it says explicitly right there in the second paragraph of the news article that the white smoke came out for "a full five minutes".
Can you please read that article again.
Look at this website page (https://ecclesiamilitans.com/public-sin-of-manifest-formal-heresy/) for the definition of "public manifest formal heresy".
In regards to your second question, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis, states the following:
“Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet.”
English translation of the above Latin:
“For not everysinoffense (admissum) however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23) [Italics mine]
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183749.png)
The screenshot above is taken from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
"A public heretic is someone who openly adheres to some heretical sect." (Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, p. 423)
The page gives your definition. I am look for the Church's definition of a public manifest formal heretic.
DEFINITION OF HERESY
Can. 1325 (1917 Code) 1. The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to God, or scandal for a neighbor. 2. After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.
Can. 751 (1983 Code) Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff [i.e., the legitimate one] or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
IPSO FACTO LOSS OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE FOR HERESY
Canon 188 §4 (1917 Code): “Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if the cleric…Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
Canon 2314 §1 º2 (1917 Code): states that heretics, “unless they respect warnings they are deprived of…office…with the warning being repeated, are deposed.”
Canon 194 §1 º2 (1983 Code): “The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself…a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church.” §2: “The removal mentioned in n. 2 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.”
So both 1917 and 1983 Canon Law provide that a public heretic loses his office automatically, but the physical “enforcement” of that vacancy (kicking the bum out) requires a “warning” or a “declaration” by Church authorities. There seems to be no real difference between 1917 and 1983 in this matter.
So both 1917 and 1983 Canon Law provide that a public heretic loses his office automatically, but the physical “enforcement” of that vacancy (kicking the bum out) requires a “warning” or a “declaration” by Church authorities. There seems to be no real difference between 1917 and 1983 in this matter.
You defined heresy, and you showed what happens if someone publicly defects from the faith, but you didn't define public defection from the faith.
The phrase "defection from the faith" is simply a catch-all for the individual sins of apostasy or heresy. The word publicly or manifest refer to the sin being objective not subjective, in the external forum not the internal forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_and_external_forum
The two canons are different. With c. 188.4, the office falls vacant ipso facto if a cleric publicly defects from the faith (leaves the Church).
Per canon 194.2, public defection from the faith results in the loss of office, but the actual loss of office does not happen unless the fact of the public defection has been declared by the proper ecclesiastical authority. The declaration is a condition that must be satisfied for the act that causes the loss of office (public defection from the faith) to have any legal effect.
Not good enough. You did great in showing how the Church defines heresy, and what she says happens if a cleric publicly defects from the faith, then you made up your own definition of public defection from the faith. You need to show what the Church means by that phrase. I'll give you a hint. You can find it somewhere around canon 1325 of the 1917 Code.
If you read carefully, you will see that a "vacancy"/"removal" is not the same thing as "enforcement"/"deposed." An office becomes legally "vacant" and the person is "removed," in the eyes of the law (de jure), when the officeholder publicly defects from the faith. However, he may still de facto occupy the office. Regardless of the de facto situation, the seat is legally "vacant" and the person is "removed" the moment he "defects from the faith," and he would have no legitimate authority over anyone.
The page gives your definition. I am look for the Church's definition of a public manifest formal heretic.
Pius XII didn't used the term sin, or the phrase "public manifest formal heresy." He used the term admissum, which is a general term that can be sin, crime, or offense. The reason he used that term specifically is because there are two schools of thought concerning what is required to be a member of the Church. One holds that the external bonds alone suffice, the other maintains the external bonds and interior faith are necessary to be a true member of the Church. Since sin destroys interior faith, if Pius XII had used the word sin - the sin of heresy severs a person from the Church by it nature - he would have been seen as teaching the latter opinion. To avoid the appearance of weighing in on this centuries old debate, he used the ambiguous term admissum.
But let's see what Pius XII says in the very next paragraph:
Pius XII: "24. Let every one then abhor sin (peccatum), which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members. ' (August., Serm., CXXXVII)."
If a person falls into sin without, yet is obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful (had retained the external bonds), he is to be received with greater love, for, as Augustine teaches, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members."
To gain insight into the mind of Pius XII, we should ask who St. Augustine was referring to in the quote he cited? Was he referring to someone who was only guilty of a moral offense, or was he referring to those who openly attacking the faith, and therefore have apparently fallen into the sin of heresy, yet remained in communion with the Church? It was the latter. In the quote Pius XII cited, the Bishop of Hippo is speaking of the Pelagians who had not yet separated from the Church and joined a Pelagian sect. Here is the full quote in context:
St. August., Sermin, CXXXVII: “But because he went off, having been found guilty and detested by the Church rather than corrected and subdued, I was afraid that it was perhaps he himself who was trying to disturb your faith, and for this reason I thought I should mention his name. But it makes no difference whether it is he or others who partake of his error. For there are more than we would expect. And where they are not refuted, they win over others to their sect, and they are becoming so numerous that I do not know where they will turn up. Yet we prefer that they be healed within the framework of the Church rather than cut off from its body like incurable members, at least if the very gravity of the situation permits this.”
So, when Pius XII said "if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ," he was including those who fall into errors against the faith, and who spread them openly. As long as they remain within the framework of the Church, they remain part of the Church's body. And remaining part of the body suffices for a person to hold office in the Church.
Notice that the Salaverri says "formal and manifest heretics ... have broken the social bond of faith and government established by Christ. By severing the social bond of government, they have cut themselves off from "the framework of the Church" and hence are no longer part of the Church's body.
Here is how Salaverri defines a public heretic four pages earlier:
No one who remains within the framework of the Church (i.e., has not severed the social bond of government) is a "public heretic," or a "formal and manifest heretic," according to the teaching of the theologian that you cited as your authority.
The two canons are different. With c. 188.4, the office falls vacant ipso facto if a cleric publicly defects from the faith (leaves the Church).
Per canon 194.2, public defection from the faith results in the loss of office, but the actual loss of office does not happen unless the fact of the public defection has been declared by the proper ecclesiastical authority. The declaration is a condition that must be satisfied for the act that causes the loss of office (public defection from the faith) to have any legal effect.
I will post a lengthy commentary on the new code tomorrow that describes the difference between canon 188.4 and 194.2.
But for now, you are wrong about 194.2. If the Church has not issued a declaratory sentence, all the acts of the cleric remain valid and he is even entitled to renumeration. If his acts remain valid, they are legally binding; and if they are legally binding, they proceed from authority.
Can. 184 §1. An ecclesiastical office is lost by the lapse of a predetermined time, by reaching the age determined by law, by resignation, by transfer, by removal, and by privation.
Can. 192 A person is removed from office either by a decree issued legitimately by competent authority, without prejudice to rights possibly acquired by contract, or by the law itself according to the norm of can. 194.
Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.
Canon 194 §2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
But for now, you are wrong about 194.2. If the Church has not issued a declaratory sentence, all the acts of the cleric remain valid and he is even entitled to renumeration. If his acts remain valid, they are legally binding; and if they are legally binding, they proceed from authority.
"The common and general meaning of the word 'admissum' is defined by Lewis & Short as a 'voluntary fault', and only in certain specific instances can it be understood to mean 'crime', when the particular context in which it is used supports that interpretation.
LaCosaNostra, Monsignor Fenton does not agree with you that "admissum" means "crime".
(https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Screenshots/01_Heresy.png)
(https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Screenshots/01_Title.png)
LaCosaNostra, Salaverri does not state "and government". Read it again. He states "or government".
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183749.png)
LaCosaNostra, Salaverri does not state "and government". Read it again. He states "or government". By the term "government", he is referencing "schismatics". It is true, however, that Salaverri defines "public heretic" as per your quotation. However, Salaverri also defines "private heretic":
(https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Screenshots/06_Heresy_1.png)
Just prior to this, he defines and distinguishes between "manifest heretic" and "occult heretic":
(https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Screenshots/06_Heresy_2.png)
Therefore, in what I provided in my earlier post (see screenshot below), Salaverri clearly means to include both "public manifest heretic" (i.e., a Catholic that openly leaves the Church by joining a heretical sect) AND "private manifest heretic" (i.e., a Catholic that does not openly leave the Catholic Church but shows his heresy outwardly) in his use of the term "heretic" in his thesis that "heretics are not members of the Church".
Public defection from the "Faith" and public defection from the "Church" are NOT the same thing. Where did you get this false interpretation? Public defection from the Church (i.e., leaving the Church) is only a TYPE of public defection from the Faith.
"On page 139 of The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, Fr. Gerald McDevitt writes: 'The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands.' The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac comments on Canon 2197 in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (pp. 349-350), that public defection from the faith means: 'Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197)'"
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
Most canonists maintain that public defection from the faith does require joining or publicly adhering to a sect ...
But the particular context in which you are using the words meets the canonical definition of a crime. The difference between the sin of heresy and the canonical crime of heresy, is that the former only requires an interior act, whereas a crime requires both and interior and exterior act of heresy.
When I asked you to show where the Church has teaches that "the public sin of manifest formal heresy" severs a person from the Church by its nature, you quoted Pius XII's teaching that the admissum of heresy severs a person from the Church by its nature. But "the public sin of manifest formal heresy" requires both a interior act (formal) and exterior (manifest) act of heresy, and therefore meets the canonical definition of a crime.
So, unless you believe heresy by an internal act alone (a thought) severs a person from the Church by its nature, you should be in favor of translating admissum as crime, since that more accurately reflects your opinion.
separates the heretic from the ChurchSee this is the complex part of this principle which has to be delved into deeper. As it's written, it's too general.
See this is the complex part of this principle which has to be delved into deeper. As it's written, it's too general.
1. HOW is one separated from the Church?
Spiritually, obviously, due to sin. But also, physically separated (i.e. the office is lost)? This is one of the main things that St Bellarmine and everyone else of his time debated. Everyone agreed on the "spiritual separation" but they disagreed on the physical separation happening WITHOUT some physical legal, govt act by the Church.
Conclusion - There is no conclusion. It's debatable.
2. WHEN is one separated from the Church?
Is it immediately? Or is there a time period of "correction" as St Paul tells us, is necessary.
In the case of Martin Luther...when he hung up his 99 heresies on the door of the church, was he immediately separated from the Church? Maybe. Maybe not. Spiritually, it probably depends on if he understood what he wrote was heresy, or if he was confused about some points of doctrine (which, at the time, was very corrupted due to corrupt clerics). This is why the Church has a hearing/trial to distinguish the pertinacity/mindframe of the heretic.
After such a hearing occurred, Martin Luther did recant maybe 30-40 of his "issues" so it's not like he was 100% sure/firm on his errors.
Also, did Martin Luther immediately lose his office of priest/prior (whatever his office was, i'm not sure)? I don't think he did. He might have been suspended until the trial/hearing but nothing was lost "immediately". And his act of heresy was public, manifest, etc.
Conclusion - again, no conclusion. It takes an act of the Church to decide these matters. Canon law has a process. Even if spiritually, the person is judged by God immediately...but no one can know that "at first". Only the heretic knows what he believes. We are human beings, who live in the physical world. It takes physical action, and human efforts to discern heresy and judge accordingly.
A Catholic who knowingly and willingly publicly denies a teaching of the Church that must be held with Divine and Catholic Faith, by that very act, is severed from membership in the Catholic Church.Yes. But...
Yes. But...
...there are still details in this principle that are debatable. And that only Church officials, not any priest/laity, can decide.
That only the Church officials can decide is one fundamental area where you are wrong.No. Where in canon law does it give ANY LAITY the power/authority to DO ANYTHING? Hint: it doesn't.
The sin of heresy can be either an interior act alone or it can also be manifested externally. That the Church defines the external manifestation of heresy as a crime does not detract from the sin of heresy being a sin whether internal alone or manifested externally.
None of the recent popes, including Francis, has come close to being a notorious heretic.
The worst was +Francis denying hell.
:facepalm: ... you posted this with a straight face?
Bergoglio recently declared some Coptic Orthodox "martyrs" to be saints and had them included in the Roman martyrology ... thereby verbatim contradicting the dogmatic declaration of the Council of Florence.
1047. Notions. The notion of member has been explicated in the preceding thesis.
A heretic is one who, after Baptism has been received, pertinaciously denies some of the truths to be believed with divine and catholic faith, or entertains doubts concerning them.
One is called an apostate who, after Baptism has been received, pertinaciously recedes totally from the Christian faith.[6] (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/#_ftn6) The same divisions which follow concerning the heretic are entirely valid for the apostate.
A material heretic is one who indeed denies a truth to be believed with divine and catholic faith, but from invincible ignorance or from error accepted in good faith. Good faith in one who errs is the prudent judgment by which the errant one thinks himself not to err, but on the contrary, to adhere to the truth.
A formal heretic is one who denies a truth to be believed, out of vincible ignorance or from error accepted in bad or doubtful faith.
A manifest heretic is one whose error or doubt in faith cannot be concealed by hiding.
But an occult heretic is one whose error or doubt in faith remains sufficiently concealed.
A public heretic is one who openly adheres to one of the heretical sects. But a private heretic is one who openly adheres to none of the heretical sects.
The same divisions and definitions can be made concerning the apostate.
1052. Opinions of the Theologians.
About the particular points and ulterior questions which occur in this matter relative to the separation of the baptized from the Church, Catholic theologians put forth various opinions, the chief of which, for the sake of information, we review.
1) That formal and manifest heretics are not members of the body of the Church, can well be said to be a unanimous opinion among Catholics.
a) That formal, but occult, heretics are not members of the Church, is defended by some authors, such as Suárez, Molina, Billuart, Franzelin, Michelitsch, Stolz, Fraghi, Journet, Zapalena, and a few others. But the contrary opinion is more common.[12] (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/#_ftn12)
b) That merely material heretics, even if manifest, are members of the Church, is argued by Franzelin, De Groot, D’Herbigny, Caperan, Terrien, and a few others. But the contrary opinion is more common.[13] (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/#_ftn13)
This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
[ . . . ]
Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
[ . . . ]
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.”
Well, with that one he maintains deniability because those statements were reported by Scalfari.
https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/
Ioachim Salaverri,
Sacræ Theologiæ Summa vol. I, tract. 3, pp. 872-882.
De Ecclesia Christi lib. III, cap. 2, a. 3. Causæ quæ baptizatum ab Ecclesiæ corpore separant.
Thesis 26, nos. 1045-1067.
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/
St. Robert Bellarmine
De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
'To avoid the scandals and the many perils that can befall timorous consciences, we mercifully grant to the faithful of Christ, by the force of this decree (tenore praesentium), that henceforth no one will be obliged, under the pretext of any sentence or ecclesiastical censure generally promulgated by law or by man, to avoid the communion of any person, in the administration or reception of the Sacraments, or in any other matters sacred or profane, or to eschew the person, or to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, unless a sentence or censure of this kind shall have been published by a judge, and denounced specially and expressly, whether against a person, or a college, or university, or church, or a certain place or territory. Neither the Apostolic Constitutions, nor any other laws remain in force to the contrary.'
Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: “It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.”
And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: “The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”
St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.
There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics.
This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy.
The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction.
For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.
Contra Billuart, regarding his understanding of the Bull of Martin V, at the Council of Constance:
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiwyrnny5v_AhXbBUQIHWqSDvUQFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.papalencyclicals.net%2Fcouncils%2Fecuм16.htm&usg=AOvVaw3H21cJZThEtBJrER8GpyQx)
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/
I have no doubt you believe the CMRI has refuted Billuart.
😕
That is St. Robert Bellarmine writing, from previously quoted:
De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
The CMRI are merely hosting that writing on that web page.
And of course, Billuart came after Bellarmine.
I have no doubt you believe the CMRI has refuted Billuart.
😕
There's nothing in there from CMRI; it's simply a translation of Bellarmine. So I have no doubt that you didn't even bother to click the link before denouncing it, since you rule out beforehand any arguments against your predetermined conclusions.
Billuart (and Pope Martin) were referring to jurisdiction with regard to receiving the Sacraments. Thus, although Cushing was a manifest heretic, the priests appointed by Cushing would still retain jurisdiction to hear Confessions, for instance. That's all that was in that text that you continue to misapply.
There's nothing in there from CMRI; it's simply a translation of Bellarmine. So I have no doubt that you didn't even bother to click the link before denouncing it, since you rule out beforehand any arguments against your predetermined conclusions.:facepalm:
Despite your use of an obnoxiously large font, Billuart's position has to do with ordinary lower-level prelates, and not popes. Take the case of Cardinal Cushing, for instance. He was clearly a manifest heretic. But the faithful are not obliged to avoid him, and he can retain a certain amount of jurisdiction and continue to exercise jurisdiction, though color of title, at the very least, until he would be deposed by Rome.
