Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on December 27, 2023, 08:31:22 AM
-
Sedevacantism without "conclavism" is completely useless and superfluous.
It's like after a complete collapse scenario (no grid electricity, Internet, public utilities anywhere), a complete Mad Max scenario, having some survivors "pro Internet" and others being "anti Internet". Now if a group of survivors was trying to actively rebuild electronics and computers from the ground up, and actively working to rebuild the Internet, that would be something. But that would be the equivalent of "conclavist sedevacantism".
At least the conclavists are consistent, and giving some MEANING to their sedevacantism. They are trying to "do something about it". To bring the theory into the practical realm, so it has SOME relevance or reason to actually hold the position.
My position is that sedevacantism, unless you add conclavism, is no better and usually worse than "plain vanilla" Traditional Catholicism. It adds nothing, and solves nothing. All it adds is another point of division, another reason for parishioners to stay home on Sunday when there's not a "sede" group chapel within driving distance.
Yes, many sedes are more practical than that (they aren't "dogmatic" about it; they are willing to attend SSPX for example) but why start a movement like "sedevacantism" when a certain percent are going to be dogmatic about it (unnecessarily divisive and condemnatory) and/or end up Home Aloners?
Zero upsides, nothing but downsides!
Would you take a medicine that has no chance of helping you with anything, but has a 30% chance of killing you? Neither would I.
-
Matthew, the "point" of sedevacantism / sedeplenism (and sedeimpoundism) is that it preserves Traditional Catholic ecclesiology. What's the point of trying to preserve the Traditional faith when one throws Traditional ecclesiology, the very foundations of the Traditional faith, under the bus in order to do it?
Yes, practically speaking it makes no difference. But, if Bishop Williamson emphasized one thing at STAS, it's that ideas matter, theology matters, and doctrine matters. It's been said repeatedly that Traditional Catholicism isn't just about the Tridentine Mass, but it's about the faith, and many Traditional Catholics (certain varieties of R&R, and certain articulations of R&R) run about as contrary to the Traditional Catholic faith as one can get without becoming openly Old Catholic. Many varieties of Old Catholics hold to the Catholic view of the Sacraments and still use the Tridentine Mass, but they gut the Catholic faith, and many R&R are a hair's breadth away from the same thing.
-
The comfortability of an outcome does not add or takeaway from its legitimacy. I myself am not even a full sedevacantist (I think there are better places to focus our attention) however your argument is pointless.
-
I don't understand the thousands of threads about the heresies of Bergoglio and related compromises by the SSPX if there is salvation still to be had there. Then we are admonished to be in communion with the Bergoglian anti-church through the SSPX rather than "stay home". This R & R position no longer makes sense to me.
-
1. It has nothing to do with comfort. No one is "comfortable". So that argument is neither here nor there.
2. To Ladislaus points --
Perhaps it would help if I clarified.
I'm not against SedevacantISTs, and even the position per se. It's "Sedevacantism, Inc." that I have a problem with. Making it an "identity", limiting which Tridentine Masses one can attend, suggesting that "Traditional Catholic Singles" isn't enough; we need a "Sedevacantist singles" website. That kind of thing.
Sedevacantism is one explanation for the Crisis in the Church. It is a personal opinion. Yes, we can/should discuss and have strong personal opinions, as if we care about the Church (imagine that!). But we need to draw the line and limit ourselves. In the end, it's ONLY a personal opinion and we should all go to Mass together afterward -- a good Tridentine Mass with a 100% certainly ordained priest, formed TRADITIONALLY (at a Traditional seminary). Just like Traditional Catholics all over the world have done since 1969.
Sedevacantism used to be a personal opinion. It needs to go back to being one. People need to stop caring whether a chapel is "sede" or not. Unless they are conclavist and have elected a "pope" or something, it shouldn't be an issue one way or the other.
-
This R & R position no longer makes sense to me.
The very act of submission to the pretended authority of an openly heretical enemy (i.e., Jorge Bergoglio) 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.)
At the 50 minutes and 40 seconds mark of the Jeff Rense Show here (https://mediaarchives.gsradio.net/rense/special/rense_100623_hr3.mp3), Jeff ends the show by asking Fr. Paul Kramer about the coming schism. Fr. Kramer proceeds with speaking about the three different camps that will result. He calls “Recognize and Resist” a “diabolical error”. Fr. Kramer is not condemning the “Recognize and Resist” doctrine per se; rather, he condemns it at this point in time in history because it is being applied to an antipope, Jorge Bergoglio. You cannot “recognize” an antipope.
-
The Traditionalist clergy is to blame.
They are the ones who condemn R&R, Sedecantism, Una cuм, etc.
They hate each other and expect the faithful to do the same.
If they taught the faithful that explanations to the Crisis are merely theories, then people would not worry about the "Traditionalist political parties".
-
Making it an "identity", limiting which Tridentine Masses one can attend, suggesting that "Traditional Catholic Singles" isn't enough; we need a "Sedevacantist singles" website. That kind of thing.
Exactly. It's basically an extension of the fight between the old-sspx vs The Nine. It's american corporatism, played out in the religious realm. They both want a monopoly on Traditionism. Is this fight even a big deal outside of America?
The Traditionalist clergy is to blame.
They are the ones who condemn R&R, Sedecantism, Una cuм, etc.
They hate each other and expect the faithful to do the same.
If they taught the faithful that explanations to the Crisis are merely theories, then people would not worry about the "Traditionalist political parties".
1000% right.
-
1. It has nothing to do with comfort. No one is "comfortable". So that argument is neither here nor there.
2. To Ladislaus points --
Perhaps it would help if I clarified.
I'm not against SedevacantISTs, and even the position per se. It's "Sedevacantism, Inc." that I have a problem with. Making it an "identity", limiting which Tridentine Masses one can attend, suggesting that "Traditional Catholic Singles" isn't enough; we need a "Sedevacantist singles" website. That kind of thing.
Sedevacantism is one explanation for the Crisis in the Church. It is a personal opinion. Yes, we can/should discuss and have strong personal opinions, as if we care about the Church (imagine that!). But we need to draw the line and limit ourselves. In the end, it's ONLY a personal opinion and we should all go to Mass together afterward -- a good Tridentine Mass with a 100% certainly ordained priest, formed TRADITIONALLY (at a Traditional seminary). Just like Traditional Catholics all over the world have done since 1969.
Sedevacantism used to be a personal opinion. It needs to go back to being one. People need to stop caring whether a chapel is "sede" or not. Unless they are conclavist and have elected a "pope" or something, it shouldn't be an issue one way or the other.
The identity of the Roman Pontiff is not an opinion. It is of paramount importance. It is a dogma (ex cathedra! ;)) that it is necessary for salvation to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff (a picture in the vestibule isn’t sufficient).
I agree we should draw the line and limit ourselves. As can be seen in your forum, the rabid anti-sede recognize and resisters are actually willing to DENY the DOGMA of the Indefectibility of the Catholic Church in order to keep their figure head Pope in place. Talk about crossing the line!
we should all go to Mass together afterward -- a good Tridentine Mass with a 100% certainly ordained priest, formed TRADITIONALLY (at a Traditional seminary).
Why are these important? How have you concluded that these are absolutely essential to Catholicism but somehow the Pope is totally meaningless (if not in theory, at least in practice). Someone can turn back around and say well this is just your opinion that these things are important, just like how you say the importance of the identity of the Pope is just a side issue with minimal weight.
The Papacy, which was Divinely instituted by Christ, the rock and foundation of the Church, doesn’t matter in effect and it’s just your opinion and we can all get along without him. That completely runs contrary to Tradition. The hallmark of a Catholic is his submission to the Pope.
it shouldn't be an issue one way or the other.
The Papacy is irrelevant to Catholicism said no Catholic ever.
It’s not just about the isolated question surrounding the Pope. This topic reaches so much further. Depending on how one answers this fundamental question will dictate their beliefs about the Church as a whole; her nature, essence. Some users on this platform insist that Bergoglio is the Pope which causes them to conclude that in fact the Church and her teaching authority is capable of becoming corrupt in faith and morals. I would never attend Mass with people who believe those egregious heresies and blasphemies. We can’t act side by side because we have SUBSTANTIALLY different beliefs about the Catholic Church. Differing beliefs that simply can’t be ignored for the sake of false unity. I will not sacrifice the Church’s teaching concerning the Indefectibility of the Roman See to “Unite the Clans”. These are non negotiable. Saints have sacrificed their lives to defend the divine rights of Peter and his successors.
-
Exactly. It's basically an extension of the fight between the old-sspx vs The Nine. It's american corporatism, played out in the religious realm. They both want a monopoly on Traditionism. Is this fight even a big deal outside of America?
1000% right.
I live in Austria now. It’s a big deal here but not to the same extent as in America only because traditionalism is so much smaller here and the population as a whole couldn’t care less about religion.
I go to a former SSPX priest in Wigratzbad, Germany, right next to the FSSP seminary. They view us the same way the American factions do.
-
I agree with so many posts here, including Matthews. If all the world’s valid Catholic bishops (Latin rite, Coptic, Byzantine, etc) held special meetings every year and had arrived at the conclusion that a non-Catholic could not be a valid pope, I believe they would have the right to reconstitute the Church’s hierarchy. Under the situation of a universal acceptance by the world’s bishops, I believe this would be a great solution to the problem. For this to come close to happening, the Traditionalist bishops would have to create a united front. As someone else pointed out, they are all too busy trying to monopolize Tradition and create more and more factions. This seems to prolong the crisis.
The crisis is only getting worse and worse. They changed the doctrines, rites, sacraments and now they are becoming less subtle. The end game is a modernist one world religion that is acceptably fitted into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and a one world authoritative governing body. It’s hard to not see that. The cardinals that Bergoglio has put in place ensure that this will come about.
Meanwhile, Traditionalist Latin rite groups squabble about who is right.
A good listening to Bishop Puvarunas’ youtube conference “objections to sedevacantism” will reveal that he is on board with what seems to be a solution to the empty chair of Peter. Have a good listen.
-
The Papacy, which was Divinely instituted by Christ, the rock and foundation of the Church, doesn’t matter in effect and it’s just your opinion and we can all get along without him. That completely runs contrary to Tradition. The hallmark of a Catholic is his submission to the Pope.
The Papacy is irrelevant to Catholicism said no Catholic ever.
+Lefebvre:
Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope. (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
I agree with so many posts here, including Matthews. If all the world’s valid Catholic bishops (Latin rite, Coptic, Byzantine, etc) held special meetings every year and had arrived at the conclusion that a non-Catholic could not be a valid pope, I believe they would have the right to reconstitute the Church’s hierarchy. Under the situation of a universal acceptance by the world’s bishops, I believe this would be a great solution to the problem. For this to come close to happening, the Traditionalist bishops would have to create a united front. As someone else pointed out, they are all too busy trying to monopolize Tradition and create more and more factions. This seems to prolong the crisis.
The crisis is only getting worse and worse. They changed the doctrines, rites, sacraments and now they are becoming less subtle. The end game is a modernist one world religion that is acceptably fitted into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and a one world authoritative governing body. It’s hard to not see that. The cardinals that Bergoglio has put in place ensure that this will come about.
Meanwhile, Traditionalist Latin rite groups squabble about who is right.
A good listening to Bishop Puvarunas’ youtube conference “objections to sedevacantism” will reveal that he is on board with what seems to be a solution to the empty chair of Peter. Have a good listen.
Link please!
-
This conference by Bishop Pivarunas was also turned into a booklet which he uses in the conference. I actually think the conference covers it very well. Bishop Pivarunas personally gave me a copy of the booklet because I had heard the conference several times and asked which booklet or docuмent he used. He found a copy and gave me special permission to make as many copies as I want and distribute them. Then later I noticed they were selling them for very cheap on the CMRI bookstore so I just bought several there as well. Here is the conference link. It’s about thirty minutes long. There are parts where I believe it could be interpreted to favor a legitimate form of solving the crisis. I can’t remember the minute mark. Maybe somewhere around twenty minutes. But it’s only 30 minutes long and very much worth listening to the whole thing. Then maybe buying the booklet for a few bucks to have on hand.
https://youtu.be/vSkwPiqyv-k?si=wkyFRZND8_OAvWud
-
I agree with so many posts here, including Matthews. If all the world’s valid Catholic bishops (Latin rite, Coptic, Byzantine, etc) held special meetings every year and had arrived at the conclusion that a non-Catholic could not be a valid pope, I believe they would have the right to reconstitute the Church’s hierarchy. Under the situation of a universal acceptance by the world’s bishops, I believe this would be a great solution to the problem. For this to come close to happening, the Traditionalist bishops would have to create a united front. As someone else pointed out, they are all too busy trying to monopolize Tradition and create more and more factions. This seems to prolong the crisis.
The crisis is only getting worse and worse. They changed the doctrines, rites, sacraments and now they are becoming less subtle. The end game is a modernist one world religion that is acceptably fitted into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and a one world authoritative governing body. It’s hard to not see that. The cardinals that Bergoglio has put in place ensure that this will come about.
Meanwhile, Traditionalist Latin rite groups squabble about who is right.
A good listening to Bishop Puvarunas’ youtube conference “objections to sedevacantism” will reveal that he is on board with what seems to be a solution to the empty chair of Peter. Have a good listen.
Then why don't you choose one of the conclavist groups that have already done this? Which one would you choose, CA, I wonder? Maybe I could give you three options like you gave me?
I will tell you why you don't choose one of those groups - because something deep down in your blessed Catholic heart tells you that they are in schism. You recognise the ones that have not behaved in this schismatic fashion as the true Catholics, yet if they would all come together and embark on that course of action, it would seem to give you more comfort, it would then legitimise this schismatic way by force or numbers?
Yet our religion is not a numbers game. If that is the Catholic way, it is the right way and you should be on it, regardless of whether Bishop Williamson does it, or Bishop Da Silva does it, or Bishop Pivarunas does it. Is that not so?
No, that is not what God requires of us. That is an oversimplification of what is happening in the Church. It is simply not a true and just judgement that the hierarchy has defected, that there is nothing left of it in the mainstream Church.
Heed the advice of St Robert Bellarmine regarding a Pope destroying the Church - tell me how you destroy the Church if you do not destroy the Faith:
"But they will say, therefore, only the Church is without remedy if it has a bad Pope, and the Pope can disturb all things unpunished, and destroy and no one will be able to resist. I respond: No wonder, if the Church remains without an efficacious human remedy, seeing that its safety does not rest principally upon human industry, but divine protection, since God is its King. Therefore, even if the Church could not depose a Pope, still, it may and must beg the Lord that he would apply the remedy, and it is certain that God has care of its safety, that He would either convert the Pope or abolish him from the midst before he destroys the Church. Nevertheless, it does not follow from here that it is not lawful to resist a Pope destroying the Church; for it is lawful to admonish him while preserving all reverence, and to modestly correct him, even to oppose him with force and arms if he means to destroy the Church. For to resist and repel by force of arms, no authority is required".
