Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 41435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LaCosaNostra

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Reputation: +4/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #345 on: May 30, 2023, 02:45:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #346 on: May 30, 2023, 03:08:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 would be helpful if you would describe what your own definition of the 'conciliar church' is exactly. Maybe you have already done so and I've missed it. Keep in mind that those of us who follow the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre do believe that the Church is occupied by a Modernist sect. If you do not believe that the Catholic Church is currently occupied by a Modernist sect, then please do say so.

    Those few of us here who are not sedevacantists still do, for the most part, believe that the True Church is in Rome. But we still see that she is, unfortunately, occupied. And remember that it wasn't Archbishop Lefebvre who came up with the phrase 'conciliar church.' But the phrase does describe the situation of the Crisis in the Church quite well, though rather too simply. 'Conciliar church' does of course require a further definition.
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46925
    • Reputation: +27797/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #347 on: May 30, 2023, 07:49:39 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    What an absurd logical nonsequitur.

    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.  They would think it to be some depraved Protestant sect.  And that's how most of the faithful become Traditional Catholics.  It isn't because of some deep theological analysis of Vatican II or the New Mass.  It's because their sensus Catholicus finds the pre-Vatican II Church and the Conciliar Church to be two completely different entities.  God doesn't require the faithful to have advanced degrees in theology to be able to identify the Church.  And that is where, as Vatican I teaches, private judgment does play a role in the assent of faith, in the preliminary assessment of whether the Church has the authority of Christ.  But the faithful recognize that Bergoglio's is not the Voice of the Shepherd.

    You did not answer the question of whether you are either Salza or Siscoe.

    If you think that Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio are Catholics and that Traditional Catholics are not, then your Catholic sense has been thoroughly warped by your faulty core principles.

    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.

    By your principles, those excommunicated by Nestorius before his official removal from office by Rome would have been outside the Church, while Nestorius remained inside the Church.  Ooops.  Pope St. Celestine taught otherwise, that true orthodox Catholics could not be removed by Nestorius from the moment he began to preach heresy (years before he was formally removed).  He was, according to the Pope, at that time in a state of "excommunicandus" and therefore suspended, in a state similar to what Father Chazal describes in his ecclesiology.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #348 on: May 30, 2023, 08:30:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Whatever happened to the Arian usurpers after the Arian Crisis ended? I mean bishops who were in control of sees? We don't really have a lot of information about that.

    I don't recall that St. Athanasius ever said that the Arian bishops were not actually bishops (during the Crisis) or that they did not have jurisdiction. If this had been an important factor for St. Athanasius, I would hope that there would be a record of it.
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline LaCosaNostra

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +4/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #349 on: May 30, 2023, 09:46:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • What an absurd logical nonsequitur.

    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, ) 


    Quote
    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. 

    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.


    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12476
    • Reputation: +7929/-2450
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #350 on: May 30, 2023, 09:51:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Our Lady of Lasalette said “the church will be in eclipse”.  The V2 church isn’t the True Faith. 

    Offline LaCosaNostra

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +4/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #351 on: May 30, 2023, 10:02:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Our Lady of Lasalette said “the church will be in eclipse”.  The V2 church isn’t the True Faith.

    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.  

    Offline LaCosaNostra

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +4/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #352 on: May 30, 2023, 10:43:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Our Lady of Lasalette said “the church will be in eclipse”.  

    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:


    Quote
    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!

    Nothing about Rome losing the faith and becoming the seat of Antichrist, or about the Church being eclipsed, in the original approved message. 
     




    Offline trento

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 814
    • Reputation: +239/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #353 on: May 30, 2023, 11:26:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
     

    Yes, unfortunately Archbishop Lefebvre also quoted the same words during his Consecration sermon.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46925
    • Reputation: +27797/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #354 on: May 31, 2023, 05:29:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
     

    No, but Cardinal Ciappi, who read the Third Secret, stated that it refers to an apostasy that begins at the top.  Padre Pio told Father Amorth that the Third Secret deals with the infiltration of the Church by Masonry (such as the Sons of Italy ... hmmm) and the establishment of a Counter Church.  Sister Lucy said that the Secret had to be revealed by about 1960 because it would become much clearer then.  We know that the Masons have openly stated that their goal was the takeover of the papacy, where Pope Leo XIII saw this in his famous vision, referring in his subsequent extended Exorcism prayer to the Masons attempts to take over the papacy, etc.  Catholic prophecy is filled with predictions of an Antipope, a Counter Church, an Eclipse of the Church, an Apostasy ... followed by a subsequent restoration of the Church.  When we see the destruction that has resulted directly from Vatican II, only an idiot or someone of bad will cannot connect the dots here.  Which one are you?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46925
    • Reputation: +27797/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #355 on: May 31, 2023, 05:33:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

    Hogwash.  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.  It replaces the requirement to objectively adhere to the Catholic faith with a subjectivized / phenomenological sincerity and intent to believe.  This leads to Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, all the evils of Vatican II.