But the papacy is different:
1) because Popes receive their authority from Christ and
2) no one can judge or denounce or depose him
Billuart (and Pope Martin) were referring to jurisdiction with regard to receiving the Sacraments. Thus, although Cushing was a manifest heretic, the priests appointed by Cushing would still retain jurisdiction to hear Confessions, for instance. That's all that was in that text that you continue to misapply.
In his closing paragraph, Billuart admits that all that went before does not necessarily apply to the papacy (something you ignore), but then states that he believes God would continue to supply jurisdiction for the good of the Church. But this is along the lines of the "color of title" position held by the sedevacantists, and would be limited to things like making appointments or jurisdiction for the reception of the Sacraments.
since you rule out beforehand any arguments against your predetermined conclusions.Yeah, typical Sean. He really gives the Resistance a bad name on this site (and possibly even his books). A guy who can't even admit certain distinctions, nor have any level-headed back-and-forth with those who disagree with him, is not someone who should be writing books (except the "101 reasons against the new-sspx"...that one was good.) He makes mountains out of every molehill. Everyone is an opponent. No hill is too small to die on.
There's nothing in there from CMRI; it's simply a translation of Bellarmine. So I have no doubt that you didn't even bother to click the link before denouncing it, since you rule out beforehand any arguments against your predetermined conclusions.Where did you get that thing at the end there about a titulus coloratus? The rest of the post is sensible. But then you just pulled that thing out of your behind, or perhaps more precisely, out of someone else's. 🤣
Despite your use of an obnoxiously large font, Billuart's position has to do with ordinary lower-level prelates, and not popes. Take the case of Cardinal Cushing, for instance. He was clearly a manifest heretic. But the faithful are not obliged to avoid him, and he can retain a certain amount of jurisdiction and continue to exercise jurisdiction, though color of title, at the very least, until he would be deposed by Rome.
But the papacy is different:
1) because Popes receive their authority from Christ and
2) no one can judge or denounce or depose him
Billuart (and Pope Martin) were referring to jurisdiction with regard to receiving the Sacraments. Thus, although Cushing was a manifest heretic, the priests appointed by Cushing would still retain jurisdiction to hear Confessions, for instance. That's all that was in that text that you continue to misapply.
In his closing paragraph, Billuart admits that all that went before does not necessarily apply to the papacy (something you ignore), but then states that he believes God would continue to supply jurisdiction for the good of the Church. But this is along the lines of the "color of title" position held by the sedevacantists, and would be limited to things like making appointments or jurisdiction for the reception of the Sacraments.
No. Where in canon law does it give ANY LAITY the power/authority to DO ANYTHING? Hint: it doesn't.
If non-church officials (i.e. laity, simple priests, and non-jurisdictional bishops) can do x, y, or z, outside of the church hierarchy, then the hierarchy is meaningless. Either the Church is a monarchy, with authority, or it's some kind of protestant/grass-roots/"personal faith" type of spirituality. It can't be both.
The only "personal decision" that the laity, simple priests, non-jurisdictional bishops can make is to "stay away" from error. Any legal, authoritative, canonical decision is the Church's alone to make, or not make.
But the point is, if the sin of heresy, of its nature, severed a person from the Church, a person who committed the sin of heresy by an interior act alone would be severed from the Church. The sin of heresy only severs the internal bonds that joins a person to the Church. It does not sever the external bonds. What severs the external bond is not a "public sin" of heresy, it is notorious heresy (and nothing less than notorious heresy); and notorious heresy severs the external bonds even if the person in question is not guilty of the sin.
None of the recent popes, including Francis, has come close to being a notorious heretic.
A dogma is a truth which the Church finds in Scripture or in divine apostolic tradition and which, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching activity, it presents to its people as a doctrine revealed by God and as something which all are obligated to accept with the assent of divine and Catholic faith. Since the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a dogma, men are obligated in conscience to believe it as certainly true on the authority of God Himself, who has revealed it. Objectively the refusal to believe this teaching with an act of divine faith constitutes heresy. The public denial by a Catholic of this or any other dogma of the Church is something that carries with it a loss of membership in the true Church.
The term fidelis had and still has a definite technical meaning in the language of Christianity. The fideles, or the faithful, are not merely the individuals who have made an act of divine faith in accepting the teachings of God’s public and Christian revelation. ‘They are actually those who have made the baptismal profession of faith, and who have not cut themselves off from the unity of the Church by public apostasy or heresy or schism and have not been cast out of the Church
Actually, in the traditional language of the Church, the term christianus itself had a wider application than the word fidelis. A catechumen might be designated as a christianus, but never as a fidelis.* A man gained the dignity and the position of a fidelis through the reception of the sacrament of baptism. ‘This sacrament is precisely the sacrament of the faith. By the force of the character it imparts, it incorporates the person who receives it into that community which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. The effect of that incorporation is broken only by public heresy or apostasy, by schism, or by the full measure of excommunication. The man in whom the incorporating work of the baptismal character remains un- broken is the fidelis, the member of the Catholic Church. The social unit composed of these fideles is, according to the teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council, the true Church, outside which no one at all is saved.
Baptism is, of course, the sacrament of entrance into the Church. Such is the force of the baptismal character that, unless it be impeded by public heresy or apostasy, schism, or the full measure of excommunication, it renders the person who possesses it a member of the true Church of Jesus Christ on earth.
Certainly the Mystici Corporis Christi statement about membership in the Church is quite in line with the teaching of the De ecclesia militante. According to Pope Pius XII, four factors alone are necessary in order that a man be counted as a member of the true Church. These are (1) the reception of baptism, and thus the possession of the baptismal character, (2) the profession of the true faith, which is, of course, the faith of the Catholic Church, (3) the fact that a person has not cut himself away from the structure or the fabric of the "Body," which is, of course, the Church itself, and (4) the fact that a person has not been expelled from the membership of the Church by competent ecclesiastical authority.
It is the nature of the third of these four factors which, in the context of the encyclical, is not completely clear. Very definitely a person would cut himself off from the structure of the ecclesiastical Body if he entered into a state of public heresy or apostasy. But that condition had already been taken care of in the naming of the second of the factors which the Mystici Corporis Christi lists as requisite for membership in the true Church. Very definitely the "cutting away" mentioned in the third point of this statement might involve entrance into the state of schism. But it could, of course, imply that some act against the spiritual or invisible bond of unity within the Church might also cut a person away from membership in the Church. The text of the Mystici Corporis Christi is not, in itself, sufficiently clear on this point.
Yet, over the course of the years, it has become increasingly obvious that the common teaching of the Catholic theologians holds that people are members of the Church or parts of the Church only by the possession of these visible or palpable factors. The term "member of the Church" can legitimately be applied only to those baptized persons who have not frustrated the force of their baptismal characters by public heresy or apostasy, or by schism, and who have not been expelled from the Church by competent ecclesiastical authority. The theological demonstration that backs up this thesis is still and always will be the "proof from reason" which St. Robert Bellarmine alleged in support of his teaching in the De ecclesia militante.11 More effectively, perhaps, than any other writer in the history of the Catholic Church, St. Robert pointed to the fact that the basic Catholic claim, that the Church militant according to the dispensation of the New Testament is essentially a visible Church, involves and includes the teaching that membership in the Church is possessed by all and only the people who have those factors which go to make up the visible or external bond of unity within the Church of God.
Where in Canon Law does it state that a layman cannot affirm that an act has occurred?1. Laymen aren't part of the Church, in the sense of Canon Law, which was made by and for ecclesiastics to rule.
Let me be clear that I am not speaking about a canonical judgment. I am speaking about affirming that an act has occurred. That's it.Your affirmation carries no legal weight, nor any authority, nor is binding on anyone else. So it's meaningless. No one has to pay attention to what you affirm or don't affirm. You aren't the Church.
In the case at hand, it is about affirming that one has committed the public sin of heresy.1. All of this is a legal act, done by legal authorities. It can't be done by any layman.
You did not answer my question. What is the cause for you rejecting Vatican II and the New Rite of Mass? Where did you get the right to pre-empt the Church's judgment on these matters?I reject such because i'm legally allowed to, since they aren't binding under pain of sin for me to attend/accept. Even +Benedict said in 2007's motu that Quo Primum was still legally in effect and this law a) binds me to the Old rite, b) prevents me from attending any other rite, and c) disallows any new rites. No post-V2 law has ever made the new mass obligatory, in any degree.
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.”
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/
St. Robert Bellarmine
De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
Where in Canon Law does it state that a layman cannot affirm that an act has occurred? Let me be clear that I am not speaking about a canonical judgment. I am speaking about affirming that an act has occurred. That's it. In the case at hand, it is about affirming that one has committed the public sin of heresy.
Pius XII: "24. Let every one then abhor sin (peccatum), which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members. ' (August., Serm., CXXXVII)."
If a person falls into sin without, yet is obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful (had retained the external bonds), he is to be received with greater love, for, as Augustine teaches, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members."
To gain insight into the mind of Pius XII, we should ask who St. Augustine was referring to in the quote he cited? Was he referring to someone who was only guilty of a moral offense, or was he referring to those who openly attacking the faith, and therefore have apparently fallen into the sin of heresy, yet remained in communion with the Church? It was the latter. In the quote Pius XII cited, the Bishop of Hippo is speaking of the Pelagians who had not yet separated from the Church and joined a Pelagian sect. Here is the full quote in context:
St. August., Sermin, CXXXVII: “But because he went off, having been found guilty and detested by the Church rather than corrected and subdued, I was afraid that it was perhaps he himself who was trying to disturb your faith, and for this reason I thought I should mention his name. But it makes no difference whether it is he or others who partake of his error. For there are more than we would expect. And where they are not refuted, they win over others to their sect, and they are becoming so numerous that I do not know where they will turn up. Yet we prefer that they be healed within the framework of the Church rather than cut off from its body like incurable members, at least if the very gravity of the situation permits this.”
So, when Pius XII said "if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ," he was including those who fall into errors against the faith, and who spread them openly. As long as they remain within the framework of the Church, they remain part of the Church's body. And remaining part of the body suffices for a person to hold office in the Church.
21. August., Epist., CLVII, 3, 22: Migne, P.L., XXXIII, 686.
22. August., Serm., CXXXVII, 1: Migne, P.L., XXXVIII, 754.
22. We have said much about these questions in our other works and sermons in church, because there were also among us certain persons who sowed these new seeds of their error wherever they could, some of whom the mercy of the Lord healed from that disease through our ministry and that of our brothers. And I suspect that there are still some here, especially in Carthage, but they now whisper in hiding, fearing the most well-founded faith of the Church. For in the church of the same city one of them by the name of Caelestius had already deviously begun to seek the honor of the priesthood, but he was brought by the solid faith and freedom of the brothers straight to an episcopal court on account of these discourses opposed to the grace of Christ.17 He was, however, forced to confess that infants must be baptized because they too need redemption.
Although at the time he refused to say there anything more explicit about original sin, he did, nonetheless, do considerable harm to his position by the mention of redemption. After all, from what did they need to be redeemed except from the power of the devil in which they could not have been except by the bonds of sin? Or at what price are they redeemed except by the blood of Christ, of which scripture stated most clearly that it was shed for the forgiveness of sins?18 But because he went off, having been found guilty and detested by the Church rather than corrected and subdued, I was afraid that it was perhaps he himself there who was trying to disturb your faith, and for this reason I thought I should mention his name.
But it makes no difference whether it is he or others who partake of his error. For there are more than we would expect. And where they are not refuted, they win over others to their sect, and they are becoming so numerous that 1 do not know where they will turn up. Yet we prefer that they be healed within the framework of the Church rather than cut off from its body like incurable members, at least if the very gravity of the situation permits this.
For we have to fear that more may begin to go bad if the rottenness is spared. But the mercy of our Lord, which would rather set them free from this plague, is able to do so. And it will undoubtedly do this if they faithfully pay attention to and hold what scripture says: He who calls upon the Lord will be saved (Jl 2:32).
To Hilary, his blessed lord and venerable brother in the truth of Christ and fellow priest, Augustine sends greetings in the Lord.
1 . Since our honorable son, Palladius, was setting sail from our shore when he asked for a favor, he bestowed on me an even greater one. For he asked that I not only commend him to Your Grace but also that I commend myself to your prayers, my blessed lord and venerable brother in the love of Christ. When I do this, Your Holiness will, of course, do what we both hope for from you. Your Holiness will hear from the courier whom I mentioned about our situation, since I know that in your love for us you are concerned about us, just as we are concerned about you in our love for you. Now I shall mention briefly what is most necessary. A certain new heresy inimical to the grace of Christ is trying to rise up in opposition to the Church of Christ but has not yet been clearly separated from the Church. This heresy arises from human beings who dare to attribute so much power to human weakness as to claim that the only things that pertain to the grace of God are our having been created with free choice and the ability not to sin and our having received from God commandments that we can fulfill. But they claim that we do not need any help from God to keep and fulfill the commandments. They admit that we need the forgiveness of sins because we are not able to undo the wrong actions that we did in the past. But they say that the human will is by its natural ability, without the help of the grace of God, sufficient from then on, thanks to virtue, for avoiding and conquering future sins and overcoming all temptations. They claim that even infants do not need the grace of the savior in order to be set free from perdition through baptism, since they contracted no infection of sin from Adam.
2. Your Reverence sees perfectly well, along with us, how inimical this idea is to the grace of God that has been granted to the human race through Jesus Christ our Lord and how they are trying to overthrow the foundations of the whole Christian faith. Nor ought we to be silent with you about how, with pastoral concern, you should watch out for such people whom we want and desire to be healed in the Church rather than cut off from it.
For, when I was writing this, I learned that in the church of Carthage a decree of the council of bishops was drawn up against them to be sent by letter to the holy and venerable Pope Innocent, and we ourselves have also likewise written to the same Apostolic See concerning the council of Numidia.1
3. For all of us who have hope in Christ ought to resist this pestilential impiety and with one heart condemn and anathematize it. It contradicts even our prayers when it allows us to say, Forgive us our debts as we alsoforgive our debtors (Mt 6: 1 2), but allows it in such a way as to claim that a human being in this corruptible body, which weighs down the soul,2 can by his own strength attain such great righteousness that it is not necessary to say, Forgive us our debts. But they do not accept the words that follow, Bring us not into temptation (Mt 6: 13), in the sense that we should pray to God in order that he may help us to overcome temptations to sins but in order that no human misfortune may attack our body and afflict us, since it already lies in our power to conquer temptations to sins by the ability ofour nature, so that we should think that it is useless to ask for this by prayers. We cannot in one short letter gather together all or even most of the arguments of so great an impiety, especially since, when I was writing these ideas, the couriers who were about to set sail did not allow me to delay longer. I think, however, that I have not been a burden to your eyes because I could not be silent about avoiding so great an evil with all vigilance and with the help of the Lord.
The more freely We embraced a program of complete moderation, the more we foresaw that, in order to reconcile souls and bring them to the unity of spirit in the bond of peace (which, we are glad to say, has by God’s favor already happily occurred in many), it would be of enormous assistance to be prepared in case pertinacious sectarians of the synod — if any, God forbid, still remain, — should be free in the future to bring in as allies Catholic schools and make them partners of their own just condemnation in order to set in motion new disturbances: They endeavor to entice to their side the clearly unwilling and resistant schools by a kind of distorted likeness of similar terms, even though the schools profess expressly different opinions. Then, if any previously imagined, milder opinion about the synod has hitherto escaped the notice of these imprudent men, let every opportunity of complaining still be closed to them. If they are sound in doctrine, as they wish to seem, they cannot take it hard that the teachings identified in this manner — teachings that exhibit errors from which they claim to be entirely distant — stand condemned.