Imagine, a Pope can want to destroy the Church. That can be his desire, his intention. So many do not want to believe it. No, such a one cannot be Pope, let us create another!
God will indeed convert him or banish him. Pray fifteen decades of the Rosary every day for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as Bishop Williamson never tires of telling us, and you will do more to achieve God's plan than by a schismatic act of establishing a parallel hierarchy.
-
Bishop Pivarunas states very clearly with sources that the Church contains the ability of the papacy in potencia and that a general council could elect a pope in the absence of the normal electors, that being the cardinals. If an atomic bomb were dropped on the Vatican today, that is not the end of the Church. The next in line would have the power to elect the successor of St. Peter.
Plenus viadatus seems to advise me to join some group like Pope Michael. His posts are mostly juvenile and lacking substance. I think he should mature a bit before taking himself so seriously. Not really interested in engaging in discussion with him anymore.
-
Plenus viadatus seems to advise me to join some group like Pope Michael. His posts are mostly juvenile and lacking substance. I think he should mature a bit before taking himself so seriously. Not really interested in engaging in discussion with him anymore.
You never did engage in discussion, Centro, you just talked about me with your clever little nicknames, just as you do here.
I replied to your 'wonderings' about the self-professed learned and humble ways of your arguments. Not a word in response, only labels of juvenile, immature, no substance, taking myself too seriously.
Good luck to you in your blue jeans in your new church. I will pray for you - seriously.
My final advice to you is NOT to join Pope Michael or any other false Pope or schismatic church. But I doubt you will take it, for the time is ripe!
-
...you will do more to achieve God's plan than by a schismatic act of establishing a parallel hierarchy.
Schism is when someone acknowledges the pope as being pope but refuses the rightful submission due him - such as the Eastern Orthodox or R'n'R. Sedes don't acknowledge him as being pope so there is no 'parallel hierarchy'. That's not really news though.
-
Then why don't you choose one of the conclavist groups that have already done this? Which one would you choose, CA, I wonder? Maybe I could give you three options like you gave me?
I will tell you why you don't choose one of those groups - because something deep down in your blessed Catholic heart tells you that they are in schism. You recognise the ones that have not behaved in this schismatic fashion as the true Catholics, yet if they would all come together and embark on that course of action, it would seem to give you more comfort, it would then legitimise this schismatic way by force or numbers?
Yet our religion is not a numbers game. If that is the Catholic way, it is the right way and you should be on it, regardless of whether Bishop Williamson does it, or Bishop Da Silva does it, or Bishop Pivarunas does it. Is that not so?
No, that is not what God requires of us. That is an oversimplification of what is happening in the Church. It is simply not a true and just judgement that the hierarchy has defected, that there is nothing left of it in the mainstream Church.
Heed the advice of St Robert Bellarmine regarding a Pope destroying the Church - tell me how you destroy the Church if you do not destroy the Faith:
"But they will say, therefore, only the Church is without remedy if it has a bad Pope, and the Pope can disturb all things unpunished, and destroy and no one will be able to resist. I respond: No wonder, if the Church remains without an efficacious human remedy, seeing that its safety does not rest principally upon human industry, but divine protection, since God is its King. Therefore, even if the Church could not depose a Pope, still, it may and must beg the Lord that he would apply the remedy, and it is certain that God has care of its safety, that He would either convert the Pope or abolish him from the midst before he destroys the Church. Nevertheless, it does not follow from here that it is not lawful to resist a Pope destroying the Church; for it is lawful to admonish him while preserving all reverence, and to modestly correct him, even to oppose him with force and arms if he means to destroy the Church. For to resist and repel by force of arms, no authority is required".
Imagine, a Pope can want to destroy the Church. That can be his desire, his intention. So many do not want to believe it. No, such a one cannot be Pope, let us create another!
God will indeed convert him or banish him. Pray fifteen decades of the Rosary every day for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as Bishop Williamson never tires of telling us, and you will do more to achieve God's plan than by a schismatic act of establishing a parallel hierarchy.
Beautifully said PV!
-
Good luck to you in your blue jeans in your new church. I will pray for you - seriously.
See it’s this kind of stuff that contribute nothing to the discussion and express juvenile, effeminacy. My first attendance at a SSPX mass was in 1985. I still currently frequent that same chapel which I saw go from a hotel of 18 people. I’ve never been to a New Mass, I’ve never been to Mass wearing blue jeans. I’ve spent more than 30 years reading about the Traditional Catholic Faith as a hobby from the days when Tan was nearly the only publisher and still trustworthy.
The nickname was an accident the first several times. I decided to keep it as it bodes well for you.
For those more interested in fruitful discussion, did anyone get a good listen to Bishop Pivarunas? Was anyone familiar with this conference or its booklet previously. He certainly seems to give the solution to Matthew’s original complaint about sedevacantism being useless unless it seeks to fill the vacancy of the seat. Any rational thinking Catholic will observe this and it seems that Bishop Pivarunas and Matthew or in agreement here. The problem is that it can only be done within an official capacity to be legit. And that’s where most Catholics also would agree. Those who do not agree become conclavists and elect a pseudo-pope. The Church does have the capacity in potentia to elect a pope.
-
This conference by Bishop Pivarunas was also turned into a booklet which he uses in the conference. I actually think the conference covers it very well. Bishop Pivarunas personally gave me a copy of the booklet because I had heard the conference several times and asked which booklet or docuмent he used. He found a copy and gave me special permission to make as many copies as I want and distribute them. Then later I noticed they were selling them for very cheap on the CMRI bookstore so I just bought several there as well. Here is the conference link. It’s about thirty minutes long. There are parts where I believe it could be interpreted to favor a legitimate form of solving the crisis. I can’t remember the minute mark. Maybe somewhere around twenty minutes. But it’s only 30 minutes long and very much worth listening to the whole thing. Then maybe buying the booklet for a few bucks to have on hand.
https://youtu.be/vSkwPiqyv-k?si=wkyFRZND8_OAvWud
Thank you Centro. I very much admire and respect Bishop Pivarunas.
-
You never did engage in discussion, Centro, you just talked about me with your clever little nicknames, just as you do here.
I replied to your 'wonderings' about the self-professed learned and humble ways of your arguments. Not a word in response, only labels of juvenile, immature, no substance, taking myself too seriously.
Good luck to you in your blue jeans in your new church. I will pray for you - seriously.
My final advice to you is NOT to join Pope Michael or any other false Pope or schismatic church. But I doubt you will take it, for the time is ripe!
He clearly was not talking about the conclavist groups, but you chose to go there. He was focusing on the Traditional clergy having a united front.
-
The identity of the Roman Pontiff is not an opinion. It is of paramount importance. It is a dogma (ex cathedra! ;)) that it is necessary for salvation to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff (a picture in the vestibule isn’t sufficient).
I agree we should draw the line and limit ourselves. As can be seen in your forum, the rabid anti-sede recognize and resisters are actually willing to DENY the DOGMA of the Indefectibility of the Catholic Church in order to keep their figure head Pope in place. Talk about crossing the line!
Why are these important? How have you concluded that these are absolutely essential to Catholicism but somehow the Pope is totally meaningless (if not in theory, at least in practice). Someone can turn back around and say well this is just your opinion that these things are important, just like how you say the importance of the identity of the Pope is just a side issue with minimal weight.
The Papacy, which was Divinely instituted by Christ, the rock and foundation of the Church, doesn’t matter in effect and it’s just your opinion and we can all get along without him. That completely runs contrary to Tradition. The hallmark of a Catholic is his submission to the Pope.
The Papacy is irrelevant to Catholicism said no Catholic ever.
It’s not just about the isolated question surrounding the Pope. This topic reaches so much further. Depending on how one answers this fundamental question will dictate their beliefs about the Church as a whole; her nature, essence. Some users on this platform insist that Bergoglio is the Pope which causes them to conclude that in fact the Church and her teaching authority is capable of becoming corrupt in faith and morals. I would never attend Mass with people who believe those egregious heresies and blasphemies. We can’t act side by side because we have SUBSTANTIALLY different beliefs about the Catholic Church. Differing beliefs that simply can’t be ignored for the sake of false unity. I will not sacrifice the Church’s teaching concerning the Indefectibility of the Roman See to “Unite the Clans”. These are non negotiable. Saints have sacrificed their lives to defend the divine rights of Peter and his successors.
A lot of very good points Colin.
-
I am tired of this argument. Yes the Pope is important to Catholicism, but unity and love of the brethren is, too. We know there is something wrong with the person who holds this position. The NO, Ffsp, and like are inside the structure, all tolerated by the Pope, if you want to say this is true, then wouldn't the conclusion be to go to anyone of these in the structure. We are all outside the structure. All of the consecrations of Bishops that we recognize were done without papal approval. Lucky for us we have access to so much literature and docuмentation that we are still able to have strong Catholic lives, pleasing to God. We need to recognize that we can't fix the situation of the Papacy, but we can be charitable to each other and help get the Sacraments to all the faithful. Isn't that what is important. I think all this discord and anger at each other ends up making the chasm between groups even bigger. I know I am making overgeneralizations, but Matthew started this post saying sedevacantism is useless, which can immediately put people on the defensive and that is also useless in trying to bridge the gap between all the groups outside of Rome.
-
The identity of the Roman Pontiff is not an opinion. It is of paramount importance. It is a dogma (ex cathedra! ;)) that it is necessary for salvation to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff (a picture in the vestibule isn’t sufficient).
This is not true. The dogma sates that it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope, not that we are to (blindly) submit to the pope. This dogma teaches me that the risk of sedeism is too high.
I agree we should draw the line and limit ourselves. As can be seen in your forum, the rabid anti-sede recognize and resisters are actually willing to DENY the DOGMA of the Indefectibility of the Catholic Church in order to keep their figure head Pope in place. Talk about crossing the line!
What rabid anti-sede? Remember, it is the whole sede idea that, not even being 50 years old, is the novel idea in all of this. It can properly therefore be said, if anything, that it is the sedes who are rabid anti-R&R.
And it is only because of your want of understanding even after it's been explained to you that you say R&R is willing to deny the Church's indefectibility, you would not say such a ridiculous thing if you understood what you're talking about.
-
This conference by Bishop Pivarunas was also turned into a booklet which he uses in the conference. I actually think the conference covers it very well. Bishop Pivarunas personally gave me a copy of the booklet because I had heard the conference several times and asked which booklet or docuмent he used. He found a copy and gave me special permission to make as many copies as I want and distribute them. Then later I noticed they were selling them for very cheap on the CMRI bookstore so I just bought several there as well. Here is the conference link. It’s about thirty minutes long. There are parts where I believe it could be interpreted to favor a legitimate form of solving the crisis. I can’t remember the minute mark. Maybe somewhere around twenty minutes. But it’s only 30 minutes long and very much worth listening to the whole thing. Then maybe buying the booklet for a few bucks to have on hand.
https://youtu.be/vSkwPiqyv-k?si=wkyFRZND8_OAvWud
I'm guessing this is the correct booklet:
Answering Objections to the Sedevacantist Position – Mary Immaculate Queen Center (miqcenter.com) (https://miqcenter.com/collections/books/products/answering-objections-to-the-sedevacantist-position-ph7050?variant=39003430279)
-
I'm guessing this is the correct booklet:
Answering Objections to the Sedevacantist Position – Mary Immaculate Queen Center (miqcenter.com) (https://miqcenter.com/collections/books/products/answering-objections-to-the-sedevacantist-position-ph7050?variant=39003430279)
Yes. That is it. A very well written docuмentation of a response to those who raise questions about a sede vacante. Every Catholic should have a copy. Someone should send them to the resistance priests.
-
Yes. That is it. A very well written docuмentation of a response to those who raise questions about a sede vacante. Every Catholic should have a copy. Someone should send them to the resistance priests.
Centro. I just finished listening to the 27 minute talk. Is this the whole thing? I ask because His Excellency mentions at around 6:25 he will be speaking about jurisdiction afterwards, but the talk seems to have been cut off after he goes through the 5 objections.
-
The thing I notice most about R&R people on this forum is that they seem to more concerned with sedevacantism and those who hold this position than the heresy, apostacy and blasphemy coming from the man they claim to be thier pope.
-
The thing I notice most about R&R people on this forum is that they seem to more concerned with sedevacantism and those who hold this position than the heresy, apostacy and blasphemy coming from the man they claim to be thier pope.
What you should notice is the R&R people fully understand there is nothing anyone can do about a pope who is a heretic. Proclaiming the pope is not the pope serves no good purpose whatsoever - as per the OP.
-
Centro. I just finished listening to the 27 minute talk. Is this the whole thing? I ask because His Excellency mentions at around 6:25 he will be speaking about jurisdiction afterwards, but the talk seems to have been cut off after he goes through the 5 objections.
I think the talk was cut off after the 5 objections were discussed. There may be a longer version on a different youtube page somewhere. I’m pretty sure you can find the discussion about jurisdiction from Bishop Pivarunas in a different video as well.
-
Sedevacantism without "conclavism" is completely useless and superfluous.
It's like after a complete collapse scenario (no grid electricity, Internet, public utilities anywhere), a complete Mad Max scenario, having some survivors "pro Internet" and others being "anti Internet". Now if a group of survivors was trying to actively rebuild electronics and computers from the ground up, and actively working to rebuild the Internet, that would be something. But that would be the equivalent of "conclavist sedevacantism".
At least the conclavists are consistent, and giving some MEANING to their sedevacantism. They are trying to "do something about it". To bring the theory into the practical realm, so it has SOME relevance or reason to actually hold the position.
My position is that sedevacantism, unless you add conclavism, is no better and usually worse than "plain vanilla" Traditional Catholicism. It adds nothing, and solves nothing. All it adds is another point of division, another reason for parishioners to stay home on Sunday when there's not a "sede" group chapel within driving distance.
Yes, many sedes are more practical than that (they aren't "dogmatic" about it; they are willing to attend SSPX for example) but why start a movement like "sedevacantism" when a certain percent are going to be dogmatic about it (unnecessarily divisive and condemnatory) and/or end up Home Aloners?
Zero upsides, nothing but downsides!
Would you take a medicine that has no chance of helping you with anything, but has a 30% chance of killing you? Neither would I.