    Consistent with this, Jorge recently denied verbatim the explicit teaching of the Council of Trent that schismatics cannot be saints (cannot be saved) even if they shed their blood for Christ, by declaring the Coptic schismatics to be saints and having them added to the Roman martyrology.  He openly rejects EENS dogma, as have his predecessors.  Jorge has also taken it to the next level.  While his predecessors subjectivized dogmatic theology, Jorge has set about subjectivizing moral theology, thus allowing adulterers to receive "Holy Communion".



    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46925
    • Reputation: +27797/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #356 on: May 31, 2023, 05:47:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

    You reduce the Church's indefectibility to simply maintaining some of the core "de fide" dogmas.  As I said, your assertion is hogwash, since the Vatican II sect deny EENS dogma ... openly and consistently.

    But it's absurd to reduce the Church to the 1% of its teaching that is strictly de fide, as the Church consists not only of de fide teaching, but exercises a Magisterium well outside of that, offers Public Worship to God, and regulates the moral lives of the faithful and their cult of the saints.  This Conciliar abomination has replaced the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with a Protestant abomination that Luther would reject.  It has replaced the Offertory of the Mass with a blasphemous prayer from the тαℓмυd, redefined the Mass, and stripped out most references to the Holy Sacrifices.  It has flooded the Conciliar "altars" with a parade of dubious (if not absurd and scandalous "saints").  To claim that this the Conciliar Church is still the Catholic Church because it hasn't OFFICIALLY repudiated any de fide dogmas is utterly absurd ... even though, as I said, it has in fact done so, clearly and consistently rejecting the thrice-defined dogma that there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church ... by redefining Church.

    Catholic Encyclopedia on the Indefectibility of the Church:
    Quote
    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.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46925
    • Reputation: +27797/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #357 on: May 31, 2023, 05:51:37 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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:

    This Bergoglian church is absolutely unrecognizable as the same institution from before 1958.  I'm not sure what you're smoking if you don't see the radical change.  Even the radicals admit this transformation, with Ratzinger once famously having referred to V2 as the 1789 of the Church ... and you have to be in complete denial to pretend it didn't happen.  Simply because you claim that there's a material continuity does not equate to these two Churches having the same marks.  Your ridiculously reduce the Church to its material continuity ... which I also reject, as I hold that Siri was the rightfully-elected Pope in 1958.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46925
    • Reputation: +27797/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #358 on: May 31, 2023, 06:04:30 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • “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, ) 

    This is laughable, since this is precisely the core thing that Vatican II rejects.  But, aside from that, you again try to reduce visibility to some guy walking around Rome in a white cassock.  Besides that, where to we find "sanctity" in this Conciliar Church?

    That's only one aspect of visibility, with profession of the truth faith, communion in the same Sacraments, etc. all being aspects of visibility.

    With your reduction of visibility to the material hierarchy ... to the exclusion of these other aspects ... the Church would defect during any given interregnum, and much more during a lengthy interregnum.  We've had Antipopes usurp the Holy See before, have had the Great Western schism, where Catholic were in doubt about where this "visible" Church was, have had nearly the entire episcopate go Arian, during which crisis St. Athanasius made his famous statement about the visible Church being potentially reduced to a handful of faithful.  As I pointed out before, the ad absurdum of your principles would have had the True Church becoming Arian and would have put the orthodox bishops, priest, and faithful OUTSIDE the Catholic Church had the Arians succeeded in getting one of their own on the See of Peter.

    What if bishops like St. Athanasius and others who went around consecrating parallel Catholic bishops for the sees that had been usurped by Arians?  Were they schismatics also?  What of St. Vincent Ferrer, who adhered to an Antipope?  There have been many Antipopes, some of whom were accepted as Popes for some time in Church history.  Where the material Church resided has been in doubt numerous times in Church history, and so it is again today.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46925
    • Reputation: +27797/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #359 on: May 31, 2023, 06:06:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • “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, ) 

    It is striking that you cite this, because Vatican II rejects this entirely.  Vatican II redefines the Church as extending well outside the "visible boundaries" of the Church and explicitly says that it is NOT only "in her and by her" that men find "sanctity and salvation."  Rejection if this is at the core of Vatican II and all its errors.