Yet We did not think that We had sincerely proved our mildness, or more correctly, the charity that impels us toward our brother, whom we wish to assist by every means, if We may still be able.[9] (http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@magist/1791_Pius6/03_Auctorem_Fidei_condemn_Synod_Pistoia.htm#_ftn9) Indeed, We are impelled by the charity that moved our predecessor Celestine.[10] (http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@magist/1791_Pius6/03_Auctorem_Fidei_condemn_Synod_Pistoia.htm#_ftn10) He did not refuse to wait with a greater patience than what seemed to be called for, even against what the law demanded, for priests [=bishops] to mend their ways. For we, along with Augustine and the Fathers of Milevis, prefer and desire that men who teach perverse things be healed in the Church by pastoral care rather than be cut off from Her without hope of salvation, if necessity does not force one to act. [11] (http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@magist/1791_Pius6/03_Auctorem_Fidei_condemn_Synod_Pistoia.htm#_ftn11)
Therefore, so as it should not appear that any effort to win over a brother was overlooked, before We progressed further, We thought to summon the aforementioned bishop to Us by means of very cordial letters written to him at our request, promising that we would receive him with good will and that he would not be barred from freely and openly declaring what seemed to him to meet the needs of his interests. In truth, We had not lost all hope of the possibility that, if he possessed that teachable mind, which Augustíne[12] (http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@magist/1791_Pius6/03_Auctorem_Fidei_condemn_Synod_Pistoia.htm#_ftn12), following the Apostle, required above all else in a bishop, as soon as the chief points of doctrine under dispute, which seemed worthy of greater consideration, were proposed to him simply and candidly, without contention and rancor, then almost beyond a doubt he could, upon reflection, more reasonably explain what had been proposed ambiguously and openly repudiate the notions displaying manifest perversity. And so, with his name held in high regard amid the delighted acclaim of all good men, the turmoil aroused in the Church would be restrained as peaceably as possible by means of a much-desired correction.[13] (http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@magist/1791_Pius6/03_Auctorem_Fidei_condemn_Synod_Pistoia.htm#_ftn13)
[11] (http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@magist/1791_Pius6/03_Auctorem_Fidei_condemn_Synod_Pistoia.htm#_ftnref11) Epistle 176, no. 4; 178, no. 2 in the Maurist edition.
The tenth chapter of the Gospel of John. Of the shepherd, and the hireling, and the thief.
1. Your faith, dearly beloved, is not ignorant, and I know that you have so learned by the teaching of that Master from heaven, in whom you have placed your hope, that our Lord Jesus Christ, who has now suffered for us and risen again, is the Head of the Church, and the Church is His Body, and that in His Body the unity of the members and the bond of charity is, as it were, its sound health. But whosoever grows cold in charity, has become enfeebled in the Body of Christ. But He who has already exalted our Head, is able also to make even the feeble members whole; provided, that is, that they be not cut off by excessive impiety, but adhere to the Body until they be made whole. For whatsoever yet adheres to the body, is not beyond hope of healing; whereas that which has been cut off, can neither be in process of curing, nor be healed. Since then He is the Head of the Church, and the Church is His Body, Whole Christ is both the Head and the Body. He has already risen again. We have therefore the Head in heaven. Our Head intercedes for us. Our Head without sin and without death, now propitiates God for our sins; that we too at the end rising again, and changed into heavenly glory, may follow our Head. For where the Head is, there are the rest of the members also. But while we are here, we are members; let us not despair, for we shall follow our Head.
24. Let every one then abhor sin, which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members."[21] "As long as a member still forms part of the body there is no reason to despair of its cure; once it has been cut off, it can be neither cured nor healed." [22]
21. August., Epist., CLVII, 3, 22: Migne, P.L., XXXIII, 686.
22. August., Serm., CXXXVII, 1: Migne, P.L., XXXVIII, 754.
But He who has already exalted our Head, is able also to make even the feeble members whole; provided, that is, that they be not cut off by excessive impiety, but adhere to the Body until they be made whole. For whatsoever yet adheres to the body, is not beyond hope of healing; whereas that which has been cut off, can neither be in process of curing, nor be healed.(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj4qpfGnp3_AhUqJzQIHZMFAaAQFnoECAgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fcontent%2Fpius-xii%2Fen%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuмents%2Fhf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html&usg=AOvVaw36hI9fwC_B5qvmwZWS06kn)
2. Your Reverence sees perfectly well, along with us, how inimical this idea is to the grace of God that has been granted to the human race through Jesus Christ our Lord and how they are trying to overthrow the foundations of the whole Christian faith. Nor ought we to be silent with you about how, with pastoral concern, you should watch out for such people whom we want and desire to be healed in the Church rather than cut off from it.
Now what did Augustine write again, in Sermon 87 listed above?
But He who has already exalted our Head, is able also to make even the feeble members whole; provided, that is, that they be not cut off by excessive impiety, but adhere to the Body until they be made whole. For whatsoever yet adheres to the body, is not beyond hope of healing; whereas that which has been cut off, can neither be in process of curing, nor be healed.
"The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government."
Have you remained under the Church's "teaching power and external rule and government"? If not, unlike the Pelagian heretics St. Augustine spoke of, you have cut yourself off from the framework and body of the Church, and hence are not "in the process of curing, nor [can] be healed."
You're constantly begging the question that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and that the Conciliar hierarchy has teaching / governing power to exercise in the first place.
So, are you Salza or Siscoe?
You'll need to define what you mean by the Conciliar Church. If you mean the visible society comprised of the local Church of Rome and the diocese and eparchies throughout the world in union with it, that is indeed the indefectible Catholic Church founded by Christ, and to deny it is heresy. So hopefully that's not what you are referring to as the Conciliar Church.
If the visible society described above was the indefectible Church with four marks in 1958, it is the indefectible Church with four marks today. If it's not the indefectible Church with four marks today, it never was. Christ's promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" applies to the visible, hierarchical society, as such. It doesn't mean there will always been a remnant of "true believers," which is what the Protestant heretics claim.
If the visible society described above was the indefectible Church with four marks in 1958, it is the indefectible Church with four marks today. If it's not the indefectible Church with four marks today, it never was.
By your principles, those faithful Catholics who during the Arian crisis rejected the Arian usurpers, and the saintly bishops who went around consecrating parallel Catholic bishops to replace them, they were all outside the Church, while the Arian usurpers were in rightful possession of their sees. In fact, by your principles, had the Arians succeeded in getting one of their own onto the See of Peter, the Arians would all be inside the Church and the true orthodox Catholics outside. I hope you can start to see the absurdity of your purely legalistic view of the Church. And, yes, St. Athanasius did hold that even if the Church were reduced to a handful of faithful, there would be the Catholic Church.
What an absurd logical nonsequitur.
Ladislaus: Pope St. Pius V or Pope St. Pius X, had they been timewarped to the present day to behold the Bergoglian church, would not recognize it as the Catholic Church, for it lacks all the marks of the Catholic Church.
Our Lady of Lasalette said “the church will be in eclipse”. The V2 church isn’t the True Faith.
Our Lady of Lasalette said “the church will be in eclipse”.
Mélanie, I will say something to you which you will not say to anybody:
"The time of the God's wrath has arrived!
"If, when you say to the people what I have said to you so far, and what I will still ask you to say, if, after that, they do not convert, (if they do not do penance, and they do not cease working on Sunday, and if they continue to blaspheme the Holy Name of God), in a word, if the face of the earth does not change, God will be avenged against the people ungrateful and slave of the demon.
"My Son will make his power manifest! Paris, this city soiled by all kinds of crimes, will perish infallibly. Marseilles will be destroyed in a little time. When these things arrive, the disorder will be complete on the earth, the world will be given up to its impious passions.
"The pope will be persecuted from all sides, they will shoot at him, they will want to put him to death, but no one will be able to do it, for the Vicar of God will triumph again this time.
"The priests and the Sisters, and the true servants of my Son will be persecuted, and several will die for the faith of Jesus-Christ.
"A famine will reign at the same time.
"After all these will have arrived, many will recognize the hand of God on them, they will convert, and do penance for their sins.
"A great king will go up on the throne, and will reign a few years. Religion will re-flourish and spread all over the world, and there will be a great abundance, the world, glad not to be lacking nothing, will fall again in its disorders, will give up God, and will be prone to its criminal passions.
"[Among] God's ministers, and the Spouses of Jesus-Christ, there will be some who will go astray, and that will be the most terrible.
"Lastly, hell will reign on earth. It will be then that the Antichrist will be born of a Sister, but woe to her! Many will believe in him, because he will claim to have come from heaven, woe to those who will believe in him!
"That time is not far away, twice 50 years will not go by.
"My child, you will not say what I have just said to you. (You will not say it to anybody, you will not say if you must say it one day, you will not say what that it concerns), finally you will say nothing anymore until I tell you to say it!
That's not in the original approved message. It comes from later version written in 1879, which was placed on the Index. Here is the original, approved message of LaSallette:
Nothing about Rome losing the faith and becoming the seat of Antichrist, or about the Church being eclipsed, in the original approved message.
That's not in the original approved message. It comes from later version written in 1879, which was placed on the Index. Here is the original, approved message of LaSallette:
Nothing about Rome losing the faith and becoming the seat of Antichrist, or about the Church being eclipsed, in the original approved message.
Everything that was de fide before Vatican II is de fide today, and nothing has been proposed as de fide since Vatican II that was not already de fide before the Council. What that means is that the faith taught by the Church has not changed.
Everything that was de fide before Vatican II is de fide today, and nothing has been proposed as de fide since Vatican II that was not already de fide before the Council. What that means is that the faith taught by the Church has not changed.
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals ...
It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.
An absurd logical non sequitur? Are you serious?
What is absurd about the logic? If the visible society comprised of the local church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it was the true Church with four marks in 1958, it is the true Church with four marks today, since the same Church that possesses the four marks also enjoys the attribute of indefectibility. The promises of Christ pertain to the visible Church as such:
“The Church of Christ, by the revelation and institution of Christ himself, is essentially visible; and this visible Church is the Church to which his promises pertain; promises, namely, that she would be perennial and indefectible, and that in her and by her men would find sanctity and salvation.” (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. 1, 3rd ed. 1927, )
“The Church of Christ, by the revelation and institution of Christ himself, is essentially visible; and this visible Church is the Church to which his promises pertain; promises, namely, that she would be perennial and indefectible, and that in her and by her men would find sanctity and salvation.” (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. 1, 3rd ed. 1927, )
Hopefully one day you convert to Catholicism, since extra ecclesia nullo salus.
If by “Bergoglian Church, you mean the visible Church described above – church of Rome and diocese throughout the world in union with it - you have just denied indefectibility of the Church. You are nothing but a neo Protestant heretic who happens to like the Traditional Mass, and every time you profess to believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church during Mass, you lie to God and to yourself. You believe in the idea of a Church with four marks, you reject the actual Church with four marks. That makes you a heretic, since the actual existing Church with four marks is not only an article of faith, it is an object of divine and Catholic faith. You deny the object.
At the core of Vatican II is a completely novel ecclesiology and soteriology. It extends the Church of Christ beyond the visible society of the Catholic Church and refers to an (anti-Tridentine) invisible Church, with a visible core.
Hopefully one day you convert to Catholicism, since extra ecclesia nullo salus.
This raises an interesting question:
What is the eternal destiny of a 5 year-old Greek Orthodox child who dies in the state of grace?
On the one hand, he is not culpable for schism (or any other grievous sin).
On the other hand, he is not a member of the visible Church.
Since it is absurd that one in the state of grace can be damned, it stands to reason that he is not damned, despite not being a member of the visible Church.
But he is joined to it by the life of sanctifying grace.
It is for this reason that the distinction between body and soul of the Church is legitimate, albeit abused by Rahnerites (and hence Pius XII's warning about the danger in applying this dintinction).
But it seems to me that one who is joined to the soul of the Church by grace, and is therefore certainly saved, is not outside the Church in the sense condemned by the EENS dogma (because it would again be absurd to contend that EENS by implication wished to assert the damnation of those in the state of grace).
The absurdity is exposed even more when one considers that sanctifying grace is a participation in the divine economy and life of Christ, whereas the primary characteristic of the damned is the deprivation of the Beatific Vision: One cannot simultaneously suffer eternal remorse for what has been lost, while at the same time participating in the life of Christ. I concede that being in the state of grace, and possessing the Beatific Vision are not the same thing, but the deprivation of the latter, amidst maintaining the former after the judgment is certainly an incongruent notion.
This 5-year-old Greek Orthodox child is most certainly a member of the visible Church ... and this has been taught by the Magisterium. This is precisely where the wheels come off LaCosaSalza's false theology. By having been baptized, this visible Sacrament renders him a member of the Visible Church ... until such as time as he professes heresy and or schism (upon having reached the age of reason). Until such as time as this child reaches the age of reason, he's incapable of breaking from the Church by the profession of heresy and schism.
Congratulations, though, as with your articulation of the invisible Church you have just embraced all of Vatican II.
Hmm. It sounds to me like you are saying all the validly baptized, of whatever sect, are members of the Church (at least until the age of reason, when, despite their invincible ignorance, they are automatically separated and damnable). Is that correct?
This 5-year-old Greek Orthodox child is most certainly a member of the visible Church ... and this has been taught by the Magisterium. This is precisely where the wheels come off LaCosaSalza's false theology. By having been baptized, this visible Sacrament renders him a member of the Visible Church ... until such as time as he professes heresy and or schism (upon having reached the age of reason). Until such as time as this child reaches the age of reason, he's incapable of breaking from the Church by the profession of heresy and schism.
Congratulations, though, as with your articulation of the invisible Church you have just embraced all of Vatican II.
As Monsignor Fenton clearly details, Pius XII rejected the notion of an invisible Church that is not co-extensive with the visible Catholic Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine clearly laid out the criteria for belonging to the Visible Church.
Communion in the Sacraments, profession of the true faith, and submission to the Holy See. This 5-year-old has been joined to the visible Church through the Sacrament of Baptism. While he does not actively profess the faith or submission to the Holy See, these are there through the infused virtues of faith and charity. While these are essentially visible things, they can be there virtually or by habit, even if not always actively manifested. This is akin to my example before of human beings being essentially soul and body, even while they are in Heaven (currently) without happening to have an actual body. And the same thing applies to the visibility of the Church. While the Church and the hierarchy are essentially visible, this does not preclude that for a time the See might be vacant or that there may be confusion about where the actual hierarchy are (such as during the Great Western Schism).
That is correct. Once an individual reaches the age of reason, then it is required to actively profess the faith. Take the example of some child of animists who was baptized by a missionary, but then otherwise continues to be raised an animist. Until he reaches the age of reason, the infused supernatural virtue of faith remains. But once he has reached the age of reason, and this infused virtue is not confirmed by actual expression of it, the supernatural virtue of faith is lost. Same thing with those who grow up as heretics or schismatics. Once they reach the age of reason and do not profess the true faith, this infused supernatural virtue is lost.
You are conflating Rahner’s visible/invisible distinction with the Catholic distinction between body/soul.
They are not the same thing.
The difference between the two is that for Rahner’s “anonymous Christianity,” sanctifying grace is either not required or unavoidably ubiquitous, whereas the body/soul distinction is predicated upon possession of sanctifying grace.
1) Can you provide magisterial sources declaring schismatic infants are members of the visible Church?
2) Can you provide magisterial sources declaring schismatic children forfeit grace at the age of reason?
1) Can you provide magisterial sources declaring schismatic infants are members of the visible Church?
2) Can you provide magisterial sources declaring schismatic children forfeit grace at the age of reason?
If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. “Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee” (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2). In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.
If by “Bergoglian Church, you mean the visible Church described above – church of Rome and diocese throughout the world in union with it - you have just denied indefectibility of the Church. You are nothing but a neo Protestant heretic who happens to like the Traditional Mass, and every time you profess to believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church during Mass, you lie to God and to yourself. You believe in the idea of a Church with four marks, you reject the actual Church with four marks. That makes you a heretic, since the actual existing Church with four marks is not only an article of faith, it is an object of divine and Catholic faith. You deny the object.
Hopefully one day you convert to Catholicism, since extra ecclesia nullo salus.
I'll try to find sources for these, but it's basic theology. Who someone has been baptized by doesn't particularly matter. I can be baptized by some atheist and that still makes me a member of the Church. Simply because I'm baptized by some Orthodox priest doesn't make me Orthodox. Valid Baptism if valid Baptism and it makes someone an infant a member of the Church, regardless of the minister who conferred it. This is Salza's error of making membership in the Church purely material. So the infant who's baptized by an Orthodox priest is in no different condition than an infant who's baptized by a Catholic priest. Neither one of them actively professes the Catholic faith yet ... having not yet reached the age of reason. But their supernatural virtue of faith is infused. But once they reach the age of reason, profession of the Catholic faith and submission to the Holy See are additional requirements for membership in the Church. To say otherwise would have it that no unbaptized infant would be a member of the Church.
You have succuмbed to the completely diabolical inversion of calling evil good and good evil, claiming that Traditional Catholics who adhere to the Church's doctrine and Magisterium are outside the Church...
PS: But I’d still be interested in seeing something which states schismatic infants forfeit grace at the age of reason (since invincible ignorance would seem to make the morally culpable sin by which such a forfeiture transpired impossible), which would be necessary for them to avoid salvation.
This is a semi-Pelagian mindset where people must actively sin in order to forfeit salvation.