I mean no disrespect, but if you truly believe the above, then why allow the sedevacantists to take over the forum?
-
Centro. I just finished listening to the 27 minute talk. Is this the whole thing? I ask because His Excellency mentions at around 6:25 he will be speaking about jurisdiction afterwards, but the talk seems to have been cut off after he goes through the 5 objections.
I think the talk was cut off after the 5 objections were discussed. There may be a longer version on a different youtube page somewhere. I’m pretty sure you can find the discussion about jurisdiction from Bishop Pivarunas in a different video as well.
According to the notes on the youtube page, it was excerpted from this conference:
http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org/wordpress/audio?link=http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/FatimaConferences/BpPiv_ApologiaForTheTraditionalMovement_Part1_FatimaConference_2012.mp3
http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org/wordpress/audio?link=http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/FatimaConferences/BpPiv_ApologiaForTheTraditionalMovement_Part2_FatimaConference_2012.mp3
http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org/wordpress/audio?link=http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/FatimaConferences/BpPiv_QuestionsAndAnswers_FatimaConference_2012.mp3
-
The thing I notice most about R&R people on this forum is that they seem to more concerned with sedevacantism and those who hold this position than the heresy, apostacy and blasphemy coming from the man they claim to be thier pope.
It is a very strange phenomenon that is not limited to this forum. You will see it sometimes more so in the resistance groups since they lose more clergy to the sedevacantists and take it as an affront to their egos, at least it seems. SSPX cricles are very anti-sedevacantist at times also, but the beef seems to be a lot calmer and less aggressive. The resistance sees the sedevacante position as a danger to its very existence. One of the first defenses it will grasp for is to say that if one adopts the sede vacante position they are somehow disrespecting the very memory of Archbishop Lefebvre or even perhaps an enemy of the Archbishop. Many times it is easy to point out where those groups may not follow the Archbishop exactly in things he had said or done but they choose to ignore that and rant back about how evil and useless sedevacantism is. It becomes a cycle that goes back and forth like an emotional roller coster. The more investigative anti-sedevacantists eventually arrive at arguments like “no one has tried Francis for heresy” or “a heretic can be a valid pope”. But notice that those who adopt that position of a heretic pope etc are drawn eventually into the Ecclesia Dei groups and reject SSPXism. (Carlos Nogué, Salza and Siscoe, the diocesan leaning Jeff Cassman who publicly disagreed with Archbishop Lefebvre’s statements despite attending a SSPX chapel)
It mostly seems to indicate that it will take a new generation to look past the beefs and biases of our times.
-
It is a very strange phenomenon that is not limited to this forum. You will see it sometimes more so in the resistance groups since they lose more clergy to the sedevacantists and take it as an affront to their egos, at least it seems.
No, we do not see it as an affront to our egos - where did that come from? You sound as ridiculous as Lad here. If anything, we are sad because another good priest succuмbed to the error of sedeism, which serves no good purpose.
SSPX cricles are very anti-sedevacantist at times also, but the beef seems to be a lot calmer and less aggressive.
Again, you have this exactly backwards. The sedes are the ones who are anti-R&R, not the other way around. I mean that the sedes are the ones who left the R&R groups before anyone ever called them "R&R" to start their own sede / anti-R&R chapels, schools, seminaries and so on. It was not the R&R who could no longer stand the sedes to the point they had to leave, it was the sedes who could no longer stand everyone else, so much so that they had to leave. Nothing in that regards has changed.
-
:laugh1:(https://i.imgur.com/wzyBoxh.png)
-
Sedevacantism without "conclavism" is completely useless and superfluous.
It's like after a complete collapse scenario (no grid electricity, Internet, public utilities anywhere), a complete Mad Max scenario, having some survivors "pro Internet" and others being "anti Internet". Now if a group of survivors was trying to actively rebuild electronics and computers from the ground up, and actively working to rebuild the Internet, that would be something. But that would be the equivalent of "conclavist sedevacantism".
At least the conclavists are consistent, and giving some MEANING to their sedevacantism. They are trying to "do something about it". To bring the theory into the practical realm, so it has SOME relevance or reason to actually hold the position.
My position is that sedevacantism, unless you add conclavism, is no better and usually worse than "plain vanilla" Traditional Catholicism. It adds nothing, and solves nothing. All it adds is another point of division, another reason for parishioners to stay home on Sunday when there's not a "sede" group chapel within driving distance.
Yes, many sedes are more practical than that (they aren't "dogmatic" about it; they are willing to attend SSPX for example) but why start a movement like "sedevacantism" when a certain percent are going to be dogmatic about it (unnecessarily divisive and condemnatory) and/or end up Home Aloners?
Zero upsides, nothing but downsides!
Would you take a medicine that has no chance of helping you with anything, but has a 30% chance of killing you? Neither would I.
There may be some truth in this, but I’m struggling to see how this would not also apply to the Resistance. In practice, in their actions, they reject the Catholic Hierarchy.
-
What you should notice is the R&R people fully understand there is nothing anyone can do about a pope who is a heretic. Proclaiming the pope is not the pope serves no good purpose whatsoever - as per the OP.
It has been said that sedevacantism adds nothing to the traditional Catholic movement. I would like to know exactly what the R&R movement is resisting? You recognize Jorge Bergoglio as your pope. The R&R folks apparently believe that the Catholic Church can promulgate error and heresy to the universal Church, that it can give evil doctrines and disciplines, and that it can promote a Protestantized "mass."
The R&R people have had to throw overboard Catholic teaching concerning the papacy and the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, and the infallibility of canonizations. You believe that a true pope can sign a docuмent praising false religions, participate in pagan ceremonies in which an Amazonian fertility goddess can be prayed to, and now that a pope can approve the blessing of sodomite relationships.
The SSPX have consistently held out the possibility or have actually pursued the possibility of a reconciliation with the modernists in Rome in order to have their side chapel of tradition under the auspices of the Novus Ordo religion.
To me, it is the sedevacantists that are actually resisting the modernists in Rome by totally separating from them and refusing to recognize them as Catholic in any way. It is the only position that has not in some way compromised itself with the new modernist religion.
-
It has been said that sedevacantism adds nothing to the traditional Catholic movement.
That's not entirely accurate, to be correct, we say sedeism adds nothing *good* to the traditional Catholic movement. Which, we call it a "movement" but it's no movement really. What it is, is preserving the faith.
I would like to know exactly what the R&R movement is resisting? You recognize Jorge Bergoglio as your pope. The R&R folks apparently believe that the Catholic Church can promulgate error and heresy to the universal Church, that it can give evil doctrines and disciplines, and that it can promote a Protestantized "mass."
The so called "R&R" is resisting the heresies of the conciliar church and new religion by keeping the faith. Because we accept that nobody on earth can do anything about heretical popes, we do this without regard to the status of the conciliar popes and hierarchy, exactly as we have since this crisis began - because they are all heretics and preach all manner of error, we cannot listen to them. It's just that simple.
Sedes, for reasons only they know, confuse the situation by complicating it with absurd cliche's, like R&R
"had to throw overboard Catholic teaching concerning the papacy and the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, and the infallibility of canonizations" and on and on and whatever else on and on as they divide out from other trads over it.
These cliches are mostly total BS, although some of them are something less than total BS, but BS none the less.
-
Sedevacantism without "conclavism" is completely useless and superfluous.
Yes sedevacantism at its fruition could lead to "conclavism" (hence we have Pope Michael) but R&R at its fruition could lead to compromising with Pope Francis and modern Rome. (hence we have ffsp, indult and the neo sspx) both situations don't feel right to a person who is trying to be the Catholic that the Saints were. I think we on this forum are really in the same boat and we need to be generous and charitable to those who look at it from a slightly different way. We just can't answer this Pope question right now and the best thing to do is be the best Catholic we know how to be, with conquering ourselves and practicing virtues. We have absolutely no control over the Pope. We need the Sacraments to raise a generation of Catholics who God will give a good Pope, too. Just saying.
-
Yes sedevacantism at its fruition could lead to "conclavism" ...
It could, but most SVs have enough common sense to realize that being elected Pope primarily on the votes of your parents does not constitute a legitimate papal election, despite a vacancy. SVs who have said common sense realize that such an election must be accepted by all the faithful as legitimate. Let's imagine, hypothetically, that Jorge takes the next step where even the formerly R&R types have to admit the guy can't be the pope, and all Traditional Catholics (bishops, priests, faithful) get together to elect a Pope, then do so and all acknowledge him as the Pope. That might hold water. But some of these other elections, you just have to know from common sense that they're not legitimate.
-
As problematic as Conclavism is, it's the only thing that would give "sedevacantism" any value.
Without that practical application of their "conclusion" re: the Pope, they are living the same life as any average R&R, including all the things (inconsistencies, issues, etc.) they criticize them for.
Sedevacantists say, "What use is saying there's a Pope if you don't give him full obedience?"
Recognize-and-Resist can say, "What use is declaring the See vacant, what use is protecting the purity of the Papacy, if you're just going to happily live without a Pope for 6 decades and do NOTHING about it?"
Both sides have serious Pope issues.
Welcome to the Crisis in the Church.
Sedevacantists today don't get the 1980's "pass" that they used to get. They could suggest "Maybe he's not the Pope" and that wasn't a huge issue. We've had interregna before. But a 63 year interregnum? With all due respect, that's more insane than anything they criticize R&R for.
We're not saying there's not a Crisis. We're saying there's no good reason to go sedevacantist. Laymen can't depose a sitting Pope, period. OR DECLARE HIM INVALID/DEPOSED.
-
Bp. Faure once said that the Resistance is attacked on two fronts: On the Left, there are the ralliers who believe that we should reconcile with Modernist Rome, and on the Right, there are the sedevacantists who are very much opposed to us, even though a few of them attend Resistance chapels. And yet....one of these two groups is allowed to promote their anti-Resistance propaganda without censure. Why is that?
This forum is supposed to be...."A message board for SSPX, Resistance, and other traditional Catholics to discuss news and matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith."
Well, for one thing, SSPX trads are very much maligned here, as are Resistance trads. And we cannot really discuss any news because the Sedes will just tell us that if we believe that the Pope is the Pope, then we have to fully submit to him. And... some of them are dishonest - that's the worst thing, because one cannot properly debate with liars. It's a deplorable situation.
-
I mean no disrespect, but if you truly believe the above, then why allow the sedevacantists to take over the forum?
More snowflaking. If by "tak[ing] over the forum", you mean that sedevacantists participate actively in it and seem more engaged in discussions than many of the Resistance mindset, that's also a corollary to the realization that the forum would likely be reduced to 10-20% of its current activity were the SVs banned and only those of the Resistance remained. At the end of the day, it's Matthew's forum, and if you don't like the fact that he permits this kind of debate here, you can go start your own Resistance forum and moderate the 3-4 posts you would get each day (mostly by you).
Besides, Meg, were it not for the SVs, you yourself would not participate, since the 90% of your activity here involves drive-by insults of sedevacantists. Admit it that you love to hate the sedevacantists. But I can't recall a single post of yours (in recent memory anyway) that has contributed anything of substance to any debate or discussion.
In any case, the reason that I've participated a great deal here at CI (and no other forum ... except for two accounts on Catholic.com that were banned after one or two posts each) for so long is precisely because of the interaction between different types and mindsets of Traditional Catholics, something one can rarely find due to the different battle camps that have gone up among the different factions. I'm pretty tech savy myself and could easily set up a "sedeprivationist" or "Siri theory" forum ... and then listen to the crickets chirping, not to mention that it would be boring as all getout if all we did was high five one another and pat each other on the back and "preach" to the choir.
-
But a 63 year interregnum? With all due respect, that's more insane than anything they criticize R&R for.
34 years. +Siri reigned as Pope Gregory XVII through 1989 :laugh1:
-
Sedevacantism is not a question of upsides vs. downsides but a question of facing unfortunate truths. Many people mistakenly think that if Francis is not a true Pope, then the Church has defected. However, the exact opposite is true: The Church has defected, and proved itself to be a fraud, not if Francis isn’t the Pope, but if he is.
-
Any Catholic who believes that The Pope is the true Vicar of Christ on Earth, and is 100% completely honest with himself, is forced by mere logic to adopt the Sedevacantist position. Any other Catholic position is to be completely in denial. The truth isn't always pretty. Often times it's downright sad and bitter but, as the old saying goes, it's better to be slapped in the face with the truth than to be kissed with a lie.
-
Any Catholic who believes that The Pope is the true Vicar of Christ on Earth, and is 100% completely honest with himself, is forced by mere logic to adopt the Sedevacantist position. Any other Catholic position is to be completely in denial. The truth isn't always pretty. Often times it's downright sad and bitter but, as the old saying goes, it's better to be slapped in the face with the truth than to be kissed with a lie.
I would change your statement, Hank, to read that anyone who believes that the Pope is the infallibly faithful vicar.... Alas, this would not be a truth that he believes, for the Pope is not guaranteed such fidelity, true vicar though he is. He is only guaranteed such infallible fidelity when he teaches on faith and morals under very strict conditions as laid down by Vatican I. Perhaps you are the one who has to honestly confront the logic of the Catholic position, the sometimes ugly truth, that the vicar of Christ can be unfaithful to the One he represents. The Pope is not Our Lord Jesus Christ, he is His vicar, human flesh and blood and an immortal soul to save, a fallible human being. By the way Hank Igitur, I love the name! Good one!
-
He clearly was not talking about the conclavist groups, but you chose to go there. He was focusing on the Traditional clergy having a united front.
And reconstituting the hierarchy, 2V. His very words. Do you think that does not imply resuming ordinary jurisdiction with a Pope? How would they receive their jurisdiction otherwise? Perhaps you should ask him? He was thus promoting a very serious error, nothing less than schism, which required a serious answer, given that we are on a forum which is the "de facto home of the Resistance". But for him it is only permissible now, apparently, with all the 'respectable' bishops that we currently have in the various schools of 'Tradition', but it was not acceptable for the previous 20-odd conclavist groups who held graver concerns over previous Popes.
-
I would change your statement, Hank, to read that anyone who believes that the Pope is the infallibly faithful vicar.... Alas, this would not be a truth that he believes, for the Pope is not guaranteed such fidelity, true vicar though he is. He is only guaranteed such infallible fidelity when he teaches on faith and morals under very strict conditions as laid down by Vatican I.