Everything that was de fide before Vatican II is de fide today, and nothing has been proposed as de fide since Vatican II that was not already de fide before the Council. What that means is that the faith taught by the Church has not changed.:facepalm: The Church is more than just doctrine. It is well known that most Modernists in Pope St Pius X's days started their plotting in the liturgical area, which is the PRACTICAL application of doctrine. The V2 anti-church has corrupted people's application/attitude/practices of the Faith, even if the core tenants of the Faith are still "pure".
One need not actually sin against the faith to lack the virtue of faith. It can be missing by simple absence.Once one reaches the age of reason, they have a DUTY to practice the Faith (to follow truth and seek it). So a baptized person who does not follow the prompts of grace in his heart and the inspirations of the Holy Ghost, sins by omission and inaction.
What??
If one is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited, since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
What??Those who do not believe in Christ, in His Church, who do not have the Catholic faith, sin. The sin of unbelief.
If one is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited, since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
There can be no charity (aka state of grace) without supernatural faith. Once one has reached the age of reason, there can be no merely-infused supernatural faith.
You aren’t answering the question:The Errors of Peter Abelard, Condemned by Innocent II, July 16, 1140, #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” ‐ Condemned
If one is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited, since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
Those who do not believe in Christ, in His Church, who do not have the Catholic faith, sin. The sin of unbelief.
John 16:8-9 And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. 9 Of sin: because they believed not in me.
The Errors of Peter Abelard, Condemned by Innocent II, July 16, 1140, #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” ‐ Condemned
Please read more carefully, and explain how the invincibly ignorant in the state of grace can commit grievous sin to forfeit grace.Sorry, I thought you were asking about how schismatic infants forfeit grace at the age of reason, which is of course by sin, the sin of unbelief. For those incapable of thinking, i.e. invincibly ignorant, they do not forfeit grace by their unbelief.
You aren’t answering the question:
If one is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited, since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
I never said Traditional Catholics who adhere to the Church's doctrine and Magisterium are outside the Church. It is those who call themselves Traditional Catholics, but don't hold to Catholic doctrine and the Magisterium who are outside the Church. And those who deny that the local church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it constitute the indefectible Church with four marks, outside of which there is no salvation, neither adhere to Catholic doctrine, nor to the living Magisterium. And those same heretics...
Please read more carefully, and explain how the invincibly ignorant in the state of grace can commit grievous sin to forfeit grace.A baptized child of 6, who is in the state of grace, is NOT invincibly ignorant. Quite the contrary. A person in the state of grace, at the age of reason, has the Holy Ghost within him and thus is prompted by Him to a) stay in the state of grace/follow the 10 commandments and b) seek God and Truth (if they aren't practicing the Faith or don't know of it).
:facepalm: The Church is more than just doctrine.
It is well known that most Modernists in Pope St Pius X's days started their plotting in the liturgical area, which is the PRACTICAL application of doctrine. The V2 anti-church has corrupted people's application/attitude/practices of the Faith, even if the core tenants of the Faith are still "pure". Example: The core doctrine of "temporal punishment due to sin" (i.e. purgatory) is still believed, but in practice, the V2 church no longer has requiem masses, nor encourages the faithful to pray for the dead.
2 of my novus ordo neighbors told me about some family members who had died and I offered to pray for their souls and started talking about purgatory. They quickly changed the subject and didn't want to be bothered about it.
New Catechism: 1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.
They still go to weekly church and are considered "good" catholics. It was very odd behavior for a catholic; but very typical for a novus ordo protestant...which is what they've been TRAINED TO BE.
How many "Catholics" who belong to your sect believe that the Roman Catholic Church defected after Vatican II and now subsists in hundreds of different sects? How many members of your sect even know what the Roman Catholic Church is? The fact that you call the Church the V2 anti-church proves that are nothing but a Protestant heretic who likes the Traditional Mass.
A baptized child of 6, who is in the state of grace, is NOT invincibly ignorant. Quite the contrary. A person in the state of grace, at the age of reason, has the Holy Ghost within him and thus is prompted by Him to a) stay in the state of grace/follow the 10 commandments and b) seek God and Truth (if they aren't practicing the Faith or don't know of it).
There are innumerable stories of young children of 7, 8, 9, 10 years old who were baptized as some type of protestant. These children had catholic friends and the protestant children would go to the catholic church a few times in their childhood with their friends. It wasn't until they became teenagers or young adults that they converted to the Faith because "they always liked the Catholic Church they had visited" and/or "there was something I was drawn to".
This is grace building upon good nature. They converted in God's time and followed His promptings.
Or how about the millions and millions of apparitions/holy dreams that are happening all over the Middle East right now? Muslims are hearing about Christ and He is appearing to them in dreams, telling them to "Follow Me" and then He gives them instructions to go to some place, at a specific time and look for a specific person. Who turns out to be a Christian. They end up getting baptized.
A muslim would be "invincibly ignorant" and look at what God is doing for them. Look how He is calling those of good will.
A baptized child is the Temple of the Holy Ghost...all God has to do is speak to them in their heart. There's no way they are ignorant (unless, by sin, they close their heart to Him).
How many "Catholics" who belong to your sect believe that the Roman Catholic Church defected after Vatican II and now subsists in hundreds of different sects? How many members of your sect even know what the Roman Catholic Church is? The fact that you call the Church the V2 anti-church proves that are nothing but a Protestant heretic who likes the Traditional Mass.
And you've been banned on the grounds that CathInfo is a forum for all TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS and you are some sort of weird Conciliar/Dogmatic Home Aloner hybrid who rejects the Traditional Movement AND the errors of the Council.
He's either Robert Siscoe or John Salza.
But they’re not home-aloners, as Matthew said this guy was?
We’re talking about an invincibly ignorant 6 uear-old in the state of grace.One in the state of grace has the Holy Ghost inside of them. Are you saying it's possible for one to have the Holy Ghost in their soul and yet be invincibly ignorant? :confused: That's a contradiction.
Who told you the Roman Catholic Church after V2 no longer encourages the faithful to pray for the dead? You live in fantasy land.The V2 church no longer has requiem masses; instead they have "celebration of life" masses. :laugh1: 99% of every novus ordo catholic I have ever talked to, when speaking of the dead, say "Oh, they are already in heaven." Thus, logically, why the need to pray for the dead?
He's not a home aloner.
His postings going back and forth with the user Catholic Knight show him to be advancing arguments found in True or False Pope
True or False Pope
SSPX PAGE
This is the same Salza that has gotten many good reviews by SSPX folk for his co-authored book "True or False Pope", the book that Fr. Kramer has demolished on several points.
::)
He's not a home aloner.
His postings going back and forth with the user Catholic Knight show him to be advancing arguments found in True or False Pope
One in the state of grace has the Holy Ghost inside of them. Are you saying it's possible for one to have the Holy Ghost in their soul and yet be invincibly ignorant? :confused: That's a contradiction.
True or False Pope
SSPX PAGEOur Statement on the Society of St. Pius X
Many have asked why we have changed our position on the SSPX, since we frequented their chapels for many years, and particularly since the Society publicly endorsed our book True or False Pope?. To be clear, we have no personal hostility toward the SSPX and the many good men in their ranks. We also continue to attend the Traditional Mass exclusively and hold the Recognize & Resist position, properly understood.
However, our extensive study of ecclesiology and Sedevacantism led us to the inescapable conclusion that the SSPX is in the same canonical and ecclesiastical position as the Sedevacantist and other independent clergy (outside of its delegated faculties), who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, have no juridical mission from the Church, and hence cannot lawfully exercise their priestly powers. In fact, we were forced to recognize that the Society advances the same erroneous arguments as the Sedevacantists do, to justify their operation without mission, which is contrary to the divine law.
In the course of our study, we also realized that the SSPX embraces other critical theological errors (on the Profession of Faith, juridical mission, supplied jurisdiction, Collegiality, sacramental intention, the nature of the Church, etc.) which we are addressing in our series of articles. Because many of these errors are rooted in an erroneous understanding of the Church itself (errors in ecclesiology), they are actually graver than the Liberal errors on the Left, and that is because they lead Catholics out of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
It is our firm hope and prayer that the Society renounce its doctrinal errors and accepts the Church’s Profession of Faith, so that it can be reconciled with the Roman Catholic Church, and given a canonical mission to carry out its ministry lawfully. It is for this purpose that we make our position public, so that the Society’s leadership (and those who support the SSPX) will see the truth, and take the necessary steps toward achieving the long-awaited reconciliation.
Are you still rolling your eyes Sean, or can you finally see it?
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/salza-calls-sspx-and-sedes-schismatics/msg866062/#msg866062
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/salza-calls-sspx-and-sedes-schismatics/msg866065/#msg866065
Why are you posting this???
That is the position of Robert Siscoe and John Salza.
That is their statement on their website, True or False Pope
And what does it have to do with me?
But they’re not home-aloners, as Matthew said this guy was?
If by “Bergoglian Church, you mean the visible Church described above – church of Rome and diocese throughout the world in union with it - you have just denied indefectibility of the Church. You are nothing but a neo Protestant heretic who happens to like the Traditional Mass, and every time you profess to believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church during Mass, you lie to God and to yourself. You believe in the idea of a Church with four marks, you reject the actual Church with four marks. That makes you a heretic, since the actual existing Church with four marks is not only an article of faith, it is an object of divine and Catholic faith. You deny the object.
Hopefully one day you convert to Catholicism, since extra ecclesia nullo salus.
Moderator: Cool it with the personal accusations. This particular dogmatic argument is getting a bit hot. Hopefully you're just speaking rhetorically here.
How many "Catholics" who belong to your sect believe that the Roman Catholic Church defected after Vatican II and now subsists in hundreds of different sects? How many members of your sect even know what the Roman Catholic Church is? The fact that you call the Church the V2 anti-church proves that are nothing but a Protestant heretic who likes the Traditional Mass.
You posted this:
The point is that the following statements by LaCosaNostra were not merely against Lad or Pax, but against everyone on this forum.
Undoubtedly, this poster was either Robert Siscoe or John Salza:
Ladislaus excommunicates more CI members in a single day, than this guy did in his entire brief tenure.
Yeah, it was a mistake to ban whomever it was.
Ladislaus excommunicates more CI members in a single day, than this guy did in his entire brief tenure.
But supposing it was S/S, why should the fact that they condemn the Resistance make their arguments against sedevacantism or Kramer false??
Good question that you asked above: why should their condemnation of the Resistance (which some sedevacantists, like Ladislaus, do all the time here) make their argument against sedevacantism or Fr. Kramer false? It would be nice to see this properly addressed.
Why are you posting this???
Get your popcorn ready, LaCosaNostra will be calling you, Meg, and Matthew, and all of us on this forum, as heretics and schismatics.
Fine, lets bring LaCosaNostra back.
It's only a matter of time before what you objected I posted gets pushed on here.
Get your popcorn ready, LaCosaNostra will be calling you, Meg, and Matthew, all of us on this forum, as heretics and schismatics.
Yup.
How is that any different from some sedevacantists here calling the Resistance adherents schismatics and heretics? And isn't for basically the same reason?
I say bring LCN back
Lets do it!
I know I've got popcorn.
Matthew, release the Kracken!
. . . the Church of the council . . .
He's either Robert Siscoe or John Salza.
It's interesting that Salza chose LaCosaNostra as his screen name, which is the term for the Sicilian Mob / Mafia, and given that he recently accepted accolades and an award from the Masonic Sons of Italy, perhaps that's saying something.
In light of the recent attacks by John Salza against the SSPX and all Traditional Catholics, I am sure it would interest the viewers and users of this site to find out a very interesting fact about this man.
Some years ago back in 2018, Salza attended an awards ceremony held by the Roma Lodge of the Order of the Sons of Italy (OSIA) in Wisconsin. You can see him pictured here among the other "honorees":
(https://files.catbox.moe/k0mcxh.png)
See an excerpt of his "profile" here:
(https://files.catbox.moe/lqnab3.PNG)
The OSIA still has this recorded on their newsletter website, here are the links:
https://franoi.com/community/osdia-state-lodge-honors-11-at-da-vinci-gala/ (https://franoi.com/community/osdia-state-lodge-honors-11-at-da-vinci-gala/)
https://franoi.com/profiles/osia0418/ (https://franoi.com/profiles/osia0418/)
The OSIA is a masonic organization, as this in-depth (https://twitter.com/2022moshiachnow/status/1615207920580304896?s=20) Twitter thread reveals.
(https://files.catbox.moe/vnduko.PNG)
(https://files.catbox.moe/7e1s9y.PNG)
(https://files.catbox.moe/bk66tp.PNG)
It should be noted that one does not need to be a member of their organization to be an "honoree". Other organizations, like the masonic Rotary Club, also have a habit of awarding non-members if their lodge finds this non-member to embody the values of their organization. Nowhere under these two links does it state that Salza is a member of this lodge, or any lodge for that matter, yet the status of lodge membership is given for at least one of the honorees who went to the same event as Salza. See here the case of this Novus Ordo deacon:
(https://files.catbox.moe/wupjjb.PNG)
Though, funnily enough, the author of this article gives some mention of Salza's anti-masonic activities:
(https://files.catbox.moe/azf24g.PNG)
Thus, it seems that while Salza is not a member of this group, this alleged crusader against Masonry is so highly regarded by this OSIA lodge that they gave him an award. Moreover, this foremost expert against Masonry received an award from a group of people he publicly claims to oppose and disavow.
Two questions stand: Why did these Italian-American masons honor Salza, and why would Salza accept this award from them?
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark!
I have attached some relevant images below, along with PDF file downloads of the articles just in case they get "disappeared".
John Salza and the Order of the Sons of Italy
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/john-salza-and-the-order-of-the-sons-of-italy/
Well then, it should be an be an easy job to convince everyone that Salza is wrong about the sedes, since he may be a freemason. Using that argument against him is certainly easier than trying to refute his claims.
The crux isn't sede vs SSPX, but rather recognizing the Conciliar Church for what it is.
Bp. Faure once said that the ralliers (who want the SSPX to reconcile with Rome, like Salza does) and the sedevacantists are but two sides of the same coin.
God forbid the SSPX ever does.
We're almost 5 years away from the 70 year mark of the death of Pius XII, the next 10 years will be very interesting.
The crux isn't sede vs SSPX, but rather recognizing the Conciliar Church for what it is.
Yes, very interesting. The sedevacantists (not all of them, however, but generally) claim that if we believe that the Franics is the pope, then we cannot resist him. The ralliers believe the same - that we (the SSPX and Resistance) must be in full communion with the Pope and Rome. It's basically the same principle.
Meg is obsessed with SVism, but Salza condemns all Traditional Catholics (outside of Motu groups like FSSP, ICK, etc.) as schismatics, heretics, and outside the Church, in need of conversion. And he's merely taking his false first principles to their logical conclusions, that SVs tried to point out were incorrect out of the gate, but R&R jumped on the bandwagon to defend these same principles that later Salza would turn against them as well.
I don't recall that the salza crowd has ever personally called me a heretic or schismatic ...
Yes, he may indeed condemn all trads outside of the indult bunch, but don't you condemn all trads who do not follow your reasoning - reasoning which says that we are heretics and schismatics if we do not hold Pope Francis as suspect of manifest heresy?
Yep. Attributing corruption to the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship is at once heretical and schismatic. Cf. my previous post. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't hold your position. And that is precisely why I started this thread, appealing to R&R to consider Father Chazal's position, since his does not labor under this difficulty.
Yep. Attributing corruption to the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship is at once heretical and schismatic. Cf. my previous post. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't hold your position. And that is precisely why I started this thread, appealing to R&R to consider Father Chazal's position, since his does not labor under this difficulty.
God forbid the SSPX ever does.
Yes, very interesting. The sedevacantists (not all of them, however, but generally) claim that if we believe that the Franics is the pope, then we cannot resist him. The ralliers believe the same - that we (the SSPX and Resistance) must be in full communion with the Pope and Rome. It's basically the same principle.
While you oversimplify the principle (it's not about resistance but about the indefectibility of the Church), this is in fact correct. Conservative Novus Ordites and Sedevacantists adhere to the same Major, the eminently Catholic principle that legitimate Catholic Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church cannot become corrupt. This principle has only been taught by every Pope, Father, Doctor, and theologian throughout the entire history of the Catholic Church ... and has been denied only by Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants prior to the creation of mainstream "R&R" theology.
By R&R I refer to some modern types who claim falsely to be heirs of Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre himself upheld the principle of the Major that the Papacy is protected by the Holy Spirit from corrupting the Church. He simply questioned the Minor in terms of how this could have come about. So those who try to defend their Old Catholic position as being that of Lefebvre are slandering him.
I doubt Siscoe or Salza would screw up very simple Latin, and mistake nulla salus for nullo salus, as I read in one former post. Salus is a feminine noun and nulla is the only option. This is basic, junior Latin. On second thought, presuming that they have not studied the language it might be one of these men in question.
He's either Robert Siscoe or John Salza.
I doubt Siscoe or Salza would screw up very simple Latin, and mistake nulla salus for nullo salus, as I read in one former post. Salus is a feminine noun and nulla is the only option. This is basic, junior Latin.
But as for Invincible Ignorance, unless it has escaped me, I have never found that the Church has defined the subject of invincible ignorance. I know some theologians have theorized as to what it may or may not mean, but we throw this term around as though it is a carte blanche ticket into heaven. Fr Wathen asked the question many years ago, Why is it that these pygmies in Swahililand, Australia, can know about Coca Cola, but they somehow cannot know about the Catholic Church?
it sounds like because the libs want to exaggerate the extent of invincible ignorance, Fr. Watgen was denying its existence altogether?It’s a stupid argument because it has nothing to do worth anything
It’s a stupid argument because it has nothing to do worth anything
the invincible ignorance argument in and of itself is just about a hypothetical. IF there are people who are genuinely can’t know, AND they have faith in God and that he will reward and punish AND they have perfect contrition THEN they could be saved
Whether there really are such people at the moment is a separate question than what fate those people would have if they did exist
one could think that theoretically they would be saved but actually think there are none. I suspect ladislaus would think that they do exist but that they would go to limbo. So the questions aren’t related
it sounds like because the libs want to exaggerate the extent of invincible ignorance, Fr. Watgen was denying its existence altogether?I've never heard of anyone who denies people in invincible ignorance are not guilty of the sin of unbelief.
Most people's ignorance is culpable, so says St Thomas.All*
The idea of invincible ignorance came about around the 1500s, due to the explorers discovering America and questioning how so many "innocent natives" could be damned. St Thomas rejects the notion that an adult could die in such ignorance - before they die, they will either accept or reject the Truth. Most people's ignorance is culpable, so says St Thomas.
. . . we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ."
And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.
The idea of invincible ignorance came about around the 1500s, due to the explorers discovering America and questioning how so many "innocent natives" could be damned.
Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.
1. We should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit belief is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion follows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary.
Answers to Difficulties
1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).
No, invincible ignorance implies that the person “does not deserve” to be ignorant and they are “sincerely good-willed.”
The quotes you posted by St Thomas explain that those who are ignorant of the Faith, are so because of sin.
Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study.
we must most certainly hold that God would . . .
Still waiting for an asnwer to this question:
If a 6 year-old schismatic in the state of grace is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited (since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost)?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
Still waiting for an asnwer to this question:As St. Thomas says, if he is incuplably ignorant he will receive the Gospel, if his ignorance is culpable he will be damned for his other sins.
If a 6 year-old schismatic in the state of grace is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited (since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost)?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
Still waiting for an asnwer to this question:I always thought of it as Protestant children who are baptized correctly are technically Catholics unless/until they deny the Catholic Faith by attending non-Catholic worship or stubbornly holding to a heresy which the Church has condemned.
If a 6 year-old schismatic in the state of grace is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited (since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost)?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
It's invincible precisely because it's not within their own power to overcome such ignorance.The issue is that St Thomas' definition has been corrupted and the "normal" definition today is different. I was responding to the typical use; but your quote of St Thomas is correct. Thanks for posting.
If a 6 year-old schismatic in the state of grace is invincibly ignorantThis is an oxymoronic statement. By definition, a baptized person of the age of reason, has received supernatural faith, hope and charity. They are not, and cannot be invincibly ignorant.
This is an oxymoronic statement. By definition, a baptized person of the age of reason, has received supernatural faith, hope and charity. They are not, and cannot be invincibly ignorant.
This is an oxymoronic statement. By definition, a baptized person of the age of reason, has received supernatural faith, hope and charity. They are not, and cannot be invincibly ignorant.
As St. Thomas says, if he is incuplably ignorant he will receive the Gospel, if his ignorance is culpable he will be damned for his other sins.Still waiting.
It comes down to belief in Divine Providence. You actually believe that someone who is lives without mortal sin, sincerely seeking the truth would be denied it by God? If so, that's blasphemous.
Now please answer is belief in the Trinity and Incarnation obligatory pn all above the age of reason, by a necessity of means, for salvation?
but of a baptized infant reaching the age of reason.a 3rd oxymoronic statement. A person who has reached the age of reason is not an infant.
Nor can a 6-year-old be a "schismatic". You have to adhere to a non-Catholic sect in order to be a schismatic.
So that statement contained 2 oxymorons.
No, you and Pax are the only morons.
His Petulance strikes again.
You aren’t answering the question:Bump.
If one is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited (since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost)?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
Thank you for this profound contribution.
No, you and Pax are the only morons.There are no schismatics in the state of grace, cf. Unam Sanctam.
Still waiting for an asnwer to this question:
If a 6 year-old schismatic in the state of grace is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited (since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost)?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
There are no schismatics in the state of grace, cf. Unam Sanctam.
You aren’t answering the question:I've answered already what my opinion is. I think there are only two possible options.
If one is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited (since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost)?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
The other option is that as soon as the age of reason is reached if one does not hold the Catholic faith he loses the state of grace and ceases to be a member of the Church.
And I'm asking you to explain how this is even possible, if one is invincibly ignorant (i.e., can't commit a mortal sin to fall from said grace).I reject the premise that one can't sin through ignorance as the condemned statement of Abelard proves and I also would like to point out that there are many ways to commit mortal sin.
I reject the premise that one can't sin through ignorance as the condemned statement of Abelard proves and I also would like to point out that there are many ways to commit mortal sin.
The first option is definitely an acceptable position even if the second is incorrect, which is possible.
What isn't possible is for a non-Catholic to go to heaven because every human creature by absolute necessity must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, possess the Catholic faith and be inside the Church.
I'm looking forward to seeing your answer tomorrow.
I reject the notion that one has to commit an active sin against the faith to lose supernatural faith. When an infant is baptized, that's a special case where the supernatural virtue of faith is merely infused. There can be no merely-infused supernatural virtue of faith in adults, i.e. those who have the use of reason. Consequently, when a child reaches the use of reason, if the supernatural faith isn't confirmed with actual acts of faith, the virtue is lost, and without supernatural faith there can be no supernatural charity. To think that someone can grow up, reach the age of reason, and then be an atheist, say having been raised as such, and the stay in a state of persevering in supernatural faith.So we return yet again to the question:
So we return yet again to the question::laugh2: You mean question #5, since you've modified it multiple times...
If one is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited (since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost)?Typically, one who is invincibly ignorant of the Faith forfeits grace through sins against the natural law. But they can repent and still find the Truth, if they are of good will.
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
So we return yet again to the question:
If one is invincibly ignorant, by what means is grace forfeited (since full knowledge is necessary for the grave sin by which the grace is lost)?
Conversely, if the grace is not forfeited, how would such a one be damned?
I reject the notion that one has to commit an active sin against the faith to lose supernatural faith. When an infant is baptized, that's a special case where the supernatural virtue of faith is merely infused. There can be no merely-infused supernatural virtue of faith in adults, i.e. those who have the use of reason. Consequently, when a child reaches the use of reason, if the supernatural faith isn't confirmed with actual acts of faith, the virtue is lost, and without supernatural faith there can be no supernatural charity. To think that someone can grow up, reach the age of reason, and then be an atheist, say having been raised as such, and the stay in a state of persevering in supernatural faith.
Agreed.
Was there an eclipse or some extraordinary phenomenon afoot in the heavens?
Sean,
I think Ladislaus was correct about personal faith in Christ being necessary upon reaching maturity.
It's not a question of forfeit, but rather God willing salvation be through faith in His Son, for all capable of knowing - I do not mean capable by or under external circuмstance, but capable of having the "hardware" or "software" required to will and know.
A baptized person, upon reaching maturity, will be confronted with moral choices. In the hypothetical case that a person does not sin before the approach of death, before departing this earth God will provide such a person with knowledge of, and faith in, Christ - either through provision of a preacher, or by internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost. That is St. Thomas's sound teaching.
Of course, if a person sins at some point after reaching maturity, faith in Christ, with repentance, is the sine qua non of dying in a state of grace.
DR
Sean, you keep going back to the notion that a sin has to be committed against faith to lose supernatural faith. Normally yes, for an adult, but I hold infants to be a special case.
Even the "Rewarder God" folks held that explicit faith in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked is a sine qua non for supernatural faith ... for adults. I hold, with St. Thomas and others, that explicit knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity are also essential. In fact, this was held unanimously until the discovery of the New World, when a Franciscan and some Jesuits floated Rewarder God theory in response to finding all those unevangelized masses. In any case, until Bergoglio said it some years ago, no Catholic ever entertained the notion that an atheist, someone who had explicit faith in nothing, could be saved. So, if the infant grows up to acquire the use of reason but does not have any explicit belief in anything, that supernatural virtue of faith fades away, like the seed sown on the rocky ground where it has nothing to take root in. As to why God may have allowed this, we can only speculate, but St. Thomas holds that this ignorance, if invincible, is itself not a sin, but God would allow this to happen on account of other sins. It can also be God's Mercy, as perhaps He knows that the person would end up rejecting the faith and therefore meriting a worse eternal fate. We don't know.
Based on how you're asking the question, in your scenario, let's imagine an infant who's secretly baptized by some overzealous individual and ends up being raised by atheists. He reaches the age of reason, and then dies at the age of 15 without having actively rejected the faith or committed any other grave sin. Would that person be saved? To say yes would be to say that atheists can be saved without explicit faith in anything ... which no Catholic thinker or theologian has ever held prior to Bergoglio's utterance. You're saying that individuals can have some infused supernatural virtue of faith without any knowledge or awareness of it. You'd basically be promoting a variation of Rahner's Anonymous Christian theory and agreeing with Bergoglio that atheists can be saved.
please explain how grace is lost without sin (or conversely, how those in the state of grace are damned).If you want to have an intelligent conversation then please provide more details. Your generic scenarios help no one.
Lad-
please explain how grace is lost without sin (or conversely, how those in the state of grace are damned).
It was explain in the paragraphs to which you are responding, but you're fixated on your own imagined paradigm so that my explanation simply didn't register. If I responded again, I would rewrite the above.
So in your opinion, someone can be saved as an atheist if they were baptized as an infant and then didn't commit an active sin against the faith after reaching the age of reason?
Lad,
In your opinion, can the state of grace be lost without mortal sin?
I've already answered this question. Did you not read what I wrote? Yes, it can be, in the unique case of an infant where the supernatural virtue of faith is merely infused. Then without supernatural faith, there can be no supernatural virtue. You're framing your question from the mindset of a normal adult in a state of sanctifying grace. That is completely different from the state of an infant who has merely infused supernatural virtues. You continue to be fixated on this notion because your mind can't grasp anything outside the normal paradigm for adults.
Now answer my question about whether you think an atheist in the above scenario can be saved.
I've already answered this question. Did you not read what I wrote? Yes, it can be, in the unique case of an infant where the supernatural virtue of faith is merely infused. Then without supernatural faith, there can be no supernatural virtue. You're framing your question from the mindset of a normal adult in a state of sanctifying grace. That is completely different from the state of an infant who has merely infused supernatural virtues. You continue to be fixated on this notion because your mind can't grasp anything outside the normal paradigm for adults.This is really twisted stuff, Ladislaus, stop trying to be a theologian.
Now answer my question about whether you think an atheist in the above scenario can be saved.
This is really twisted stuff, Ladislaus, stop trying to be a theologian.
No one who has reached the age of reason is in a moral vacuum. Every act is either virtuous or sinful. If it is gravely sinful, grace is lost. This child, through baptism, has grace. If he does not commit mortal sin, the grace is never lost.
It is right there in the very first book of Holy Scripture: "Before man is good and evil. That which he chooses shall be given him".
So your answer is a simple “yes,” correct?
Yes, as I have repeated several times. How about your answer to how the atheist in the above hypothetical scenario can be saved? No Catholic theologian has ever held that an atheist can be saved, requiring at least a minimum of explicit faith in the Rewarder/Punisher God.
For infants, in a special case, this supernatural virtue is infused in the soul, along with supernatural charity. But for adults it does not work this way. If an atheist adult were baptized, say unwillingly, would he have the supernatural virtue of faith or charity? Of course not. If he did not assent to the truths of the faith, and, in short, have all the dispositions necessary, as described by the Council of Trent, while he would receive the Baptismal character, he would not receive supernatural faith or charity. That's because FOR ADULTS a cooperation of the will is required.
Infants are dispensed from this obligation, since they cannot actively cooperate with their will and their intellect. But once they reach the age of reason, they are then required to cooperate. If they do not cooperate, then they are in the same state as the adult above who was baptized without the proper dispositions.
Virtues are also known as habits. Supernatural faith and supernatural charity are habits, and they are potencies. Upon reaching the age of reason, however, what was a mere potency in the infant has to be "activated" and cooperated with, or the potency fades away, just as any habit or virtue fades away if it's not exercised. This is true of the natural "virtues" as well. If they are not exercised, the potency eventually fades, and the virtue dies. Virtues need to be exercised to be kept alive.
Can you please cite a Church docuмent explaining how grace is lost without sin?John 16:8-9 And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. 9 Of sin: because they believed not in me.
John 16:8-9 And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. 9 Of sin: because they believed not in me.
What is it you don't get about it being a sin to not believe in Christ?
Can you please cite a Church docuмent explaining how grace is lost without sin?
Explain how the atheist above can be saved. You'd dodged that question multiple times now.
Theologians are unanimous that for adults there can be no supernatural faith without explicit belief in at least the Rewarder God, with most holding that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, are absolutely necessary by necessity of means in order to have supernatural faith.
Adults are required to have the proper dispositions for Baptism in order for the Sacrament to confer supernatural faith and charity. Period. In an infant, however, these infused supernatural virtues are latent until such as time as the individual reaches the age of reason, at which time he too is required to have the necessary dispositions for Baptism.
Probably the same thing I don’t get about how I can lose grace by committing a mortal without the requisite full knowledge.The Scripture is itself the teaching. You don't believe in Christ, you sin - period. And remember, Christ and the Church are one. This is the dogma EENS.
Can you please cite Church teaching explaining it to me?
The Scripture is itself the teaching. You don't believe in Christ, you sin - period. And remember, Christ and the Church are one. This is the dogma EENS.
There are many but here is one more...
Eph.5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. 7 Be ye not therefore partakers with them. 8 For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light.
In their unbelief St. Paul says "your were darkness" - dark with sin - until they believe in Him. If you read into this because they did not know Christ that they were without sin then those are the vain words St. Paul is talking about.
Is that a “no?”
I've cited that it's unanimous teaching that supernatural faith is impossible without explicit faith.
This is going on half a dozen times now where you've dodged the question about the the individual who is an atheist at the time he reaches the age of reason.
So the two Church teachings from which my conclusions follow:
1) adults are required to have the proper dispositions for the Sacrament of Baptism in order for the Sacrament to be able to justify them
2) those who lack explicit faith in at least a Rewarder God cannot have supernatural faith
My conclusions flow directly from these two Church teachings. You have yet to address either of these, but keep obsessing in OCD fashion about how normally for adults they have to commit a mortal sin to lose sanctifying grace.
Neither you, nor anyone else, has explained how, according to the Church, grace can be expelled from a soul without grave sin (or conversely, how those in the state of grace can be damned).
The habit of sanctity is lost by mortal sin, but the habit of faith, we are told, is lost by a positive act of infidelity or heresy. This is not strictly true; for the habit may be lost by the omission to elicit the act of faith, which neither is nor can be elicited out of the Catholic Church; for out of her the credible object, which is Deus revelans et Ecclesia proponens, (God revealing and the Church proposing for our belief) is wanting. Consequently, outside of the Church there can be no salvation for any one, even though baptized, who has come to the use of reason. The habit given in Baptism then ceases to suffice, and the obligation to elicit the act begins.
You are repeating yourself, not answering the question.No Sean, you have it exactly backwards.
Neither you, nor anyone else, has explained how, according to the Church, grace can be expelled from a soul without grave sin (or conversely, how those in the state of grace can be damned).
I’ll bow out of the thread until someone can do that, as the failure to do so is a glaring “concedo.”
But, continues the Rev. A. Young, “as I was a baptized Christian, I did not, neither could I, lose the capacity to make meritorious acts of divine faith, no matter whether I made them or not; no matter what I believed or disbelieved as I grew up; no matter whether I became a Protestant, Jєω, Mahomedan, or infidel. I will be a baptized Christian for all eternity, because the indelible mark of baptism cannot be taken out of my soul. In this case I was capable of making meritorious acts of divine faith."