I would change your statement to be in conformity with the entirety of Vatican I, which teaches that Peter and his successors have been gifted with a never-failing faith, and that the See can never be blemished by error, and that the dogma itself derives from the notion that the Papacy is the source of unity in faith for the Church. In claiming that the Magisterium has become so corrupt and the Public Worship of the Church so harmful and displeasing to God that it requires the opposite of unity, a severing of communion with and submission to the Vicar of Christ in order to remain faithful to Tradition, you're spouting nothing short of heresy. You also incur Trent's anathema for claiming that the Rites used by the Church can be an incentive to impiety for the faithful.
-
The thing I notice most about R&R people on this forum is that they seem to more concerned with sedevacantism and those who hold this position than the heresy, apostacy and blasphemy coming from the man they claim to be thier pope.
Most, if not all R&R people who are on this forum, are here because it is the 'de facto headquaters of the Resistance'. Why are Sedevacantists on this form is what I would like to know... if not to subvert the Resistance? Perhaps it is because, in spite of yourselves, you gravitate towards true Catholicism? I am not one bit "concerned with sedevacantism and those who hold this position", except for the salvation of their souls. I have no desire whatsoever to read the opinions of sedevacantists, nor to discuss the matter. However, it is continually thrust upon us and we are forced, ad nauseam, into replying to limit the damage done by your false arguments to those unwitting R&R souls who happen onto this forum, believing it to be an R&R forum, seeking the good doctrine of Archbishop Lefebvre and his faithful companions and followers in Catholic Tradition.
The number of down votes I anticipate for this post will speak for itself, right here on "the de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance", "the #1 forum for SSPX Resistance news and discussion in the English-speaking world".
One might think that an R&R Catholic could feel at home on this forum. It more often feels like enemy territory. Please respond all you fellow R&Rers and tell us if you do not feel the same.
-
Most, if not all R&R people who are on this forum, are here because it is the 'de facto headquaters of the Resistance'. Why are Sedevacantists on this form is what I would like to know... if not to subvert the Resistance? Perhaps it is because, in spite of yourselves, you gravitate towards true Catholicism? I am not one bit "concerned with sedevacantism and those who hold this position", except for the salvation of their souls. I have no desire whatsoever to read the opinions of sedevacantists, nor to discuss the matter. However, it is continually thrust upon us and we are forced, ad nauseam, into replying to limit the damage done by your false arguments to those unwitting R&R souls who happen onto this forum, believing it to be an R&R forum, seeking the good doctrine of Archbishop Lefebvre and his faithful companions and followers in Catholic Tradition.
The number of down votes I anticipate for this post will speak for itself, right here on "the de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance", "the #1 forum for SSPX Resistance news and discussion in the English-speaking world".
One might think that an R&R Catholic could feel at home on this forum. It more often feels like enemy territory. Please respond all you fellow R&Rers and tell us if you do not feel the same.
Maybe you should make a poll regarding banning all sedes. I for one really don't care if Matthew ever did so. The R&R whining about us is nauseating.
-
... seeking the good doctrine of Archbishop Lefebvre and his faithful companions and followers in Catholic Tradition.
The number of down votes I anticipate for this post will speak for itself, right here on "the de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance", "the #1 forum for SSPX Resistance news and discussion in the English-speaking world".
Define "Resistance". Is Father Chazal Resistance? Most of us SP type shave no problems whatsoever with his sedeimpoundist position.
As for the "good doctrine of Archbishop Lefebvre", you're very selective about filtering things out that you don't like. +Lefebvre was very open to sedevacantism, publicly stated several times that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit, and also stated publicly that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgcCujfQF0
-
Maybe you should make a poll regarding banning all sedes. I for one really don't care if Matthew ever did so.
Yes, it's absolutely Matthew's choice. If he wants to kick us out, I'd be happy to set up an alternative forum to relocate the SVs / SPs from here to there. And both forums would likely whither away due to lack of activity, since most of the activity here entails these debates about the Crisis and about Catholic ecclesiology, from which I learn a great deal even when I don't agree with various posters about one or another subject. I've disagreed with posters in all the different "camps" or factions here. So, for instance, while I disagree with Sean Johnson about many things, I was in agreement with him regarding the question of +Vigano (against many of the sedevacantists). Most sedevacantists are rather hostile to "Feeneyism", while I'm a strong proponents of a nuanced variation of it. I've agreed and disagreed with just about every personality out there in the Traditional Catholic world.
-
Yes, it's absolutely Matthew's choice. If he wants to kick us out, I'd be happy to set up an alternative forum to relocate the SVs / SPs from here to there. And both forums would likely whither away due to lack of activity, since most of the activity here entails these debates about the Crisis and about Catholic ecclesiology, from which I learn a great deal even when I don't agree with various posters about one or another subject. I've disagreed with posters in all the different "camps" or factions here. So, for instance, while I disagree with Sean Johnson about many things, I was in agreement with him regarding the question of +Vigano (against many of the sedevacantists). Most sedevacantists are rather hostile to "Feeneyism", while I'm a strong proponents of a nuanced variation of it. I've agreed and disagreed with just about every personality out there in the Traditional Catholic world.
I find the forum useful in the same regard you have mentioned. In many of the same ways. The Fr. Feeney and EENS debates were always great opportunities to expand understanding.
-
You will kindly leave me out of it.
If I wanted to start such a "poll" and/or ban all Sedes, I would have done so by now. This forum was started in 2006, remember? And in fact, one of the things CathInfo was started for was the discussion of Sedevacantism (that, and all "cօռspιʀαcιҽs" such as the JQ).
So CathInfo was born in a spirit of freedom of speech. And yes, when all matters discussed or debated are "doubtful", Freedom of Speech is the order of the day, even from a Catholic perspective. Everything touching on "How we deal with the Crisis in the Church" or "The exact nature of the Crisis in the Church" is ALL opinion and doubtful matter. None of is is certain or dogma. So "In dubiis libertas" all the way.
-
I would change your statement to be in conformity with the entirety of Vatican I, which teaches that Peter and his successors have been gifted with a never-failing faith, and that the See can never be blemished by error, and that the dogma itself derives from the notion that the Papacy is the source of unity in faith for the Church.
Stop your sophistry.
There are two answers to your post.
Firstly, without even reading the rest of the Council docuмent, there is a very important question to ask. What is infallible in a Council? Is it every word of every docuмent? Or the definitions? Of course, it is the definitions which are held to be infallible, and what does the definition say (see below)? Why would the Church place all of those conditions there for infallibility if it could have simply said the Pope is infallible "every time he teaches on faith and morals"? It's simple. Stop trying to complicate things. Submit to the Church. Furthermore, the Council states that this definition is IRREFORMABLE. An anathema is attached to anyone who does not accept it as it is, unreformed! Stop your perfidious reforming of Vatican I.
Secondly, and I have responded to you with this explanation before, you must read how the very docuмent that defines infallibility explains these very characteristics that you cite: 1. never failing faith and 2. the Apostolic See unblemished by error. It is precisely in the infallibility as defined by the Council that, according to the very docuмent itself, these two characteristics of never failing faith of Peter and the First See unblemished by error consist. It is pure fantasy on your part to imagine that it means that the Pope can teach no error in faith or morals at all. Read the docuмent for goodness' sake:
In Summary it says "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter... that by His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation... for they (the Roman Pontiffs) knew very well that this See of Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise... I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail... This gift of truth and never failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors SO THAT they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous food of error..." But since in this age there are not a few who disparage the authority of the Holy See "We judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative" which Our Lord attached to the office of Pope, "THEREFORE, faithfully adhering to the tradition received... we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma..."
You know the meaning of the word "therefore"? It means for this reason, on account of this.
Listen, Ladislaus, and hear the Church. It is because of this never failing faith of Peter, because of the First See being unblemished by error, that the Council defines the prerogative that Our Lord attached to the office of the Papacy, that infallibility which Our Divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy, the tradition faithfully received, the very meaning of its freedom from error and unfailing faith. What is that prerogative? Freedom from error whenever the Pope teaches on Faith and morals? Is that what it says? Read and submit to the Church and stop corrupting the Faith of the Church:
- To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.
- 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 [59] .
- The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circuмstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
- sometimes by
- summoning ecuмenical councils or
- consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
- special synods, sometimes by
- taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
- defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with
- sacred scripture and
- the apostolic traditions.
- For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
- not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
- but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
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 Saviour 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 [60] . - This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
- But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
- Therefore,
- faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
- to the glory of God our saviour,
- for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
- for the salvation of the christian people,
- with the approval of the sacred council,
- we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
- when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
- that is, when,
- in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
- in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
- he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
- he possesses,
- by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
- that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
- Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to REJECT THIS DEFINITION of ours: let him be anathema.
-
Maybe you should make a poll regarding banning all sedes. I for one really don't care if Matthew ever did so. The R&R whining about us is nauseating.
You might, in all good faith 2V, take note of the fact that my post was a response to a sedevacantist whining about R&Rers on our home turf!
-
I am sure you all understand that I harbour no ill will towards anyone. We are all Catholics here and we all love the sinner and hate the sin, love the erring but hate his error. So don't take my comments the wrong way. Nor am I trying to change this forum or suggest to Matthew how he should run it. I was simply making what seemed an appropriate response to what was said by one of my sede friends... :-)
-
The resistance sees the sedevacante position as a danger to its very existence. One of the first defenses it will grasp for is to say that if one adopts the sede vacante position they are somehow disrespecting the very memory of Archbishop Lefebvre or even perhaps an enemy of the Archbishop.
Complete fantasy. The Resistance sees sedevacantism as a danger to souls, just as Archbishop Lefebvre did, a deviation from the right path. None of us wishes the Resistance to exist for the sake of the Resistance. We are all here for the Church, the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The vast majority of souls faithful to Tradition have followed Archbishop Lefebvre because they saw in him a true son of the Church, a faithful defender of Tradition. You yourself evidently did the same for many years. You now believe that circuмstances have changed and that Archbishop Lefebvre would act differently. Bishop Fellay had the same belief and it took him in the opposite direction. That is the sad state of the Church that we all have to deal with until the Supreme Shepherd "having converted, strengthens his brethren". But don't expect to stay in any organisation and promote ideas that are foreign to, and rejected by, that organisation. That is just common sense.
-
I would change your statement to be in conformity with the entirety of Vatican I, which teaches that Peter and his successors have been gifted with a never-failing faith, and that the See can never be blemished by error, and that the dogma itself derives from the notion that the Papacy is the source of unity in faith for the Church. In claiming that the Magisterium has become so corrupt and the Public Worship of the Church so harmful and displeasing to God that it requires the opposite of unity, a severing of communion with and submission to the Vicar of Christ in order to remain faithful to Tradition, you're spouting nothing short of heresy. You also incur Trent's anathema for claiming that the Rites used by the Church can be an incentive to impiety for the faithful.
I could be off base here, but I’m not convinced that’s the question trent meant to deal with. It seems like the authorial intent of Trent was moreso to address Protestants who saw the rituals, vestments, etc of the church IN GENERAL to be incentives to impiety. I suspect if you asked the Tridentine fathers about this debate, they might well take your side on it, but I’m guessing they’d probably admit that the hypothetical of something like an NO wasn’t what they were intending to address
And since you’d have to use steps of reasoning to argue that R andR ideas about the NO fall under the Tridentine anathema, it would at least seem to be something less than heresy imo
-
Hi Byzcat, I haven't seen you around here in forever. Welcome back! :cowboy::laugh1:
-
Everything touching on "How we deal with the Crisis in the Church" or "The exact nature of the Crisis in the Church" is ALL opinion and doubtful matter. None of is is certain or dogma. So "In dubiis libertas" all the way.
I am therefore free to preach sedevacantism and recruit others to that position, and to the historical figures who have espoused that position?
I am therefore free to draw the logical consequences and proceed to conclavism, and draw others to follow me into that course of action?
-
I could be off base here, but I’m not convinced that’s the question trent meant to deal with. It seems like the authorial intent of Trent was moreso to address Protestants who saw the rituals, vestments, etc of the church IN GENERAL to be incentives to impiety. I suspect if you asked the Tridentine fathers about this debate, they might well take your side on it, but I’m guessing they’d probably admit that the hypothetical of something like an NO wasn’t what they were intending to address
And since you’d have to use steps of reasoning to argue that R andR ideas about the NO fall under the Tridentine anathema, it would at least seem to be something less than heresy imo
You are far closer to the truth than Ladislaus, ByzCat, surely.
Trent also condemned the notion that the Pope could change these venerable rites.
So the rites of the NO are not legitimate Catholic rites at all.
It is failure to make such distinctions that results in such faulty logic.
The Church is leading no one astray and inviting no one to impiety - only false shepherds about whom Our Lord warned us not to follow.
Catholics who knew their faith better did not follow these incentives to impiety which did not come from Holy Mother Church, but continued to follow the true and legitimate rites handed down by Tradition.
Such errors stem from this exaggerated notion of Papal infallibility which Vatican I clearly condemns.
-
I am therefore free to preach sedevacantism and recruit others to that position, and to the historical figures who have espoused that position?
I am therefore free to draw the logical consequences and proceed to conclavism, and draw others to follow me into that course of action?
It's good to see a man with ambitious goals, PV! Please carry on.
:cowboy: :popcorn:
-
Quote from Stubborn - "The so called "R&R" is resisting the heresies of the conciliar church and new religion by keeping the faith." Isn't this the same mindset of every group that has ever split from the Roman Catholic Church?
Quote from Plenus Venter - "He [The Pope] is only guaranteed such infallible fidelity when he teaches on faith and morals under very strict conditions as laid down by Vatican I." Bergoglio is a "formal heretic" that has taught "formal heresy" [e.g. Amoris Laetitia #297 (2016)] and it's been a string of formal heresy ever since his election 10 years ago. Nobody can honestly say he's only making mistakes or just speaking off-the-cuff "material" heresy or believe he is the Vicar of Christ simply because he hasn't made these statements with the words "Ex Cathedra" alongside them.
Apparently, according to the R&R crowd, Bergoglio could be like The Exorcist Girl spewing vomit, twisting his head around, walking upside down on all fours, speaking in the growling tones of a demon and he would still be the Vicar of Christ on earth because he hasn't spoken "Ex Cathedra."
-
It's good to see a man with ambitious goals, PV! Please carry on.
:cowboy: :popcorn:
Do I have your support Emile? Where and when can we meet? There is a tradition of meeting in the vineyards of Econe at night, would this suit?
-
"The so called "R&R" is resisting the heresies of the conciliar church and new religion by keeping the faith." Isn't this the same mindset of every group that has ever split from the Roman Catholic Church?