What stupid and most absurd assertion this!
This may be more clear from the following: If a person who has come to the use of reason and professes heresy at the time of his baptism, he is indeed indelibly marked as a Christian, but he is not sanctified—the other supernatural effects of baptism being suspended for want of the proper dispositions or preparations which are required to receive not only the sacrament, but also its supernatural effects. One of the most essential requisites to receive these effects is to have the true faith, i.e., to believe God, speaking through the Catholic Church. Now heresy, material heresy not excepted, is a want of this faith, on account of which the supernatural effects of baptism are suspended. God cannot unite himself with a soul that lives in heresy, even though it be only material heresy. As the supernatural sanctifying effects in this case are suspended, so they are for the same reason, destroyed in him who was baptized in his infancy and became a heretic, though only a material heretic, when he came to the use of reason. This person, to be again reconciled with God, must renounce heresy, believe the Catholic Church, and receive worthily the sacrament of penance; or if this cannot be had, he must have perfect contrition or charity with the desire (at least implicit) to receive the sacrament of penance. The other person, however, will be reconciled with God and truly sanctified, as soon as he renounces heresy, believes the Catholic Church, and has at least attrition (imperfect supernatural sorrow) for his sins, because it is then that the supernatural sanctifying effects of baptism take place. It is therefore evident that, if these persons and others like them were to die in heresy, they would be lost forever. (See Theolog. Curs. Compl. De Confirmatione, Part II., Q. II., art. vi.)
Sean's been given the answer multiple times, he keeps asking because he does not like the answer.
John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
John 6:35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me, shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me, shall never thirst.
Probably the same thing I don’t get about how I can lose grace by committing a mortal without the requisite full knowledge.This is just the error of rationalism, since you are denying that one in the state of grace has a working conscience, a guardian angel, and the Holy Ghost's inspirations. St John tells us in John 1:9...That was the true light (Christ), which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.
I affirm, with St. Thomas, that belief in Christ is necessary for those capable of exercising faith, i.e., adults.
But this is the question Sean won't answer. If some baptized infant reaches the age of reason without explicit belief in anything (say, raised as an atheist), how can this person continue to have supernatural faith, since no Catholic authority has ever posited that supernatural faith is possible for adults who are atheists.
Right. Even IF one accepted the Rewarder God position, that STILL requires explicit faith for supernatural faith. And you (we) don't just believe that with St. Thomas. This was the unanimous belief and teaching of the Church for nearly 1500 years and is arguably de fide by virtue of the OUM. Also, after Rewarder God theory started to make headway, the Holy Office rejected it, indicating that belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary by necessity of means for salvation.
Since you have conceded the issue by your inability to post Church teaching to back your innovative position that grace vanishes without grave sin once one reaches the age of reason (or conversely, show Church teaching explaining how the justified are nevertheless damned), I'm happy to follow you into this other discussion:
Please explain how an Orthodox baptized infant who reaches the age of reason can be described as being "without explicit belief in anything." If your response is going to be, "We aren't talking about Orthodox, but about atheists," then you are willfully admitting you refuse to consider the scenario I set up at the beginning of this thread (i.e., sensing the weakness of your position, you desire to change my situational criteria, by moving the discussion from Orthodox to atheists).
Sometimes I wonder if Sean doesn't create a controversy and take a wrong position on purpose, so that the truth can be explained in detail. Kind of like creating a Q&A for the benefit of this forum. But then, Sean never admits he's wrong nor does he acknowledge any valid points made by others, so his faulty positions must be real. :confused:Spot on 😂 so much great stuff came out to refute Sean's nonsense.
I just thought of an interesting example to prove my point. Do you believe that an atheist can be in a state of grace?The answer is a resounding "no," the atheist cannot be in the state of grace, baptized or unbaptized. The reason is simple: Since the church has defined in the Syllabus and elsewhere that man, by his natural unaided reason, can know of the existence of God, any man who denies what his reason tells him is true, cannot be saved. This whole idea that we have "good-willed" atheists running around is one of the rotten fruits of Liberalism. I have encountered a good number of atheists in the college classrooms, but how can any of them claim blissful ignorance? Especially when we cover St. Thomas' five proofs of the existence of God which is based solely on natural reason.
A limbo if the justified who died in the state of grace?I am probably not going to read the entire thread, nor am I particularly interested in giving my own position. I’m just trying to clarify things.
Yes, that unheard of novelty sounds exactly like something he would invent.
But I do thank you for conceding the argument that those who die invincibly ignorant in the state of grace are saved.
I am probably not going to read the entire thread, nor am I particularly interested in giving my own position. I’m just trying to clarify things.Great. I don't wanna hear the visibility objection to sedevacantism ever again from anyone who believes anything remotely like this. Anonymous Christians all around.
the question of whether someone who is baptized by water in Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy can be saved despite being invincibly ignorant of the truth of Catholicism is a completely different question, then the question of whether pagans or members of can be saved through invincible, ignorance, and implicit baptism of desire, which is a different question then explicit baptism of desire for catechumens, which is a different question then whether there are practically speaking any invincibly, ignorant people left in the age of globalism and the Internet
of these, I find the last question to be the most useless because it is basically guesswork about fact claims. I guess if we do acknowledge that invincible, ignorance exists, we could then debate whether it is strictly limited to those who have never heard the claim, or if it could also be applied to those who sincerely and genuinely without fault of their own, are not convinced of the truth value of the claims
I could be wrong, but I do not actually think Ladislaus is going to say that a baptized Eastern Orthodox who has simply never heard of Roman Catholicism, and so believes he is in the Catholic Church of the creed, is damned. I guess, maybe he might say he was damned after he comes to some positive conclusion that’s contrary to Catholic epistemology, but if say, he died at 10 years old before he thought about theology beyond the basics of the creed, which he received, because the church gave it to him, I would assume Ladislaus would say that that 10 year old would go to heaven. But logically this is a separate question, then whether an invincibly ignorant. , I would assume Ladislaus would say that that 10 year old would go to heaven. But logically this is a separate question then, whether an invincibly ignorant pagan can be saved via invincible ignorance and implicit BOD without having faith in the holy trinity
I find the arguments about who is right tire son, because the premises of discussion aren’t even agreed on
The answer is a resounding "no," the atheist cannot be in the state of grace, baptized or unbaptized. The reason is simple: Since the church has defined in the Syllabus and elsewhere that man, by his natural unaided reason, can know of the existence of God, any man who denies what his reason tells him is true, cannot be saved. This whole idea that we have "good-willed" atheists running around is one of the rotten fruits of Liberalism. I have encountered a good number of atheists in the college classrooms, but how can any of them claim blissful ignorance? Especially when we cover St. Thomas' five proofs of the existence of God which is based solely on natural reason.I won't go in why I think it's relevant anyway but I was referring to the question about whether certain mysteries must be believed by a necessity of means.
Just checking in, and see the pep fest to dispel the doubts about the Feeneyite position which I have inculcated, and 50 posts later, nobody is able to answer a very simple question:More Scripture for you to ignore....
Please cite Church teaching on either:
1) How is grace lost without grave sin
or
2) How those dying in the state of grace can be damned.
I'll check back in another 50 posts (i.e., 15 minutes).
More Scripture for you to ignore....
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
No, just more of your Protestant private interpretations to ignore.I’ll give ladislaus a pass since he did at least go to seminary, but yeah, I honestly do sorta mentally filter out most other posters on here on this issue. Most of them do not even engage with what Justin martyr wrote. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but most of them do not even take the time or bother him. And most of them do indeed, blatantly engage in the private interpretation fest. I guess archbishop Lefevre was just an idiot who didn’t read the docuмents and some lay person online is going to set them right. Yeah right.
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.We are required as Catholics to read Scripture literally, unless the Church tells us otherwise. I believe Trent (and other papal docuмents on EENS) have quoted this passage in a literal sense.
Just checking in, and see that despite the pep fest to dispel the doubts about the Feeneyite position which I have inculcated, 50 posts later, nobody is able to answer a very simple question:
Please cite Church teaching on either:
1) How is grace lost without grave sin
or
2) How those dying in the state of grace can be damned.
I'll check back in another 50 posts (i.e., 15 minutes).
I’ll give ladislaus a pass since he did at least go to seminary, but yeah, I honestly do sorta mentally filter out most other posters on here on this issue. Most of them do not even engage with what Justin martyr wrote. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but most of them do not even take the time or bother him. And most of them do indeed, blatantly engage in the private interpretation fest. I guess archbishop Lefevre was just an idiot who didn’t read the docuмents and some lay person online is going to set them right. Yeah right.
I just also consider it a massive waste of time to argue with anyone who says this, so I instead decided to stick with just analyzing the issues. I saw that the main comment that quoted me completely missed the point.
No, just more of your Protestant private interpretations to ignore.No, it's not a private interpretation, we read it as it is written, it is therefore a literal interpretation, which is to say that for Catholics, it means exactly what it says.
If Justin Martyr said that one can be saved without faith in Christ after the preaching of the Gospel, he's wrong. Nothing to engage. He's just another father with an opinion that is contrary to other fathers - with a bit more weight, since that appears to matter to you - e.g., St. Augustine.
The Athanasian Creed is infallible and states there cannot be salvation without the Catholic faith, which means conscious faith in Christ. Period.
Now if some theologians after the adoption of the Creed speculate other, and the Church doesn't bother to condemn them, that's simply a prudential judgment of the Church, perhaps (likely in light of history) very negligent - they are a minority not to be taken seriously, other fish to fry, we've already spoken on this, etc.
But the AC asserted eternal truth. Case closed. It didn't make waffles.
Just checking in, and see that despite the pep fest to dispel the doubts about the Feeneyite position which I have inculcated, 50 posts later, nobody is able to answer a very simple question:
Please cite Church teaching on either:
1) How is grace lost without grave sin
or
2) How those dying in the state of grace can be damned.
I'll check back in another 50 posts (i.e., 15 minutes).
Agreed. If my recollection is correct, however, St. Justin Marty was referring to the pre-Christian "noble pagan," the likes of Aristotle and others they might have had in mind, wondering how the possibility for salvation could have been available outside the narrow confines of Israel.I DMed you about this awhile ago, but I think you underestimate how terrible and Protestant the average attitude of the people who argue for this position is. Which I’ll be honest, is my biggest problem with it. I just can’t go for “Archbishop Lefebvre couldn’t comprehend the plain language of insert obvious Catholic docuмent here.”
In addition to the Athanasian Creed, I started a thread one time replete with citations from the Church Fathers who all said the same thing, the since the promulgation of the Gospel, salvation was not possible without explicit faith in Christ.
I DMed you about this awhile ago, but I think you underestimate how terrible and Protestant the average attitude of the people who argue for this position is. Which I’ll be honest, is my biggest problem with it. I just can’t go for “Archbishop Lefebvre couldn’t comprehend the plain language of insert obvious Catholic docuмent here.”
now, from what I understand your argument is more complex than this. You do in fact make distinctions. I think you’ve granted before that someone who is externally part of the orthodox church, but has enough ignorance could be saved. Your main issue is the idea that it could apply to someone who wasn’t baptized whatsoever. you also have provided a lot more obscure details from the fathers, at least, according to your own interpretation of them, and because they are more obscure it’s plausible that someone like the Archbishop might have missed these. Furthermore, you actually did in fact, go to seminary, so I think your position deserves a little bit more wait at least.
but honestly, most of the people who take the same or a similar position, as you do, are literally just protestants just with more scriptures to privately interpret
If you mean his articulation of "Anonymous Christianity," Archbishop Lefebvre was certainly mistaken. He reformulated by dogma no salvation outside the Church as no salvation except by means of the Church (or though the Church). Archbishop Lefebvre was not a trained theologian by any stretch, and he probably was led astray by a professor of his that he considered otherwise orthodox and Traditional.Right. The modern notion of EENS is very ambiguous and subjective. Contrast that to St Augustine, St Thomas, the Church Fathers and even many theologians of the 1800/1900s. The great archbishop George Hay (d 1811) is staunchly pro-EENS in the orthodox and strict sense. In his book "The Sincere Christian" he discusses this dogma as it is found in Scripture.
Father Feeney rightly identified EENS-denial as THE core problem with the Church already in the late 1940s.Right, and Fr Feeney was living in America. The corruption and liberalism in Europe and France (where +ABL grew up) was far worse than America in those days. The most liberal clerics at V2 were from France and Germany.
I guess I’m just a little skeptical that Karl rahner understood the fathers better than Lefebvre didThe proof is that Karl Rahner was undoubtedly, unabashedly and proudly a Modernist. If he had found even one Church Father who agreed with his V2-mindset, he would've exploited that quote to the nth degree. It would've been repeated by every Modernist til they were blue in the face. But they never found anything...
I guess I’m just a little skeptical that Karl rahner understood the fathers better than Lefebvre did
This optimism concerning salvation [of non-Catholics] appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology concerning all these questions, which was more or less traditional right down to the Second Vatican Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose during the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church’s conscious awareness of her faith than, for instance, the doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between Scripture and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis, etc.
The proof is that Karl Rahner was undoubtedly, unabashedly and proudly a Modernist. If he had found even one Church Father who agreed with his V2-mindset, he would've exploited that quote to the nth degree. It would've been repeated by every Modernist til they were blue in the face. But they never found anything...
. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.
The proof is that Karl Rahner was undoubtedly, unabashedly and proudly a Modernist. If he had found even one Church Father who agreed with his V2-mindset, he would've exploited that quote to the nth degree. It would've been repeated by every Modernist til they were blue in the face. But they never found anything...That would sorta undermine the principle of modernism to go with a direct quote tho
That would sorta undermine the principle of modernism to go with a direct quote tho
In early 1962, with no prior warning, Rahner's superiors in the Society of Jesus told him that he was under Rome's pre-censorship, which meant that he could not publish or lecture without advance permission. The objections of the Roman authorities focused mainly on Rahner's views on the Eucharist and Mariology; however, the practical import of the pre-censorship decision was voided in November 1962 when, without any objection, John XXIII appointed Rahner a peritus (expert advisor) to the Second Vatican Council: Rahner had complete access to the council and numerous opportunities to share his thought with the participants. Rahner's influence at Vatican II was thus widespread, and he was subsequently chosen as one of seven theologians who would develop Lumen gentium, the dogmatic explication of the doctrine of the Church. The council's receptiveness towards other religious traditions may be linked to Rahner's notions of the renovation of the church, God's universal salvific revelation, and his desire to support and encourage the ecuмenical movement.
1. All of this is a legal act, done by legal authorities. It can't be done by any layman.
2. First it must be proved that person A said heresy x.
3. Then it must be proved that heresy x was said 'publicly' (as canon law defines it, not according to Webster's dictionary).
4. Then it must be proved that person A knew, or should have known, that heresy x was in fact a heresy.
5. Then it must be determined if the 'public sin of heresy' was committed and the penalty, according to law.
I reject such because i'm legally allowed to, since they aren't binding under pain of sin for me to attend/accept. Even +Benedict said in 2007's motu that Quo Primum was still legally in effect and this law a) binds me to the Old rite, b) prevents me from attending any other rite, and c) disallows any new rites. No post-V2 law has ever made the new mass obligatory, in any degree.
None of this gives you the right to outright reject Vatican II and the New Mass.
None of this gives you the right to outright reject Vatican II…
:facepalm: Jorge's Conciliar predecessors are guilty of the exact same heresies that Jorge holds. For you to claim otherwise would be a rather pathetic act of intellectual dishonesty.
I outright reject V2, for the reasons adduced by +Vigano:
It had the form of an ecuмenical council, but not the purpose or substance.
V2 is not an ecuмenical council, regardless of all the bishops who attended.
Vatican II was not an Ecuмenical Council ... but only because a legitimate Pope has to preside over and approve an Ecuмenical Council.
That I cannot determine by perceiving with my senses and apprehending with my intellect that the public sin of heresy has occurred and that I must wait for the Church to make that judgment is nonsense. That's like saying I have to wait for the weatherman to tell me that it's raining outside before I can make the judgment that it is. God gave me faculties to use them.No, that’s a bad analogy. It’s similar to a murder. We (laity) can make the determination that someone died. But we cannot make any decision (or if we do, it carries no legal significance) of who did the killing nor why. That’s up to the proper authorities (ie Church) to bring Justice.
What you have done is claimed that they are not CatholicNo, I said they aren’t licit (and in many cases immoral) because they violate Quo Primum.
No, that’s a bad analogy. It’s similar to a murder. We (laity) can make the determination that someone died. But we cannot make any decision (or if we do, it carries no legal significance) of who did the killing nor why. That’s up to the proper authorities (ie Church) to bring Justice.