I guess you know your mindset better than us Hank, tell us, is that it????? :-)
-
The R&R crowd, along with the modernists, have created a church that can do or say anything. They have created a church that can believe and profess all or nothing of the Catholic faith. They have created a subjective church. All just to have a Pope.:facepalm:
-
Quote from Plenus Venter - "He [The Pope] is only guaranteed such infallible fidelity when he teaches on faith and morals under very strict conditions as laid down by Vatican I." Bergoglio is a "formal heretic" that has taught "formal heresy" [e.g. Amoris Laetitia #297 (2016)] and it's been a string of formal heresy ever since his election 10 years ago. Nobody can honestly say he's only making mistakes or just speaking off-the-cuff "material" heresy or believe he is the Vicar of Christ simply because he hasn't made these statements with the words "Ex Cathedra" alongside them.
Apparently, according to the R&R crowd, Bergoglio could be like The Exorcist Girl spewing vomit, twisting his head around, walking upside down on all fours, speaking in the growling tones of a demon and he would still be the Vicar of Christ on earth because he hasn't spoken "Ex Cathedra."
Not impossible, Hank. As St Robert Bellarmine says, even if we could not depose a Pope WHO WANTS TO DESTROY THE CHURCH (note: a pope can have the desire to destroy the Church), we must pray God Who will either CONVERT HIM (note: a Pope may need converting) or abolish him from the midst before he achieves his evil designs.
This is a new situation in the Church. Whether or not he can be deposed even for heresy is not settled. The Church has tolerated all theological opinions. Much caution and prudence are required. It is not impossible, in spite of appearances, that Pope Francis is nothing but a modernist who could indeed have the Faith. But even if he does not... He needs to be held to account. If an imperfect Council is called to do that I will certainly watch with interest.
It is so important for you to make a definitive judgement that he is not Pope. I don't think there is any certitude according to our Holy Catholic Faith that you can do that. It doesn't change what you do, does it? It might lead to some of your friends never accepting a new and certainly valid pope from what you consider a defected church, though. It may lead to many Catholics in the Conciliar Church (the great number of Catholics in the world today, even if it is a small percentage of that Church) being left for dead... decisions have consequences. Such a grand decision, requires certainty, and it is not for me, so my Catholic sense tells me.
You mention formal heresy. But formal heresy requires admonitions from a superior. Who would give such monitions to a Pope? So many ifs and buts and unanswerable questions. Let us not try to be the Church, we end up making ourselves popes and settling disputed matters. Not Catholic for me, not at all.
-
I guess you know your mindset better than us Hank, tell us, is that it????? :-)
That's not a refutation of the fact I stated. The R&R doesn't even understand that (concerning the recent canonizations of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II) either canonizations are not infallible acts of the church and every single saint in history is now open for revision or else John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are forever saints to be venerated.
-
The R&R crowd, along with the modernists, have created a church that can do or say anything. They have created a church that can believe and profess all or nothing of the Catholic faith. They have created a subjective church. All just to have a Pope.:facepalm:
Well, Hank, what doctrine do you want me to believe that you think I don't? That the Pope is God? That I can depose a Pope? It is rather you who have created new doctrines that you wish Catholics to submit to. Stop trying to be Pope!
-
That's not a refutation of the fact I stated. The R&R doesn't even understand that (concerning the recent canonizations of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II) either canonizations are not infallible acts of the church and every single saint in history is now open for revision or else John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are forever saints to be venerated.
That's not true, Hank, I directly addressed your accusation, but now you throw up another issue. How is it that a true Pope can canonise those who have lead such scandalous lives? It is a good question, and indeed it requires an answer, which I am not going to give you now. Does it oblige us to acknowledge that the one sitting on the chair of Peter could not be Pope? But even if I answer that one to your satisfaction, there will just be another issue, true? Every single statement, every single action, even if they are doubtful in themselves, it seems that if we have enough of them the sum total is just so great that we have to conclude that he is not Pope! That's how it seems to work to me.
-
According to the R&R, the very men traditionalists hate as much as Martin Luther (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II) are now among the blessed in heaven. Again, either canonizations are not infallible acts of the church and every single saint in history is now open for discussion or else John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II are saints to be venerated.
Will the R&R trads ever realize that, for them, saying "Pope St. Pius X Pray For Us" and saying "Pope Saint Paul VI Pray For Us" are now exactly on equal footing?
-
According to the R&R, the very men traditionalists hate as much as Martin Luther (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II) are now among the blessed in heaven. Again, either canonizations are not infallible acts of the church and every single saint in history is now open for discussion or else John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II are saints to be venerated.
Will the R&R trads ever realize that, for them, saying "Pope St. Pius X Pray For Us" and saying "Pope Saint Paul VI Pray For Us" are now exactly on equal footing?
Would you like to provide a source for such a ludicrous claim?
-
Well, Hank, what doctrine do you want me to believe that you think I don't? That the Pope is God? That I can depose a Pope? It is rather you who have created new doctrines that you wish Catholics to submit to. Stop trying to be Pope!
I don't think that you believe the simple fact that the Church cannot formally teach error. You seem to be under the misconception that if Francis is not a true Pope, then the Church has defected. However, the exact opposite is true: The Church has defected, and proved itself to be a fraud, not if Francis isn’t the Pope, but if he is.
Only a true Pope is assisted by the Holy Ghost:
“The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.” (Pope Pius XII, Address Ancora Una Volta, Feb. 20, 1949)
And so the reason why Bergoglio can publicly commit all of these formal heresies with impunity and without any interference from the Holy Spirit is quite simply the fact that he is not the Pope.
-
As St Robert Bellarmine says, even if we could not depose a Pope WHO WANTS TO DESTROY THE CHURCH (note: a pope can have the desire to destroy the Church), we must pray God Who will either CONVERT HIM (note: a Pope may need converting) or abolish him from the midst before he achieves his evil designs.
St. Robert Bellarmine's 5 opinions pertain only to the heresy of a Pope "as a private person" and does not include the possibility of any error whatsoever corrupting the universal/ordinary magisterium, which is what Bergoglio has done publicly for more than 10 + years.
Therefore, it's best to just accept the unfortunate truth instead of parroting inane Salza & Siscoe talking points.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's 5 opinions pertain only to the heresy of a Pope "as a private person" and does not include the possibility of any error whatsoever corrupting the universal/ordinary magisterium, which is what Bergoglio has done publicly for more than 10 + years.
Therefore, it's best to just accept the unfortunate truth instead of parroting inane Salza & Siscoe talking points.
I have not read S&S on St Robert Bellarmine's five opinions, Hank, but I do have a copy of St Robert's work. I do not see where he states that his argument relates to private heresy only. Are we on the same page? He does call all of these five 'opinions', and even the one he calls the 'true opinion', he doesn't hold to, because he actually believes that God would not let the Pope become a heretic in the first place. He does state, in his examination of the second opinion, that "jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men".
Let's face it, these are all theological opinions, and no theologian really envisaged the current state of the Church - although St Robert seems to have come close where he talks about resisting the Pope who wants to destroy the Church. We are in uncharted territory. There is doubt. Sedevacantists want to make something certain that is by no means certain. The Church has not settled this matter, so we ought not to pretend to. Even the third opinion, that the Pope cannot be deposed on account of heresy, whether secret or manifest, St Robert calls 'extremely improbable', which is not impossible, and has not been condemned by the Church.
It is indeed truth that we must accept, not opinion.
-
Stop your sophistry.
There are two answers to your post.
Firstly, without even reading the rest of the Council docuмent, there is a very important question to ask. What is infallible in a Council? Is it every word of every docuмent? Or the definitions? Of course, it is the definitions which are held to be infallible, and what does the definition say (see below)? Why would the Church place all of those conditions there for infallibility if it could have simply said the Pope is infallible "every time he teaches on faith and morals"? It's simple. Stop trying to complicate things. Submit to the Church. Furthermore, the Council states that this definition is IRREFORMABLE. An anathema is attached to anyone who does not accept it as it is, unreformed! Stop your perfidious reforming of Vatican I.
Secondly, and I have responded to you with this explanation before, you must read how the very docuмent that defines infallibility explains these very characteristics that you cite: 1. never failing faith and 2. the Apostolic See unblemished by error. It is precisely in the infallibility as defined by the Council that, according to the very docuмent itself, these two characteristics of never failing faith of Peter and the First See unblemished by error consist. It is pure fantasy on your part to imagine that it means that the Pope can teach no error in faith or morals at all. Read the docuмent for goodness' sake:
In Summary it says "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter... that by His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation... for they (the Roman Pontiffs) knew very well that this See of Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise... I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail... This gift of truth and never failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors SO THAT they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous food of error..." But since in this age there are not a few who disparage the authority of the Holy See "We judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative" which Our Lord attached to the office of Pope, "THEREFORE, faithfully adhering to the tradition received... we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma..."
You know the meaning of the word "therefore"? It means for this reason, on account of this.
Listen, Ladislaus, and hear the Church. It is because of this never failing faith of Peter, because of the First See being unblemished by error, that the Council defines the prerogative that Our Lord attached to the office of the Papacy, that infallibility which Our Divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy, the tradition faithfully received, the very meaning of its freedom from error and unfailing faith. What is that prerogative? Freedom from error whenever the Pope teaches on Faith and morals? Is that what it says? Read and submit to the Church and stop corrupting the Faith of the Church:
- To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.
- 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 [59] .
- The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circuмstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
- sometimes by
- summoning ecuмenical councils or
- consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
- special synods, sometimes by
- taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
- defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with
- sacred scripture and
- the apostolic traditions.
- For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
- not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
- but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
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 Saviour 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 [60] . - This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
- But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
- Therefore,
- faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
- to the glory of God our saviour,
- for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
- for the salvation of the christian people,
- with the approval of the sacred council,
- we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
- when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
- that is, when,
- in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
- in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
- he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
- he possesses,
- by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
- that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
- Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to REJECT THIS DEFINITION of ours: let him be anathema.
Well said PV! This post could be pinned at the top of the Crisis forum.
-
Quote from Stubborn - "The so called "R&R" is resisting the heresies of the conciliar church and new religion by keeping the faith." Isn't this the same mindset of every group that has ever split from the Roman Catholic Church?
No, it is not the same mindset of every group. One example is Henry VIII, who turned the Church in England into the Church of England because the pope wouldn't grant him a divorce. The list of reasons for splitting is long.
-
You might, in all good faith 2V, take note of the fact that my post was a response to a sedevacantist whining about R&Rers on our home turf!
Well, I would in all good faith if that was what he was doing.
However, he, a sede that rarely posts here, was making an observation that many of the R&R posters here focus more on sedevacantism than on the words and actions of their pope. That's an observable fact. He wasn't emoting. The only thing I would add is that this behavior isn't as frequent as it used to be.
Whining is when a R&R poster continually emotes that the sedevacantists are "taking over the forum!" (and yet remains here) and when you complain that this feeeeels like enemy territory (essentially confirming that ongoing whining).
-
I am therefore free to preach sedevacantism and recruit others to that position, and to the historical figures who have espoused that position?
I am therefore free to draw the logical consequences and proceed to conclavism, and draw others to follow me into that course of action?
Let's not forget that this thread put sedevacantists on the defensive from the start. It wasn't a thread started by a sede with the goal of "preaching and recruiting" others to his/her position. Sedevacantist posters responded to defend the position from the assertion that there is "no good thing, only bad things" that comes from it. This is typically how things go down here.
-
R & R seems to be the Catholic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly singing "la, la, la, la, la, la.........." and believing you won't lose your faith because your false obedience protects you magically.
The poison cake metaphor used to be 5%....now it's 30% poison? I wouldn't eat 1% poison.
-
R & R seems to be the Catholic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly singing "la, la, la, la, la, la.........." and believing you won't lose your faith because your false obedience protects you magically.
The poison cake metaphor used to be 5%....now it's 30% poison? I wouldn't eat 1% poison.
You mean like this?
The papacy of old has become an idol - page 2 - Members Only - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/the-papacy-of-old-has-become-an-idol/msg919422/#msg919422)
-
Pope Martin V (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм16.htm) is pretty clear. I only quoted a small portion of his condemnation below....
This most holy synod of Constance therefore declares and defines that the articles listed below... are not catholic and should not be taught to be such but rather many of them are erroneous, others scandalous, others offensive to the ears of the devout, many of them are rash and seditious, and some of them are notoriously heretical and have long ago been rejected and condemned by holy fathers and by general councils, and it strictly forbids them to be preached, taught or in any way approved.... this most holy synod therefore reproves and condemns the aforesaid books and his teaching...
...On account of the above, moreover, *all* his teaching is and shall be deservedly suspect regarding the faith and is to be avoided by all of Christ’s faithful...This same holy synod decrees that local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy are to proceed against any who violate or defy this sentence and decree as if they were persons suspected of heresy...
20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - CONDEMNED
-
Complete fantasy. The Resistance sees sedevacantism as a danger to souls, just as Archbishop Lefebvre did, a deviation from the right path.
Do you speak for "the Resistance" now? Both Bishop Williamson and Avrille have stated that SVism is understandable, and +Williamson that it's possible Bergoglio is not the pope. Father Chazal has stated that +Vigano is effectively Resistance, despite holding it to be morally certain that Jorge is not the pope. Apart from a stretch in the early 1980s, +Lefebvre himself stated that SVism was possible, just that he did not feel that it was "YET" time to come out openly as an SV, deferring to the Church. Last time I checked, such sentiments preclude certainty in their legitimacy as "dogmatic fact" and at least puts these papal claimants into the papa dubius = nullus papa category.
You appear to be arrogantly putting words into the mouths of "the Resistance". If anyone speaks for the Resistance, that would be Bishop Williamson, and he does not believe that questioning Jorge's legitimacy is any "danger to souls," but rather that it's possible and understandable. Similarly, you put your own false spin on +Lefebvre, who was mostly open to SVism (again, except for in the early 1980s).
Stop trying to pretend that +Williamson or +Lefebvre are sock puppets for your own opinion. It's really this marked tendency toward Old Catholicism among some R&R that is the true danger to souls. And, newsflash, if Jorge is pope, we're both in trouble ... since the Church has dogmatically declared that subjection to the Vicar of Christ is necessary for salvation.
-
You mean like this?
The papacy of old has become an idol - page 2 - Members Only - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/the-papacy-of-old-has-become-an-idol/msg919422/#msg919422)
Oh wow....I didn't see that. How funny we thought the same thing!
-
No, it is not the same mindset of every group. One example is Henry VIII, who turned the Church in England into the Church of England because the pope wouldn't grant him a divorce. The list of reasons for splitting is long.