No, I said they aren’t licit (and in many cases immoral) because they violate Quo Primum.
That tells us something. Father Feeney was right.I don't see how things will improve until more people accept this. Just look at the sspx. Slowly being absorbed into the 'Church'. The resistance priests also seem to have this issue on 'invincible ignorance'.
Now, he did sneak stuff in there that should have been there, but that's a separate issue.Did you perchance mean "shouldn't have been there"?
1. Laymen aren't part of the Church, in the sense of Canon Law, which was made by and for ecclesiastics to rule.
2. The Church isn't a democracy; it's a monarchy. The laity don't have "rights" in the same sense as a democracy.
3. A layman's affirmation or non-affirmation is meaningless. Just like in a regular court room...judge, lawyers, jury...everyone else's opinion is moot.
Your affirmation carries no legal weight, nor any authority, nor is binding on anyone else. So it's meaningless. No one has to pay attention to what you affirm or don't affirm. You aren't the Church.
1. All of this is a legal act, done by legal authorities. It can't be done by any layman.
2. First it must be proved that person A said heresy x.
3. Then it must be proved that heresy x was said 'publicly' (as canon law defines it, not according to Webster's dictionary).
4. Then it must be proved that person A knew, or should have known, that heresy x was in fact a heresy.
5. Then it must be determined if the 'public sin of heresy' was committed and the penalty, according to law.
None of this is in the authority, education, or training of any layman (excepting someone who has a canon law degree...but then they still have no authority).
I reject such because i'm legally allowed to, since they aren't binding under pain of sin for me to attend/accept. Even +Benedict said in 2007's motu that Quo Primum was still legally in effect and this law a) binds me to the Old rite, b) prevents me from attending any other rite, and c) disallows any new rites. No post-V2 law has ever made the new mass obligatory, in any degree.
And it is the public SIN of heresy that per se separates the heretic from the Church.And this is precisely the sin that ONLY the church can judge. All that laymen or priests can “judge” is simply that something is not true or anti-catholic or that someone is acting like a heretic and should be avoided/ignored. Everything else, legally and definitively, is handled by Church authorities.
And this is precisely the sin that ONLY the church can judge. All that laymen or priests can “judge” is simply that something is not true or anti-catholic or that someone is acting like a heretic and should be avoided/ignored. Everything else, legally and definitively, is handled by Church authorities.
…men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic
I don't quite understand the contradiction of claiming that we can judge an alleged Ecuмenical Council and the Church's Mass, but somehow we can't "judge" Bergoglio to be a heretic. If Bergoglio isn't a manifest heretic, there's no such thing.
4.
[ . . . ]
On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren.
It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in His works and worthy of all praise.
Francis held a May 11 prayer with the Coptic Pope Tawadros in the Vatican. He announced that 21 Copts beheaded in 2015 in Libya would henceforth be included in the Roman (!) Martyrology as "Catholic" saints.
This absurdity is for Francis "a sign of spiritual communion". In the Novus Ordo, the Roman Martyrology is not used anymore.
Francis admitted that the Tawadros Copts are not part of Christ’s Church as he expressed his hope that “the day is drawing near when we will be one in Christ.”
Copts are Monophysites who claim in their prayers that Christ had only "one nature", whereas in reality Christ unites in Himself both, the divine and the human nature.
There's too much handwringing here that comes from the inability to "judge" what kind of heretic Jorge is, but it's all in vain, as we can never get to the bottom of it.That’s my point. The only people who can figure this out are those in the Church. I’m sick and tired of sedes using 3rd-grade logic to argue that laity and simple priests can kick someone out of office for heresy. It’s causing untold division in Tradition and it’s irrationality leads to more and more chaos as the years go by.
That’s my point. The only people who can figure this out are those in the Church. I’m sick and tired of sedes using 3rd-grade logic to argue that laity and simple priests can kick someone out of office for heresy. It’s causing untold division in Tradition and it’s irrationality leads to more and more chaos as the years go by.We don't kick them out, The Holy Ghost does, we just recognize that fact.
And this is precisely the sin that ONLY the church can judge. All that laymen or priests can “judge” is simply that something is not true or anti-catholic or that someone is acting like a heretic and should be avoided/ignored. Everything else, legally and definitively, is handled by Church authorities.
I don't quite understand the contradiction of claiming that we can judge an alleged Ecuмenical Council and the Church's Mass, but somehow we can't "judge" Bergoglio to be a heretic. If Bergoglio isn't a manifest heretic, there's no such thing. When people say that, they're confounding internal forum judgment with judgment of fact, but even the Church doesn't judge the internal forum.
That’s my point. The only people who can figure this out are those in the Church. I’m sick and tired of sedes using 3rd-grade logic to argue that laity and simple priests can kick someone out of office for heresy. It’s causing untold division in Tradition and it’s irrationality leads to more and more chaos as the years go by.
...I’m sick and tired of sedes using 3rd-grade logic to argue that laity and simple priests can kick someone out of office for heresy. It’s causing untold division in Tradition and it’s irrationality leads to more and more chaos as the years go by.
We don't kick them out, The Holy Ghost does, we just recognize that fact.That's not how it works. I've never seen the Holy Ghost tell someone to pack up their bags and leave an building. :laugh1: And that's not in canon law either.
It would be like if we saw some guy blatantly stealing from a store and running out without paying, the store clerks upset that the guy didn't pay for it and saying such, and then being like "nope, we need to wait for the police to catch him and the judge to sentence him for theft before we can recognize that he stole something."Yes, we can recognize that "it appears" the guy stole something illegally. But...we don't know if he stole something because he was a former employee and the owner didn't pay him his final paycheck. We don't know if the guy stole an apple because he was starving. We don't know if he stole because the owner sold him a crappy car and won't give him his $ back.
So the PUBLIC SIN of heresy can be judged only by the Church? If this is what you are saying, then prove it. Show me where the Church teaches that only she can judge the PUBLIC SIN of heresy. And don't show me evidence from Canon Law. This is an issue regarding moral theology.You can do whatever you want as a layman but you have no authority to judge any cleric. Canon law is for "canons" (i.e. churchmen). It is law for the church; and laymen are not part of the church (in the same sense as are religious persons).
So sedevacantists are the reason for the 'untold division'?? Funny stuff. I thought the Resistance development was due to the SSPX meltdown in 2012 and the Fraternity of St. Peter (if that's Tradition) was created because of bishops being consecrated in the SSPX. Good to know sedes are responsible for all of that bedlam.Sedes are responsible for their fair share of division. I never said all. In the grand scheme of things, the new-sspx keeps going left and many sedes keep going right. Extremism on either end is bad.
You can do whatever you want as a layman but you have no authority to judge any cleric.
That’s my point. The only people who can figure this out are those in the Church. I’m sick and tired of sedes using 3rd-grade logic to argue that laity and simple priests can kick someone out of office for heresy. It’s causing untold division in Tradition and it’s irrationality leads to more and more chaos as the years go by.
Then you have absolutely NO business judging that Vatican II has taught heresy and that the New Mass is not Catholic, but displeases God and harms souls. None. Zilch. Zero.
If, however, you have judged these things to be true, then the men who promulgated them cannot be Popes, since it's absolutely impossible for legitimate Popes to teach grave error in an Ecuмenical Council or promulgate a bad Mass.
You have no authority to judge that Vatican II taught heresy or that the Novus Ordo Mass isn't Catholic and pleasing to God. This contradiction for some reason constantly escapes people.:facepalm:
In any case, however, there's no question of judging a cleric. If Bergoglio is a heretic, he's outside the Church.Yes, spiritually speaking. But arguably he retains his govt office.
That's why Bellarmine teaches that it's possible to "judge" a Pope. As per usual, though, you're confusing juridical judgment / sentence with making a judgment.No, i'm the one pointing out the difference between judging error vs judging according to canon law. :confused:
I judge that Bergoglio is an enemy of Tradition. That's a judgment. But it obviously is no juridical judgment.This is EXACTLY what i've been saying.
Then you have absolutely NO business judging that Vatican II has taught heresy and that the New Mass is not Catholic, but displeases God and harms souls. None. Zilch. Zero.:confused: Saying someone retains their human/govt office, even when they've committed/espoused heresy is not a contradiction. It's the basis for sedeprivationism/Fr Chazalism...which you say you agree with.
If, however, you have judged these things to be true, then the men who promulgated them cannot be Popes, since it's absolutely impossible for legitimate Popes to teach grave error in an Ecuмenical Council or promulgate a bad Mass.
That's not how it works. I've never seen the Holy Ghost tell someone to pack up their bags and leave an building. :laugh1: And that's not in canon law either.
Yes, we can recognize that "it appears" the guy stole something illegally. But...we don't know if he stole something because he was a former employee and the owner didn't pay him his final paycheck. We don't know if the guy stole an apple because he was starving. We don't know if he stole because the owner sold him a crappy car and won't give him his $ back.
We don't know anything about the case. We can only judge based on appearances (which is a waste of time), which is superficial and contrary to all civilized legal proceedings and against the virtue of justice. It's the police/legal system which is responsible for investigating and finding fault.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a trained theologian by any stretch.....
You can do whatever you want as a layman but you have no authority to judge any cleric. Canon law is for "canons" (i.e. churchmen). It is law for the church; and laymen are not part of the church (in the same sense as are religious persons).
The second reason your "judgement" means nothing is you have no authority over any other catholic, except your family. Your opinion, however educated and investigated it is, means zilch. You can't subject anyone to your opinion, because no other catholic has to pay attention to you, at all. It would be similar to a some new zealand citizen who files an appeal with the US Supreme Court...it means nothing. A non-citizen, non-lawyer, who files some proceeding with a foreign court....it goes directly into the garbage can. That person has no standing, no rights and no legal cause for the court (nor anyone else) to listen to anything they say.
You have no authority to judge that Vatican II taught heresy or that the Novus Ordo Mass isn't Catholic and pleasing to God. This contradiction for some reason constantly escapes people.
To "kick someone out of office" is a legal process. Because it has to do with their human/govt office. Which is a canon law process. God has already judged them (spiritually) if they are guilty of heresy. But no layman can kick anyone out of office; this is the Church's job, because it's a human office/process.
However, the one making the judgement simply refuses to recognize the heretic as still retaining office.Nope. Only the Church can interpret, inquire and decide canon law.
The question is: do you hold that Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy?
Nope. Only the Church can interpret, inquire and decide canon law.You're also "judging." (If we're calling apprehendimg reality judgment.) You judge that Bergoglio is the Pope and that Michael isn't and that Gregory XVII isn't.
You can privately “judge” all you want, but the moment you apply your judgment to a person, or circuмstances, you’ve overstepped your bounds. Then you’re acting like a Protestant, creating your own interpretation of law, sin, etc. And that’s the definition of chaos.
I’m not judging anything. Church officials have said that pope x is pope. As a catholic, I either obey that judgment or act schismatically. End of story.
I’m not judging anything.
What public sin of manifest formal heresy did he commit and when did he commit it?
What public sin of manifest formal heresy did he commit and when did he commit it?
Which day of the week is it?
John Salza, that you?
Well, I'm not John Salza, but I still would like Catholic Knight to address the question. Who cares who asks it? It's still relevant.
Hmm. I didn't think you were :laugh1:
In any case, I edited my previous post (that you quoted) with one obvious example.
We can determine that V2 popes are heretics. Everyone in Tradition agrees with this, as V1 points out. Where we must draw the line, is in making legal judgments and “throwing people out of office”. As Fr Chazal points out, it’s sufficient to recognize the V2 popes as moral heretics. Sedeprivationism says the same - their spiritual authority is gone.
This is 90% of what’s important anyhow - the lack of spiritual authority. Which all Trads agree on.
Going further, and trying to unravel the temporal/govt aspects is nearly impossible. I’ve never found out how it worked during Arianism and I’m not sure how it works now. Only the future orthodox pope can fix this aspect.
Throwing people out of office and making the temporal aspect of the office some “litmus test” of Traditionalism is a pointless waste of time, causes untold division, and solves nothing.
It is good that you contrast the two elements that we need to consider:
Formal Pope = teaching/governing authority
Material Pope = physically holding onto the office
1983 Canon Law (1917 makes the same distinction using slightly different language):
------------
Can. 194
§1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself [automatically]:
1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.
§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
----------
So, the canon is clearly distinguishing between a de jure (formal) and a de facto (material) loss of office. The automatic/de jure/by-the-law-itself removal is what is referred to as the "formal Papacy." The declared/de facto/must-be-enforced-with-police removal is referred to as the "material Papacy."
A canonically-elected Pope loses his office (formally/de jure/by-the-law-itself) the moment he publicly defects from the Catholic Faith. No "declaration by a competent authority" is needed for anyone to recognize that fact and adjust their life accordingly. In that case, this canonically-elected Pope simply loses all of his authority and his dictates are binding on no one.
If that same canonically-elected Pope refuses to voluntarily vacate the physical office that he sits in, then his removal is only "enforced" by "the declaration of a competent authority." So a group of Cardinals would need to first recognize that 1) the former canonically-elected Pope has lost his office "formally." Then after that "formal loss" is acknowledged, those Cardinals can enforce the removal by calling in the Swiss Guard to physically kick the usurper to the curb.
P.S. Bergoglio is different from the papal claimants preceding him. He was not even canonically-elected, as you can read about at www.antipope.com. He was prophesied by St. Francis of Assisi: https://novusordowatch.org/saint-francis-assisi-prophecy-destroyer/. So none of the material/formal stuff is relevant to Bergoglio. He is simply a usurper and the Antichrist.
Ladislaus, of all people, I wish you could see the value of distinctions and consistency.
The whole point of sedeprivationism, or Fr Chazal's impoundism is the same...which you often advocate...that the spiritual office is impacted immediately by heresy...but the temporal/govt office needs temporal/govt action by the hierarchy.
I hold that a Pope formally deprived of office can make appointments, but has no power / authority to teach or to command. This Pope could also serve as a conduit for jurisdiction. Thus, if a heretical non-Pope appoints a bishop, and the bishop himself has no impediments to exercising the office, the bishop would have ordinary jurisdiction and could formally exercise the office.Thank you. The 'hard line sedes' (i.e. non-una cuм) would disagree, but I agree that this is the only practical solution, and practical approach.
OK, if that's what you mean, I have no problem with it. At the same time, it wouldn't be schismatic for someone to have a different opinion, where the "spiritual" office (formal aspect of office) would also cause the evacuation of the temporal office. I think some the terms are a little bit confused, especially when you equate the power to govern somehow with the material aspect of the office. If by "governing" you mean the ability to make appointments, etc., then I don't disagree. If by governing you mean something closer to jurisdiction or the power to command, then I would have to disagree. Perhaps that's the root of the misunderstanding, terms.Would you consider it heretical to say such a pope didn’t have authority to teach but that he still did have authority to command? Why or why not?
I hold that a Pope formally deprived of office can make appointments, but has no power / authority to teach or to command. This Pope could also serve as a conduit for jurisdiction. Thus, if a heretical non-Pope appoints a bishop, and the bishop himself has no impediments to exercising the office, the bishop would have ordinary jurisdiction and could formally exercise the office.
Would you consider it heretical to say such a pope didn’t have authority to teach but that he still did have authority to command? Why or why not?
Cardinal Siri died in 1989; John Paul II was elected in 1978. If Cardinal Siri was the validly elected pope, then the most we can say is that Card. Siri was cowardly for not defending his papacy in light of the usurpers trying to steal it from him. How is there any other conclusion? I know the contrarians will argue: "But hold on a minute Bryan, the enemies threatened to kill Siri and start World War III, blah blah." So what! Cardinal Siri was still a coward for not standing up and defending the papacy in the face of evil. Those who promote the Siri thesis must prove us wrong, how is there any other conclusion? I personally think the Siri thesis to be so laughable, almost beyond belief. I am surprised that so many people hold it.
If Siri was elected at one of the conclaves, which there is evidence of, he definitely fell from the pontificate upon embracing the Novus Ordo religion.A few pictures of Siri saying (what looks to be) the new mass is not enough evidence that he "embraced the novus ordo". Heck, we even have pictures of St Padre Pio saying (what looks to be) the new mass. But we know, by way of ample eyewitness accounts, that St Padre Pio DID NOT say the new mass, it was only 'ad populam'. Context matters. A picture is hardly proof; we need more.
I don't see how Siri could have had a chance of being pope, given that he did not accept being the Pope. One is not forced to be a pope if elected. If an elector refuses, as is his right, then he cannot be said to be pope.
If Siri was elected at one of the conclaves, which there is evidence of, he definitely fell from the pontificate upon embracing the Novus Ordo religion.
According to the theory, though, he did accept. Paul Williams (the former FBI consultant) indicated that he accepted and took the name Gregory XVII in the 1958 conclave..