You're correct in that it is the same mindset of every group that will not submit to the living magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, including you guys who are R&R. If you regard Bergoglio as your pope then why don't you submit to him instead of being a splinter group of a splinter group (The SSPX----->The Resistance). Your position and attitude is no different than every other splinter group.
-
Stop trying to pretend that +Williamson or +Lefebvre are sock puppets for your own opinion. It's really this marked tendency toward Old Catholicism among some R&R that is the true danger to souls. And, newsflash, if Jorge is pope, we're both in trouble ... since the Church has dogmatically declared that subjection to the Vicar of Christ is necessary for salvation.
Ladislaus is 100% on point here. Why can't the R&R just face the sad and bitter truth and deal with it?
-
Submit to the Church....Read and submit to the Church...
Exactly. Submit to your Pope Bergoglio:incense:
-
Pope Martin V (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм16.htm) is pretty clear. I only quoted a small portion of his condemnation below....
This most holy synod of Constance therefore declares and defines that the articles listed below... are not catholic and should not be taught to be such but rather many of them are erroneous, others scandalous, others offensive to the ears of the devout, many of them are rash and seditious, and some of them are notoriously heretical and have long ago been rejected and condemned by holy fathers and by general councils, and it strictly forbids them to be preached, taught or in any way approved.... this most holy synod therefore reproves and condemns the aforesaid books and his teaching...
...On account of the above, moreover, *all* his teaching is and shall be deservedly suspect regarding the faith and is to be avoided by all of Christ’s faithful...This same holy synod decrees that local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy are to proceed against any who violate or defy this sentence and decree as if they were persons suspected of heresy...
20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - CONDEMNED
So the main belief of the SV's has been condemned by the Catholic Church. Pretty sure that the SV's aren't going to care, unfortunately. They are above Church teaching, of course. They seem to believe that it does not apply to them. But then Martin Luther thought the same, as did Calvin.
-
20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - CONDEMNED
:facepalm:
Some R&R constantly confuse/conflate the notion of a "wicked" pope (sinful, degenerate) with a non-Catholic (cf. Pius XII that only heresy and schism separate from membership in the Church). This is the same thinking behind the "bad father" analogy.
-
So the main belief of the SV's has been condemned by the Catholic Church. Pretty sure that the SV's aren't going to care, unfortunately. They are above Church teaching.
See above. I swear, the level of thinking / IQ among some R&R is very difficult to suffer.
-
It is pure fantasy on your part to imagine that it means that the Pope can teach no error in faith or morals at all.
So a pope can formally teach error after error after error after error in faith and morals year after year after year after year (as Bergoglio has done and continues to do) and he's still the Vicar of Christ....okay :facepalm:
-
See above. I swear, the level of thinking / IQ among some R&R is very difficult to suffer.
At least we aren't liars. That has to count for something.
-
You're correct in that it is the same mindset of every group that will not submit to the living magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, including you guys who are R&R. If you regard Bergoglio as your pope then why don't you submit to him instead of being a splinter group of a splinter group (The SSPX----->The Resistance). Your position and attitude is no different than every other splinter group.
You, like Lad, have a NO understanding of what the living magisterium is. FYI, non-sede trads are already in submission to the living magisterium.
-
I don't think that you believe the simple fact that the Church cannot formally teach error. You seem to be under the misconception that if Francis is not a true Pope, then the Church has defected. However, the exact opposite is true: The Church has defected, and proved itself to be a fraud, not if Francis isn’t the Pope, but if he is.
Only a true Pope is assisted by the Holy Ghost:
“The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.” (Pope Pius XII, Address Ancora Una Volta, Feb. 20, 1949)
And so the reason why Bergoglio can publicly commit all of these formal heresies with impunity and without any interference from the Holy Spirit is quite simply the fact that he is not the Pope.
Archbishop Lefebvre (ignored by modern R&R):
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
-
:facepalm:
Some R&R constantly confuse/conflate the notion of a "wicked" pope (sinful, degenerate) with a non-Catholic (cf. Pius XII that only heresy and schism separate from membership in the Church). This is the same thinking behind the "bad father" analogy.
Booo! :fryingpan:
-
So a pope can formally teach error after error after error after error in faith and morals year after year after year after year (as Bergoglio has done and continues to do) and he's still the Vicar of Christ....okay :facepalm:
Yeah, the R&R attempt to make an analogy between this crisis here and an isolated error in some Encyclical or Allocution. There's absolutely no comparison. We have over 60 years of "Magisterium" that's thoroughly polluted with error, particularly religious indifferentism and denial of EENS, the promulgation of a non-Catholic Protestantized bastard Rite of Mass ... and they try to claim that it's in the same category as a mistake a Pope might make in some Encyclical or Allocution. These V2 papal claimants have basically established a new religion that's not recognizable as Catholic, and as +Lefebvre pointed out, lacks the Marks of the Catholic Church. They hide behind the technicalities of the limits to papal infallibility "in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton referred to it) in order to pretend that the Magisterium and Mass from a legitimate pope can be so corrupt as to not only justify but even require refusal of communion with and submission to the Vicar of Christ.
Let's say there was no NOM and we were talking about an isolated passage or two in Vatican II that was wrong. There's no way there would have been a Traditional movement that separated from the hierarchy. We'd have some Catholics who respectfully disagreed and questioned the teaching through the appropriate channels ... all from WITHIN the Church. There would have been no need to split off from the Church. Let's say I was a priest during the time of Pius XII and disagreed with what he said about evolution or NFP (both of which I do disagree with), would I go off and start my own chapel as a result of this disagreement? Hardly. But the scope of the V2 revolution and transformation of the Church has been so radical that we don't recognize it as the Catholic Church. If St. Pius X had been time-warped to today, would he recognize the Conciliar Church as the Catholic Church? No way. He'd think it was some Protestant sect. There's no comparison between the V2 revolution and some error / mistake in a non-infallible teaching of a Pope.
R&R try to pretend that this is simply a difference of degree in terms of fallible statements, but the Conciliar Church represents a difference of kind, not merely a difference of degree. If you can have one mistaken non-infallible teaching, why not 10, why not 100, why not 1000? Well, the cuмulative effect of all that error and the New Mass and the bastardization of canonizations ... together they have the cuмulative effect of setting up a new religion and effect a substantial change in the institution known as the Conciliar Church.
You can change a certain number of accidents, but at some point, the cuмulative effect is that the entity no longer has the same essence. This reminds of a story with my Mother-In-Law. At one point she brought out a cake that she called "Lemon Chiffon" cake. And yet it was orange with brown frosting. When questioned she said, "Well, I had a recipe for Lemon Chiffon cake. But I didn't have the lemon batter, so I used this orange cake mix I had. And I didn't have the lemon butter icing, so I used this brown icing that I had." At this point, it's obviously not "lemon chiffon" cake anymore, but she still called it that. This is precisely what R&R do, say that the transformation is merely accidental, whereas if you change enough of the "accidents", the thing cease substantially to be what it was.
-
So the main belief of the SV's has been condemned by the Catholic Church. Pretty sure that the SV's aren't going to care, unfortunately. They are above Church teaching, of course. They seem to believe that it does not apply to them. But then Martin Luther thought the same, as did Calvin.
You are of course right Meg, they will ignore THE POPE decreeing that the idea:
is "not catholic and should not be taught"
And that it is among Hus' ideas that THE POPE decreed are:
1) "erroneous"
2) "scandalous"
3) "offensive to the ears of the devout"
4) "rash and seditious"
5) "notoriously heretical and have long ago been rejected and condemned by holy fathers and by general councils, which the council "strictly forbids them to be preached, taught or in any way approved."
But because the pope did not come out and condemn the idea of sedeism explicitly (as if it existed back then), "it does not apply." :facepalm:
-
I don't think that you believe the simple fact that the Church cannot formally teach error.
1. Neither V2 nor the new mass are a formal teaching, because neither is binding, nor obligatory, nor will anyone go to hell for ignoring them.
2. There are just as many flavors of R&R as there are of sedeism. This is not an either-or situation.
3. Chastising "all of R&R" for not buying into your interpretation of the crisis is why many R&R don't like sedes.
-
You are of course right Meg, they will ignore THE POPE decreeing that the idea:
is "not catholic and should not be taught"
And that it is among those Hus' ideas that THE POPE decreed are:
1) "erroneous"
2) "scandalous"
3) "offensive to the ears of the devout"
4) "rash and seditious"
5) "notoriously heretical and have long ago been rejected and condemned by holy fathers and by general councils, which the council "strictly forbids them to be preached, taught or in any way approved."
But because the pope did not come out and condemn the idea of sedeism explicitly (as if it existed back then), "it does not apply." :facepalm:
Nobody's ignoring anything, you dunderhead. That clearly refers to a wicked (sinful) pope and not a non-Catholic. I guess that St. Robert Bellarmine's posiiton that a non-Catholic cannot be the Pope is condemned error, right? It's too bad that he didn't get the memo, and that none of the subsequent theologians realized this. But we have Stubborn coming to the rescue with his gross misinterpretation of papal teaching ... and yet sets himself up as the ultimate arbiter of what is Traditional and what isn't ... when that's precisely the pope's job, the job of the papacy.
-
1. Neither V2 nor the new mass are a formal teaching
Please don't tell me you believe in that "Vatican II was a pastoral council" nonsense that is spewed by the SSPX and other R&R conmen. 2 of the 16 V2 docuмents are "Dogmatic Constitutions" (Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium).
-
Nobody's ignoring anything, you dunderhead. That clearly refers to a wicked (sinful) pope and not a non-Catholic. I guess that St. Robert Bellarmine's posiiton that a non-Catholic cannot be the Pope is condemned error, right? It's too bad that he didn't get the memo, and that none of the subsequent theologians realized this. But we have Stubborn coming to the rescue with his gross misinterpretation of papal teaching ... and yet sets himself up as the ultimate arbiter of what is Traditional and what isn't ... when that's precisely the pope's job, the job of the papacy.
1) It was not St. Robert's position, it was his opinion.
2) Heretics are wicked, heresy is a sin
3) THE POPE is condemning him teaching sedesim, i.e. that the pope is not the head of the Church since he is not even a member of it, not the excuses Hus used to arrive at that conclusion.
4) Regardless of what you say, a) the above 3 points are fact to anyone with elementary reading comprehension, and b) THE POPE neither mentions or in any way implies that the idea THE POPE is condemning is an any way virtuous, or in any way profitable.
It applies.
-
You, like Lad, have a NO understanding of what the living magisterium is. FYI, non-sede trads are already in submission to the living magisterium.
How?
-
How?
Magisterium:
"...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
Always infallible. (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612)
-
You, like Lad, have a NO understanding of what the living magisterium is. FYI, non-sede trads are already in submission to the living magisterium.
If non-sede trads were already in submission to the living magisterium then they would belong to their pope's church and submit to his formal teachings. They would also have no problem whatsoever with the recent canonizations of Pope Saint John XXIII, Pope Saint Paul VI and Pope Saint John Paul II.
-
If non-sede trads were already in submission to the living magisterium then they would belong to their pope's church and submit to his formal teachings. They would also have no problem whatsoever with the recent canonizations of Pope Saint John XXIII, Pope Saint Paul VI and Pope Saint John Paul II.
As I said, you have a NO understanding of what the living magisterium is.
-
As I said, you have a NO understanding of what the living magisterium is.
Apparently, you believe that the living magisterium is not to be followed when it declares or rules on something you don't agree with. If I am wrong, then please address the recent Pope Saint canonizations issue and your stance on it since you claim to have already submitted to the "living magisterium." If John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are not forever saints to be venerated, then that means canonizations are not infallible acts of the Church and every single saint in history is now up for revision. If they are forever saints to be venerated, then you should have no issue with saying "Pope St. Paul VI Pray For Us"
-
You, like Lad, have a NO understanding of what the living magisterium is. FYI, non-sede trads are already in submission to the living magisterium.
In what way are you in submission to the living magisterium? Do you accept Amoris laetitia? Do you accept Fiducia supplicans? Do accept the Abu Dhabi docuмent that was placed in the Acta?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzvNrX-FTyk
+Lefebvre:
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
From there he proceeds to examine various possible explanations for what has happened. He goes through various theories about the Pope being drugged, a prisoner, insane, replaced by a double ... and dismisses them as implausible and (French) "aberrantes", translated in the video as "crazy", but more like "off the wall" or "wild" or "out in left field".
Then he concludes that Sedevacantism is possible:
so it can be said that the Holy Father, in effect, that it's not possible that a Pope could do all this, therefore he's not Pope. This reasoning is worth, this reasoning, I don't know, I don't say what's going on and there are several scenarios, maybe this one has merit ... we'll know the truth later ... and this is something that is far from impossible ... you know this is something that isn't impossible and theologians have studied this problem ... and we would have had for all this time a Pope who wasn't Pope. This is possible.
Archbishop Lefebvre AGREED with the MAJOR of the sedevacantist reasoning, namely, that a Pope is protected by the Holy Ghost form perpetrating this degree of destruction. And that is all we're advocating here, the SAME POSITION that +Lefebvre articulates in this speech.
So I submit to you R&R who dispute this that WE are the "faithful heirs" of +Lefebvre on this particular point, and he does not agree with your rejection of the Holy Ghost's overall protection of the papacy that would preclude such destruction.
+LEFEBVRE is ON OUR SIDE HERE !!!
And this is why +Lefebvre shies away from the ultimate SV conclusion ... a lack of certainty regarding the MINOR of the SVs. After saying that SVism has merit and is far from impossible, he goes back into meandering around the various other explanations out there, drugged pope, double of the pope, etc. He dismisses them. But he realizes that it COULD theoretically be SOMEthing like that going on. He didn't bring up the possibility that Montini might have been blackmailed on account of his sodomy (not something out of the question). So because there COULD be some other possibility that we don't know to explain this.
BUT AT NO POINT DOES LEFEBVRE DENY (BUT, RATHER, AFFIRMS) THE POINT THAT'S BEING DEBATED HERE, that the protection of the Holy Ghost over the papacy would preclude this degree of destruction. R&R simply ignore this and keep reasserting their pretension that +Lefebvre backs them up that the Papacy can corrupt the Church. But the actual truth is that he "agrees with [the sedevacantists]" on this essential point of contention.
I myself have said that I don't care what explanation you come up with. If you want to claim that Montini was replaced by a big-eared crooked-nosed double while being kept captive in a dungeon, drugged up and in chains (Palmar group believed this and "canonized" Montini as a martyr) as far as I'm concerned, more power to you. But the key is that you CANNOT deny the indefectibility of the Church and of the papacy, and +Lefebvre agrees with us here, NOT YOU.
Here's the SV argument:
MAJOR: Holy Ghost's protection over the Papacy precludes his having perpetrated this degree of destruction.
MINOR: Montini et al. perpetrated this degree of destruction.
CONCLUSION: Montini was not the pope.
+Lefebvre holds the conclusion to have merit and not be impossible. But where does he hesitate? He hesitates because he lacks complete certainty regarding the MINOR of the sedevacantist proposition, but at no point does he deny the MAJOR (which is what's being debated here). He says, we don't know, there may be some other unknown factor here, and he doesn't 100% rule out the possibility of these other theories, though he thinks they're "off the wall" and doesn't buy them. And yet he can't rule them out with 100% certainty, and therefore cannot with 100% certainty adhere to the conclusion that Montini was not the pope.
This is actually the correct logical form here ... against dogmatic SVism. That's because, in logic, the Conclusion can only be as strong as it's weakest premise periorem partem sequitur conclusio. Consequently, the SV conclusion can only be as certain as the certainty of the MINOR. It's possible that Montini didn't do it, that it was his entourage, or a double, or that he was being blackmailed (and therefore didn't do it freely), etc. We cannot know what went on with dogmatic certainty, so we can't embrace the conclusion with dogmatic certainty. This is why +Vigano rightly characterizes the non-papacy of Bergoglio as "morally certain" (vs. dogmatically or absolutely certain).
BUT with all that said, +Lefebvre agrees with the MAJOR ... which is the point of contention on this thread.
-
In what way are you in submission to the living magisterium? Do you accept Amoris laetitia? Do you accept Fiducia supplicans? Do accept the Abu Dhabi docuмent that was placed in the Acta?
Of course the R&R crowd don't accept any of those teachings because they are suffering from theological schizophrenia (or cognitive dissonance---a contradictory state of mind). It's akin to believing that 2 + 2 = 5 while simultaneously knowing that 2 + 2 = 4. They are a sad lot indeed.
-
In what way are you in submission to the living magisterium? Do you accept Amoris laetitia? Do you accept Fiducia supplicans? Do accept the Abu Dhabi docuмent that was placed in the Acta?
Stubborn reduces the authority of the Magisterium to a tautology. If it's Traditional, it has authority and is Magisterium. If it's not Traditional, then it has no authority and is not Magisterium. If it's true, it's true but if it's false, it's false. Tautology. With this criterion, the Magisterium has no more intrinsic authority than you or I have when posting something on CathInfo, since the same holds of us, that if we say something Traditional, it's Traditional, but if we say something not Traditional, then it's not.
He doesn't realize that this makes himself the ultimate authority or rule regarding what's Traditional and what isn't. "If I, Stubborn, decide that it's Traditional, then I accept it." St. Thomas wrote that if someone rejects the authority of the Church, then he's effectively making himself the ultimate authority.
-
Please don't tell me you believe in that "Vatican II was a pastoral council" nonsense that is spewed by the SSPX and other R&R conmen. 2 of the 16 V2 docuмents are "Dogmatic Constitutions" (Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium).
Just because they used the word "Dogmatic" doesn't mean anything. V2 never came close to defining anything. Heck, V2 never came close to being intelligible. :laugh1:
I don't believe that God would allow even non-popes to come close to defining a formal error. God knew from all eternity that the idea of Sedeism (which i'm not opposed to) would be very hard for even good catholics to swallow, for many reasons. So, even for those good-willed in the novus ordo (and there are some), He still would give them the opportunity to reject V2/new mass, and He would not allow even anti-popes to cross the line.
Let's not forget that God is in control of this crisis and He's not playing the game of "gotcha". He's not trying to make this situation so confusing as to overwhelm us. New-rome has repeatedly said that V2 was pastoral. A pastoral council in no way affects sedevacantism, nor makes it less accurate. If you say it does, then your reasons for sedism are very weak.
-
Whining is when a R&R poster continually emotes that the sedevacantists are "taking over the forum!" (and yet remains here) and when you complain that this feeeeels like enemy territory (essentially confirming that ongoing whining).
You are right. It isn't proper for me to complain, and then keep posting here. You are one of the honest SV's here, 2Vermont. You strive to tell the truth always, which I appreciate, even when I disagree with you. Unfortunately, your fellow SV's don't do the same.
However, the main reason that I will try to not post here anymore is another reason. I believe that this thread was started in order to bring more traffic to the forum. I think it's a sin against charity to do that - to pit one group against another for monetary gain. Contention is good for business, when it comes to online forums.
-
Stubborn reduces the authority of the Magisterium to a tautology. If it's Traditional, it has authority and is Magisterium. If it's not Traditional, then it has no authority and is not Magisterium. If it's true, it's true but if it's false, it's false. Tautology. With this criterion, the Magisterium has no more intrinsic authority than you or I have when posting something on CathInfo, since the same holds of us, that if we say something Traditional, it's Traditional, but if we say something not Traditional, then it's not.
He doesn't realize that this makes himself the ultimate authority or rule regarding what's Traditional and what isn't. "If I, Stubborn, decide that it's Traditional, then I accept it." St. Thomas wrote that if someone rejects the authority of the Church, then he's effectively making himself the ultimate authority.
So then, it's the individual Catholic's responsibility to "sift" the magisterium to determine what is in conformity with traditional Catholic teaching and what is not. Don't they, in effect, become their own pope?
-
Apparently, you believe that the living magisterium is not to be followed when it declares or rules on something you don't agree with. If I am wrong, then please address the recent Pope Saint canonizations issue and your stance on it since you claim to have already submitted to the "living magisterium." If John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are not forever saints to be venerated, then that means canonizations are not infallible acts of the Church and every single saint in history is now up for revision. If they are forever saints to be venerated, then you should have no issue with saying "Pope St. Paul VI Pray For Us"
I posted FROM POPES what the Magisterium is. All you need to do, is believe them.
-
Stubborn reduces the authority of the Magisterium to a tautology. If it's Traditional, it has authority and is Magisterium. If it's not Traditional, then it has no authority and is not Magisterium. If it's true, it's true but if it's false, it's false. Tautology. With this criterion, the Magisterium has no more intrinsic authority than you or I have when posting something on CathInfo, since the same holds of us, that if we say something Traditional, it's Traditional, but if we say something not Traditional, then it's not.
He doesn't realize that this makes himself the ultimate authority or rule regarding what's Traditional and what isn't. "If I, Stubborn, decide that it's Traditional, then I accept it." St. Thomas wrote that if someone rejects the authority of the Church, then he's effectively making himself the ultimate authority.
Ah, the mind of a sede. Sad, but fascinating.
-
Just because they used the word "Dogmatic" doesn't mean anything. V2 never came close to defining anything. Heck, V2 never came close to being intelligible. :laugh1:
I don't believe that God would allow even non-popes to come close to defining a formal error. God knew from all eternity that the idea of Sedeism (which i'm not opposed to) would be very hard for even good catholics to swallow, for many reasons. So, even for those good-willed in the novus ordo (and there are some), He still would give them the opportunity to reject V2/new mass, and He would not allow even anti-popes to cross the line.
Let's not forget that God is in control of this crisis and He's not playing the game of "gotcha". He's not trying to make this situation so confusing as to overwhelm us. New-rome has repeatedly said that V2 was pastoral. A pastoral council in no way affects sedevacantism, nor makes it less accurate. If you say it does, then your reasons for sedism are very weak.
Each docuмent of Vatican II begins this way:
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY.”
This language of your pope---your vicar of christ--- is typical of dogmatic decrees at ecuмenical councils. It corresponds to how Pope Eugene IV began the 11th session of the dogmatic Council of Florence. He stated: “Eugene, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record.” It corresponds to how Pope Leo X began the 8th session of the dogmatic 5th Lateran Council, and how Pope Pius IX began the 3rd session of the dogmatic First Vatican Council.
Each docuмent of Vatican II ends this way:
“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
So your pope---your Vicar of Christ- (Paul VI) invokes his so-called “apostolic authority” to authoritatively approve, decree, and establish everything set forth in each docuмent of Vatican II. If he's the pope, this would definitely qualify as solemn dogmatic language. In fact, the language he uses here exceeds, in terms of its solemnity, the approval that early popes gave to the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, and others. If the completely delusional R&R Trads deny that this is infallible language, then they must deny that the early councils were infallible.
So please stop with the "Vatican II was a pastoral council so we don't have to follow it" nonsense once and for all.
-
So then, it's the individual Catholic's responsibility to "sift" the magisterium to determine what is in conformity with traditional Catholic teaching and what is not. Don't they, in effect, become their own pope?
I posted what the popes teach the Church's magisterium is, you choose to disbelieve, of all people, the popes. You choose instead to give the word a new meaning, a meaning that is more to your liking - nothing new. Please let us know where your magisterium is these days.
-
I posted what the popes teach the Church's magisterium is, you choose to disbelieve, of all people, the popes.
No, your typical modus operandi it to present your misinterpretations of Magisterium as Magisterium. This is precisely the point of the living Magisterium, to shoot down idiotic (and sometimes malicious) misinterpretations of Magisterium.
And it's laughable for you to cite Magisterium when you sift the Magisterium anyway, so you're citing Magisterium that you happen to agree with ... but the ignore the walls of Magisterium that condemn your position.
-
At least we aren't liars. That has to count for something.
If you ignore Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which footnotes Ex cuм Apostolatus, while simultaneously accusing sedevacantism of being condemned by the Church you are indeed a liar.
-
Magisterium:
"...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
Always infallible. (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612)
No, I was asking how “non sede trads are already in submission to the living Magisterium”
The living Magisterium is the current teaching Church.
how are you in submission to them?
-
If you ignore Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which footnotes Ex cuм Apostolatus, while simultaneously accusing sedevacantism of being condemned by the Church you are indeed a liar.
By the way, that part of Bishop Pivarunas' talk was new to me. I did not know about that footnote.
-
No, your typical modus operandi it to present your misinterpretations of Magisterium as Magisterium. This is precisely the point of the living Magisterium, to shoot down idiotic (and sometimes malicious) misinterpretations of Magisterium.
And it's laughable for you to cite Magisterium when you sift the Magisterium anyway, so you're citing Magisterium that you happen to agree with ... but the ignore the walls of Magisterium that condemn your position.
All you need to do, is believe them. Be not unbelieving Lad.....
-
No, I was asking how “non sede trads are already in submission to the living Magisterium”
The living Magisterium is the current teaching Church.
how are you in submission to them?
We are in submission to the living Magisterium, which is the Church teaching us, and has nothing to do with the conciliar church. Again, all you need to do is believe what the popes teach. Very easy for me to say because I've always believed them, very difficult for sedes because they have have to overcome the wrong idea of what the magisterium even is. But the answer is, all you need to do is believe the popes in the link and I would think that is should begin to make sense to you.
-
Stubborn reduces the authority of the Magisterium to a tautology. If it's Traditional, it has authority and is Magisterium. If it's not Traditional, then it has no authority and is not Magisterium.
Every Trad does this, in one way or another. Sedes do it with the 1955 Holy Week changes, among many other things.
-
At least we aren't liars. That has to count for something.
What are you? If Pope Francis is the Pope, then I am assuming you attend a Mass that is outside his domain. That is officially called Schism. How are you not in Schism with the Catholic Church of Pope Francis? Do you say Pope Saint Paul IV? Do you say Pope Saint John XXIII? May God have Mercy on us all for the confusing times we live in. Maybe the next time you want to call other liars, you should pray a decade of the Rosary instead. And I am sorry I am being mean. It is called tough love.
-
Every Trad does this, in one way or another. Sedes do it with the 1955 Holy Week changes, among many other things.
Apart from the fact that the Holy Week changes aren't Magisterium, the argument made by the SVs who reject the Holy Week changes (not all due, e.g. CMRI, so it's unfair to lump all SVs into this group) is based on the notion of "epikeia", that if there were a legitimate Pope, he'd roll back the changes, having seen in hindsight how they contributed to the liturgical revolution.
-
Every Trad does this, in one way or another. Sedes do it with the 1955 Holy Week changes, among many other things.
Not every trad reduces the authority of the Magisterium to a tautology. However, every R&R trad does so by "sifting" what he doesn't like. And comparing every R&R trad to the sedes concerning the 1955 Holy Week changes is a false equivalence
because not all sedes ignore the 1955 Holy Week changes. The CMRI, for example, uses all of the Pope Pius XII changes (including 1955 Holy Week changes and the 1958 Dialogue Masses). So while it was a good effort on your part to lump all sedes with all R&R together, it just isn't so.
-
Apart from the fact that the Holy Week changes aren't Magisterium,
:confused: How are they not?
the argument made by the SVs who reject the Holy Week changes (not all due, e.g. CMRI, so it's unfair to lump all SVs into this group) is based on the notion of "epikeia", that if there were a legitimate Pope, he'd roll back the changes, having seen in hindsight how they contributed to the liturgical revolution.
1. If the Holy Week changes weren't part of the Magisterium, then that means they're optional, so the use of 'epikeia' is unnecessary.
2. The use of 'epikeia' is totally arbitrary. It's a case of "there's no one in charge, so i'm going to do whatever I want." It's not really an argument; it's an excuse.
-
every R&R trad does so by "sifting" what he doesn't like....because not all sedes ignore the 1955 Holy Week changes.
There's just as much variation of R&R, as there is in sedeism.
-
By the way, that part of Bishop Pivarunas' talk was new to me. I did not know about that footnote.
That footnote in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that references cuм Ex Apostolatus is important because the SSPX and Resistance priests (who all picked the argument up from Fr. Hesse) make the claim that cuм Ex Apostolatus was only human (ecclesiastical) law and not Divine Law and was replaced with new provisions regarding the election of a pope. However, sedevacantists have always argued that it is Divine Law that a heretic is not a member of the Church and cannot be its head. The proof of this is that the same popes that they say replaced this law, actually included it in their Code of Canon Law. That means that anyone who repeats the argument of Fr. Hesse after having knowledge of this is a liar. Something that sedevacantists are accused of but the proof and dishonesty is there. Canon 188.4 and its footnote prove the sede vacante position as being the true position of the Catholic Church in the case of a manifest heretic pope. Any discussion referencing St. Robert Bellarmine is pointless. We have the Code of Canon Law of the Church in very clear language referencing also cuм Ex Apostolatus. This is what sold me entirely to the sede vacante position regarding Bergoglio Jorge.