If Paul Williams hates the Church and is a super-leftist, then his Siri claim is even MORE credible, because he has no Trad-agenda, he doesn't care about V2 or the new mass. He has no reason to make the Siri facts known, or lie about it. He is truly a third-party observer, with no agenda...the most reliable type of witness.
Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226): “There will be an uncanonically elected Pope who will cause a great schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissensions and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)But who is anti-christ? The dimonds seem to think JP2. And I wonder what exactly it means by shortened days...
But who is anti-christ? The dimonds seem to think JP2. And I wonder what exactly it means by shortened days...
But who is anti-christ? The dimonds seem to think JP2. And I wonder what exactly it means by shortened days...The AntiChrist = end-times Antipope of the Counterfeit Catholic Church = "the man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2) = "the False Prophet" (Apocalypse 13) = "the little horn" (Daniel 7 and 8) = "the eighth" (Apocalypse 17) = "Antiochus Epiphanes" (1 Maccabees) = Jorge Mario Bergoglio
The AntiChrist = end-times Antipope of the Counterfeit Catholic Church = "the man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2) = "the False Prophet" (Apocalypse 13) = "the little horn" (Daniel 7 and 8) = "the eighth" (Apocalypse 17) = "Antiochus Epiphanes" (1 Maccabees) = Jorge Mario BergoglioWhen did Bergoglio fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2 according to you? Also, do you have any evidence he is of Jєωιѕн descent? When did he preach the doctrine of the antichrist?
Bergoglio was not canonically-elected according Universi Dominici Gregis, the Church law governing papal elections. You can read the details at www.antipope.com, if you are interested.
As St. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2, there will be "powerful delusion"/"operation of error" which God sends to those "not receiving the love of the truth." That is, Jorge Mario Bergoglio will deceive all those who, thinking he is the actual Pope of the actual Roman Catholic Church, will follow him over the moral and doctrinal cliff into the Abyss. Synodality is the edge of that cliff. "Consenting to iniquity" is to teach that repentance is no longer necessary for those who choose to break God's Commandments. Rather, the Synodalists teach that God wants us to now preach "acceptance" and "affirmation" not repentance. That teaching is AntiChrist, and the pinnacle of that teaching will happen with Bergoglio.
When did Bergoglio fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2 according to you? Also, do you have any evidence he is of Jєωιѕн descent? When did he preach the doctrine of the antichrist?
It makes so much more sense for JP2 to be the antichrist when his main teaching was that every man is Christ.
Bergoglio was not canonically-elected according Universi Dominici Gregis, the Church law governing papal elections. You can read the details at www.antipope.com, if you are interested.
You can read the details at www.antipope.com, if you are interested.
Major Premise:
A Roman Pontiff must die before a lawful election of a new Roman Pontiff can be held.
We can top right there at the Major Premise, since it's demonstrably false.
Even Wojtyla mentioned the resignation scenario.
We can stop right there at the Major Premise, since it's demonstrably false.From Universi Dominici Gregis:
Even Wojtyla mentioned the resignation scenario.
This is the WORST argument I've ever seen for Bennyvacantism.
Clearly the intent of the passage about the funeral rites being complete means that they have to be completed in the case of a deceased pope, not in the case of resignation. You're trying to be a literalist ... except there's one major problem. Latin doesn't have a definite article, so the word "the" in "the deceased Pope" isn't actually there. In Latin, "the" or "a" would be derived from context. Latin could just as easily be read as "the funeral rites of A deceased pope" (and that is clearly the sense here, as Wojtyla mentioned the resignation scenario earlier in UDG).
And it's even more credible because he seems to mention this in passing and does not put any emphasis on it as being particularly important ... since he doesn't really understand or care about the theological ramifications, viewing the papacy to be similar to any political office..
What makes his claim even more credible is where he adds the detail that Siri took the papal name Gregory XVII. If he was just making something up, where did he get that particular detail. Also, Williams was capitalizing on his credibility due to his background, which makes it unlikely that he'd make something up just to mention it in passing that might compromise his credibility.
There will be an uncanonically elected Pope who will cause a great schism,This doesn't apply to Francis because the "schism" (i.e. V2) existed long before he was even a bishop. So it either applies 1) to John23/Paul6, due to Siri being the actually, canonically-elected pope....or,
From Universi Dominici Gregis::jester: No comment on the antichrist's stupid "law."
77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.
Get it? Even it there is "a resignation," all of "the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election" (such as death, funeral and burial) "must be observed in full."
And what happens if those "dispositions" are not "observed in full?" UDG tells us:
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
Get it? "Null and void." No "declaration" needed. Anyone with a eyes and a brain can recognize the truth and act as their God-given reason tells them to, i.e. that Bergoglio is a usurper with no authority over the spiritual lives of Catholics.
:jester: No comment on the antichrist's stupid "law."
Anyone with eyes and a brain can also see that the man who gave communion to the founder of a Protestant sect, denied the resurrection of the body, prayed in a mosque, said it is legitimate to read the OT so it doesn't point to Christ, that eastern schismatics need not accept Vatican I, preached heresy on and on and on, is the same kind of usurper as Bergoglio.
Pius XII's papal election law, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, allows a papal election to be held ONLY AFTER the death, funeral, and burial of the previous Pope. It does not differ in essentials from Universi Dominici Gregis.
:facepalm: ... this clearly means that the funeral rites for a deceased pope should be observed before the conclave gets underway. If no deceased pope, then no funeral rites. There is no one who can force a man to remain pope if he wills to resign.
I am not saying that a Pope cannot resign if he wants to. Of course, he can resign. Why do you keep saying that?
You seem to think that a papal resignation automatically triggers a papal election. You are incorrect about that, as the law of papal elections makes clear.
Even if a Pope chooses to resign (which he can do), the papal election law must still be followed precisely. And that law requires the death, funeral, and burial of the Pope BEFORE a new election can happen.
Even if a Pope chooses to resign (which he can do), the papal election law must still be followed precisely. And that law requires the death, funeral, and burial of the Pope BEFORE a new election can happen.:laugh1: I think you're missing a few procedures. I'm sure there's a sub-category of regs which deal with the unique situation of a resignation.
:laugh1: I think you're missing a few procedures. I'm sure there's a sub-category of regs which deal with the unique situation of a resignation.
Didn't +Benedict also update the conclave laws, after JP2? I'm sure the +Benedict "legal team" looked all this over. It's not that complicated (i.e. If a pope resigns, the requirements for a death/burial are ignored. Move on to next procedure.)
:laugh1: I think you're missing a few procedures. I'm sure there's a sub-category of regs which deal with the unique situation of a resignation.
Didn't +Benedict also update the conclave laws, after JP2? I'm sure the +Benedict "legal team" looked all this over. It's not that complicated (i.e. If a pope resigns, the requirements for a death/burial are ignored. Move on to next procedure.)
If you look at the Latin, there's no definite article, so it could just as well read, "with the funeral rites of a deceased pope completed" ... along those lines, meaning, in the event of a deceased pope (vs. one who resigned), the funeral rites should be completed before the conclave.
Found this in about 5 minutes...
+JP2's Universi Dominici Gregis
77.
I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.
+Benedict's Normas Nonnullas
No. 37.
"I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, fifteen full days must elapse before the Conclave begins, in order to await those who are absent; nonetheless, the College of Cardinals is granted the faculty to move forward the start of the Conclave if it is clear that all the Cardinal electors are present; they can also defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election."
As I demonstrated in my last post, you have the wrong model in your head. You think that the Apostolic See is ONLY made up of the Roman Pontiff. You are incorrect in that assumption, according to 1983 Canon law:
Can. 361 In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words.
The Apostolic See is not "lawfully vacant" until the death of the Roman Pontiff as UDG 14 states:
14. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, at the death of the Pope all the heads of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia — the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefects, the Archbishop Presidents, together with the members of those Dicasteries — cease to exercise their office.
Here is Pastor Bonus, 6:
Art. 6 — On the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office. The camerlengo of the Roman Church and the major penitentiary are excepted, who expedite ordinary business and refer to the College of Cardinals those things which would have been referred to the Supreme Pontiff.
Search Pastor Bonus all you want. You will not find that upon "resignation" of the Pontiff that the Curial officials cease from their office. Only upon the death of the Pontiff do the curial officials lose their offices. Therefore, until the death of the Pontiff, the Apostolic See (which includes the Curia according to Canon 361) cannot possibly be lawfully vacant.
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus.html
JP2's Universi Dominici Gregis77.
I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.
I can't believe that you persist in clinging to this nonsense. Why don't you just argue that Ratzinger didn't properly resign like the other Bennyvacantists do? Even they would repudiate this stuff. It's just an absurd denial of common sense, common sense being that you only need funeral rites if a pope has died, not if he's resigned.
Angelus,
I'm not weighing in on this, but as a casual observer, it doesn't appear to me that you're dealing with the language of:
If the pope must be dead, how can a vacancy occur if the pope merely resigns? Your position makes the "if" in "if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff" an absurdity and worse, since you say it's the case that the See couldn't become "vacant" upon a papal resignation, does it not?
I persist in the truth because Bergoglio is the non-canonically-elected destroyer that St. Francis of Assisi is referring to. I am hoping the everyone starts paying closer attention to him and his deceptions.
Yes, I agree with you that the problems did not start with Bergoglio. But he is the end point, the culmination of all of the errors that traditional Catholics recognize. And the methodology of the Synodal Church is purely Antichristian.
Why spend so much time talking about people and events that took place 60+ years ago? The prophesied Antichrist is here and in the news everyday. He's the guy who "looks like a lamb and speaks like a dragon" (Apoc. 13:11). He's "the bishop dressed in white."
I persist in the truth because Bergoglio is the non-canonically-elected destroyer that St. Francis of Assisi is referring to. I am hoping the everyone starts paying closer attention to him and his deceptions.
Because a papal resignation creates a PARTIAL, but incomplete vacancy. The Roman Pontiff is the main part of the Apostolic See, and, so, when he resigns, it creates a partial vacancy. But, as the rest of the quote, says, that type of partial vacancy (one resulting from a resignation) does not annul the need to follow all of the procedures in the papal election law. In that case, the curial officials still act in the place of the Roman Pontiff (in a limited way) until the Pontiff dies. At that point, upon the retired Pontiff's death, the Curial officials lose their offices (except for Camerlengo) and an election is held to elect a new Roman Pontiff.You'd have to quote directly to prove this.
You'd have to quote directly to prove this.
Because a papal resignation creates a PARTIAL, but incomplete vacancy. The Roman Pontiff is the main part of the Apostolic See, and, so, when he resigns, it creates a partial vacancy. But, as the rest of the quote, says, that type of partial vacancy (one resulting from a resignation) does not annul the need to follow all of the procedures in the papal election law. In that case, the curial officials still act in the place of the Roman Pontiff (in a limited way) until the Pontiff dies. At that point, upon the retired Pontiff's death, the Curial officials lose their offices (except for Camerlengo) and an election is held to elect a new Roman Pontiff.
I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.Posted for the 3rd time. Codes of canon law recognize a lawful resignation. Regs of conclave recognize canon law. Ergo, a resignation is part of conclave law.
Posted for the 3rd time. Codes of canon law recognize a lawful resignation. Regs of conclave recognize canon law. Ergo, a resignation is part of conclave law.
The "resignation of the Roman Pontiff" does not trigger the automatic resignation or loss of office of the other officials who make up the Apostolic See.You've yet to cite any regs, canon law or conclave law, to support this.
And the only way for all of the offices of the Apostolic See to be vacant (according to the laws that I quoted in my previous post) is that the Pope must die.Yeah, you're missing some laws/regs.
You've yet to cite any regs, canon law or conclave law, to support this.
Yeah, you're missing some laws/regs.
Something which is this legally complex cannot be read in isolation. There are often multiple "legal branches" which one must flip to, in order to understand exceptions (i.e. papal resignations). You're simply reading the "main doc" dealing with a papal death, and you expect it to explain resignations. It won't.
You say that I have not cited "any regs, canon law or conclave law." Yet, I wrote a very detailed post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-why-don't-you-get-behind-father-chazal's-sede-impoundism/msg890832/#msg890832) doing what you say I did not do. Here is the link to that post, in case you missed it. But here is the relevant part, again, to your question about the trigger for "a vacancy in the Apostolic See." I said the following:Do you also accept the 1983 code's teaching that non-catholics may receive communion or are you a hypocrite? The same teaching is also in V2, the CCC and a plethora of acts by your "popes."
3. How does the Apostolic See become vacant? Does it become vacant on the "resignation" of the Roman Pontiff. No, as UDG 14 and Pastor Bonus 6 state, the Curial offices of the Apostolic See only become vacant upon the death of the Roman Pontiff:
UDG 14. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, at the death of the Pope all the heads of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia — the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefects, the Archbishop Presidents, together with the members of those Dicasteries — cease to exercise their office.
PB Art. 6 — On the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office. The camerlengo of the Roman Church and the major penitentiary are excepted, who expedite ordinary business and refer to the College of Cardinals those things which would have been referred to the Supreme Pontiff.
Notice that there is no mention that upon a "resignation," the Curial offices "cease from their office." No, only upon "the death of the Pope" do those offices become vacant.
Here, I quoted two Apostolic Constitutions (Universi Dominici Gregis and Pastor Bonus). Both of them explain that only upon "the death of the Pope" will the "heads of the Discasteries of the Roman Curia- Cardinal Secretary of State and Cardinal Prefects..." cease "to exercise their office." These Curial Officials mentioned cannot "exercise their office" if the office is vacant, right? It would no longer be "their office" if it was vacant. Therefore, a papal resignation, which obviously can happen, does not trigger the loss of office (or "vacancy") in the offices of those Curial Officials. Only the "death of the Pope" triggers the vacancy in those Curial Offices.
And, as I stated in the same post, Canon 861 (1983 Code) defines the offices that legally make up the Apostolic See:
Canon 361 In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words.
So, when the Pope resigns, the Apostolic See is not yet vacant. It only become "lawfully vacant" upon "the death of the Pope." And a papal election cannot take place until AFTER the Apostolic See is "lawfully vacant." What part of what I have cited is still not clear to you?
Do you also accept the 1983 code's teaching that non-catholics may receive communion or are you a hypocrite? The same teaching is also in V2, the CCC and a plethora of acts by your "popes."
Can't wait to read your answer tomorrow.
Pope Celestine resigned in 1294. He died 2 years later in 1296. Pope Boniface VIII was elected also in 1294....long before Pope Celestine died.
So, when the Pope resigns, the Apostolic See is not yet vacant. It only become "lawfully vacant" upon "the death of the Pope."You still haven't posted any actual evidence for this. You keep posting regs related to when a pope dies.
Do you mean Canon 912 (1983 Code)?You're seriously playing the expert on canon law and you can't find this notorious canon? It's canon 844. I'll even provide you with the rest of the "magisterium" of your "popes."
Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Quilibet baptizatus, qui iure non prohibeatur, admitti potest et debet ad sacram communionem.
Which is essentially identical to Canon 853 (1917 Code)?
Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Quilibet baptizatus qui iure non prohibetur, admitti potest et debet ad sacram communionem.
The only difference between the two formulations is the use of the subjunctive mood versus the indicative mood of the Latin verb prohibeo (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prohibeo#Latin).
You still haven't posted any actual evidence for this. You keep posting regs related to when a pope dies.
You still haven't posted any actual evidence for this. You keep posting regs related to when a pope dies.
You're seriously playing the expert on canon law and you can't find this notorious canon? It's canon 844. I'll even provide you with the rest of the "magisterium" of your "popes."
https://tinyurl.com/mhfm-communion-non-catholics
Canon 844.4, 1983 Code of Canon Law:
“If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.”[6]
Canon 844.3, 1983 Code of Canon Law:
“Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.”[7]
Vatican II docuмent, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27:
“Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of the sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”[2]
John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 1401):
“… Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church…”[4]
I repeat, do you accept the solemn, constant, universal teaching of your sect and its canon law that non-Catholics may receive Holy Communion or are you a hypocrite?
Nope. Only the Church can interpret, inquire and decide canon law.
You can privately “judge” all you want, but the moment you apply your judgment to a person, or circuмstances, you’ve overstepped your bounds. Then you’re acting like a Protestant, creating your own interpretation of law, sin, etc. And that’s the definition of chaos.
I’m not judging anything. Church officials have said that pope x is pope. As a catholic, I either obey that judgment or act schismatically. End of story.
I’m not opposed to sedevacantism (ie Fr Chazal's sede-impoundism or sede-privationism) but there are limits to what laity/priests can decide. Many of you go far, far beyond those limits. That’s the problem.