-
That footnote in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that references cuм Ex Apostolatus is important because the SSPX and Resistance priests (who all picked the argument up from Fr. Hesse) make the claim that cuм Ex Apostolatus was only human (ecclesiastical) law and not Divine Law and was replaced with new provisions regarding the election of a pope. However, sedevacantists have always argued that it is Divine Law that a heretic is not a member of the Church and cannot be its head. The proof of this is that the same popes that they say replaced this law, actually included it in their Code of Canon Law. That means that anyone who repeats the argument of Fr. Hesse after having knowledge of this is a liar. Something that sedevacantists are accused of but the proof and dishonesty is there. Canon 188.4 and its footnote prove the sede vacante position as being the true position of the Catholic Church in the case of a manifest heretic pope. Any discussion referencing St. Robert Bellarmine is pointless. We have the Code of Canon Law of the Church in very clear language referencing also cuм Ex Apostolatus. This is what sold me entirely to the sede vacante position regarding Bergoglio Jorge.
See, this is the type of total BS I mentioned earlier. Ah, but say something and we're whining - BS. Have you ever even read cuм ex?
If you had and didn't understand that if it were still in force, having deviated from the faith before their conversion to the true faith, that all of "the Nine" could not have been ordained to the priesthood. The same for all sedes, the same for all other converts, including every single NO convert, then you did not understand what you read.
Certainly Pope Leo XIII would have broke Divine Law by elevating to Cardinal, John Henry Newman, who was an ex Anglican priest. This is an act cuм ex explicitly, repeatedly condemns. Does that make me a liar for pointing this out? Does that make Pope Leo XIII an anti-pope or just outside of the Church?
If you ever read cuм ex, you would have seen that no where in cuм ex is any abjuration accepted, not ever. Once they (any cleric or religious whatsoever) deviated from the faith, they're done. Their end is, per Pope Paul IV in cuм ex, is that they are to be abandoned, shunted away to some monastery or religious house "to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of water and the water of affliction" - per cuм ex:
(ii) that, moreover, they shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be
held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this
kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or
rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or
the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity, greater or lesser, any right to vote, active or passive,
or authority, or Monasteries and benefices, or Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships
and positions of Imperial power; but rather that they shall be abandoned to the judgement of the
secular power to be punished after due consideration, unless there should appear in them signs of true
penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance, and, by the kindness and clemency of the See itself, they shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to
perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction;
-
Stubborn,
My argument is not based on cuм Ex Apostolatus. My argument is based on Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Code of Canon Law merely footnotes cuм Ex Apostolatus. I acknowledged that there are counter-arguments to cuм Ex Apostolatus. I do not know of any valid argument to the Code of Canon Law of 1917, unless one were to reject that CoCL in favor of the 1983 CoCL. Heresy by notoriety of fact without the need for any declarations whatsoever are the key problem for those who reject the sede vacante position. It is here wherein the argument lies that there is no counter. Accepting a heretic pope leads one to reject the 1983 CoCL and enter into the Novus Ordo sect as many have done. The only tenable position in light of this is the sede vacante position. cuм Ex Apostolatus is nothing more than an intersting footnote. Canon 188.4 is the heart of the matter when notoriety of fact is applied from the same Code of Canon Law.
-
See, this is the type of total BS I mentioned earlier. Ah, but say something and we're whining - BS. Have you ever even read cuм ex?
Sure, why don't you interpret it for us, Stubborn. Centro cited where the 1917 Code cited it in a way that does not match your (mis)interpretation of it. As I said, you repeatedly put your own spin, often misinterpretation, on something and declare that your (mis)interpretation of the Magisterium is the Magisterium. Most recent example is where you claim that sedevacantism is condemned when the Church condemned the proposition that SINFUL popes are not members of the Church and therefore non-popes. That has nothing to do with sedevacantism. Jorge Bergoglio could be a sodomite child rapist and that wouldn't disqualify him from holding papal authority.
-
the SSPX and Resistance priests (who all picked the argument up from Fr. Hesse) make the claim that cuм Ex Apostolatus was only human (ecclesiastical) law and not Divine Law and was replaced with new provisions regarding the election of a pope.
This false information is peddled by the same theological charlatans and conmen who tell their followers that "Vatican II was a pastoral council so we don't have to follow it." They spew these lies just so they could hang on to their flock. I learned that a very long time ago.
-
What are you? If Pope Francis is the Pope, then I am assuming you attend a Mass that is outside his domain. That is officially called Schism. How are you not in Schism with the Catholic Church of Pope Francis? Do you say Pope Saint Paul IV? Do you say Pope Saint John XXIII? May God have Mercy on us all for the confusing times we live in. Maybe the next time you want to call other liars, you should pray a decade of the Rosary instead. And I am sorry I am being mean. It is called tough love.
2 down votes and no explanation. I do not understand why people are such cowards. God sees all. He knows what is in our Hearts. Pray on that.
-
We are in submission to the living Magisterium, which is the Church teaching us, and has nothing to do with the conciliar church. Again, all you need to do is believe what the popes teach. Very easy for me to say because I've always believed them, very difficult for sedes because they have have to overcome the wrong idea of what the magisterium even is. But the answer is, all you need to do is believe the popes in the link and I would think that is should begin to make sense to you.
Stubborn, I’m sorry but this statement makes absolutely no sense.
-
2 down votes and no explanation. I do not understand why people are such cowards. God sees all. He knows what is in our Hearts. Pray on that.
Try not to worry about downthumbs too much. If you don't get some, it just means that you're not posting or aren't expressing your true opinion. Yet, there are some cowardly types who serially downthumb without replying to a post as to what they don't like about it.
-
Stubborn, I’m sorry but this statement makes absolutely no sense.
That happens a lot with him. You have to understand that he defines "Magisterium" as anything taught that's Traditional, so nothing has any a priori intrinsic authority outside of dogmatic definitions unless they're consistent with Tradition. Thus the term "living Magisterium" doesn't register to him as referring to the current teaching of the currently-reigning Pope.
-
Stubborn,
My argument is not based on cuм Ex Apostolatus. My argument is based on Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Code of Canon Law merely footnotes cuм Ex Apostolatus. I acknowledged that there are counter-arguments to cuм Ex Apostolatus. I do not know of any valid argument to the Code of Canon Law of 1917, unless one were to reject that CoCL in favor of the 1983 CoCL. Heresy by notoriety of fact without the need for any declarations whatsoever are the key problem for those who reject the sede vacante position. It is here wherein the argument lies that there is no counter. Accepting a heretic pope leads one to reject the 1983 CoCL and enter into the Novus Ordo sect as many have done. The only tenable position in light of this is the sede vacante position. cuм Ex Apostolatus is nothing more than an intersting footnote. Canon 188.4 is the heart of the matter when notoriety of fact is applied from the same Code of Canon Law.
I meant to say that accepting a heretic pope is a rejection of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Those who have done this and were formally with either the resistance or the SSPX (Siscoe and Salza, Carlos Nogué et al) eventuay rejected R&R positions and went with the Conciliar Church. For those who don’t know Carlos Nogué, he is a self-styled Brazilian professor who for a time was teaching at Bishop Thomas Aquinas seminary. He authored a gigantic book entitled “The Heretic Pope” where he took most of Siscoe and Salza’s arguments and delivered them in Portuguese. Other like Jeff Cassman openly support the diocesan structure and disagree with +Lefebvre while attending SSPX chapels.
None of the anti-sedevacantists will respond to the 1917 Code of Canon Law argument in 188.4. They pretend it does not exist because it is an unfortunate fact for them. “No declaration necessary” and “notoriety of fact” (found in the 1917) are huge problems for R&R, especially when applied to Francis. If we could all just get past this and be honest with ourselves, unity among the Traditionalists groups could become a reality. Francis and his cardinals are not getting closer to the Faith. They are going further away from it.
I have Fr. Chazal’s booklet response to Fr. Cekada. I have yet to hear any priests make an argument against Canon 188.4 or the booklet “Answering Objections to Sedevacantism” by Bishop Pivarunas. If any argument does exist, I would love to read it. Cassman attempted to debate sedevacantism with Peter Dimond and failed so miserably against the 1917 CoCL argument that his own groups through a fit and wanted for Pints with Aquinas to remove the debate, to which they refused. Before any serious debate or discussion could continue, one, just one serious anti-sedevacantist would have to address the issue of the 1917 CoCl. Again, all that have tried failed and accepted heretic popes eventually abandoning R&R all together rather than laying pride aside and adopting the sede vacante position, they defected to the Conciliar religion.
-
Try not to worry about downthumbs too much. If you don't get some, it just means that you're not posting or aren't expressing your true opinion. Yet, there are some cowardly types who serially downthumb without replying to a post as to what they don't like about it.
I am not worried. I just know that being cowardly is not going to win the bigger Spiritual Battle that is out there.
I do wonder why Matthew started this conversation in the first place. Maybe Meg was right and he just wants more traffic. I can't figure him out. Sometimes I think "oh he is doing some good for the forum" and then I think "he wants to start fights". I know this is a free speech area, but what about the Real Spiritual battle that is going on all around us, where we are constantly being tempted to put are worst foot forward.
I have seen what focusing on these different issues does to people. I know from experience that sedes have had to tip toe around R&R people. I think the R&R position is a much more emotional group of people than the sedes. I know I am going to get flack for that statement, but I just don't care about peoples "feelings" anymore. I care about people's souls. WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT GOING AGAINST POPE FRANCIS.
-
I'm still waiting for R&R to refute Archbishop Lefebvre:
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
-
I meant to say that accepting a heretic pope is a rejection of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Those who have done this and were formally with either the resistance or the SSPX (Siscoe and Salza, Carlos Nogué et al) eventuay rejected R&R positions and went with the Conciliar Church. For those who don’t know Carlos Nogué, he is a self-styled Brazilian professor who for a time was teaching at Bishop Thomas Aquinas seminary. He authored a gigantic book entitled “The Heretic Pope” where he took most of Siscoe and Salza’s arguments and delivered them in Portuguese. Other like Jeff Cassman openly support the diocesan structure and disagree with +Lefebvre while attending SSPX chapels.
None of the anti-sedevacantists will respond to the 1917 Code of Canon Law argument in 188.4. They pretend it does not exist because it is an unfortunate fact for them. “No declaration necessary” and “notoriety of fact” (found in the 1917) are huge problems for R&R, especially when applied to Francis. If we could all just get past this and be honest with ourselves, unity among the Traditionalists groups could become a reality. Francis and his cardinals are not getting closer to the Faith. They are going further away from it.
I have Fr. Chazal’s booklet response to Fr. Cekada. I have yet to hear any priests make an argument against Canon 188.4 or the booklet “Answering Objections to Sedevacantism” by Bishop Pivarunas. If any argument does exist, I would love to read it. Cassman attempted to debate sedevacantism with Peter Dimond and failed so miserably against the 1917 CoCL argument that his own groups through a fit and wanted for Pints with Aquinas to remove the debate, to which they refused. Before any serious debate or discussion could continue, one, just one serious anti-sedevacantist would have to address the issue of the 1917 CoCl. Again, all that have tried failed and accepted heretic popes eventually abandoning R&R all together rather than laying pride aside and adopting the sede vacante position, they defected to the Conciliar religion.
Choc a block full of false claims.
If only we would all lay pride aside, like you, evidently, then we would all be sedevacantists. What is that if not the summit of pride?
If you have Fr Chazal's book, how can you be 'yet to hear any priests make an argument against Canon 188.4'?
Salza and Nogue are no more part of the SSPX than Centroamerica is... they come and they go, all trying to teach the Archbishop. They go to the left, you go to the right. Apparently that discredits the position of the Archbishop in your eyes?
Have you even searched Cathinfo? It would not take too much effort for you to discover that all these issues have been covered, but you know that, you just don't accept the arguments, you hold that you are infallibly entitled to take down the Pope according to Canon Law, there is no doubt for you at all, it is an absolute certainty, you can now agitate for the reconstitution of the hierarchy. Incredible!
Here is a little reading that at the very least should remove some of your certainty and convince you to put your sword back in its scabbard:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/does-canon-law-support-sedevacantism/
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/contra-cekadam/ Read from p40 in your book.
Here is an excerpt from Bishop Williamson's preface:
Sedevacantists also love Canon 188.4 which states that public defection from the faith on the part of a cleric means automatic loss of his office. But many other Canons and the other sections of Canon 188 clearly show that this “public defection” must include the cleric's intent to resign by such acts as, for instance, attempting marriage or joining a sect, and also there must be a warning and official monitions before the cleric loses his office. Common justice calls it the right of self-defence.
Here is some of Fr Chazal's text:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/contra-cekadam-by-fr-chazal-more-chapters/
But for starters, sedevacantists do not know how to use this famed canon 188.4 in the first place, its extension and its interpretation:
* VERMEERSCH is spot on: “One defects from the Faith who denies its foundation pertinaciously, or who by some precise fact (“facto factove”) destroys all bound with the Catholic religion, for instance, by adhering to a heretical or schismatic sect. The delict is public , when it is notorious to the greater part of the community or can soon be known” Epitome Iuris Canonici, I, p.190. Here in the Philippines, the delict is far from public, and for all our efforts, Francis is in good standing as the “Santo Padre”. We do not know how soon he will be known as such, in spite of our efforts.
* Fr BRIAN hαɾɾιsON says, “188.4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defecting publicly from the faith”. However, to 'defect publicly' from the faith, in this context, clearly means something a lot more drastic than making heretical (or allegedly heretical) statements in the course of public speeches and docuмents. This particular cause of losing office is found in that section of the Code dealing with the resignation of such an office (cc. 184-191), and is part of a canon which lists eight sorts of actions which the law treats as 'tacit resignations'. In other words, they are the sort of actions which can safely be taken as evidence that the cleric does not even want to continue in the office he held up till that time, even though he may never have bothered to put his resignation or abdication in writing.” Living Tradition, May 2000.
* Fr ALVARO CALDERON says that “In effect there are acts which voluntary realization implies in the holder of office who executes them the intent to resign and which of the opportunity, by the same right, to accept the resignation.” A tacit resignation is an intent to resign. It implies a will to resign. (…) “one must have recourse to understand 188.4 to a) similar parts in the Code if there are any, (and you are very careful to avoid that) b) the goal and circuмstance of the law and c) the intent of the legislator (can. 18).” What would be a tacit resignation in the case of a Pope? “The papal office would be vacant if the Pope was negligent in assuming his charge and did not present himself to his congregation; or, once enthroned, abandoned his residence without giving a reasonable motive and no one knew where he was; or if he presented himself in front of a civil tribunal to enter into marriage and fixed his residence in a determined place; or the chronicles of the newspapers announced that he had enlisted in the secular army and was on the front; in the same way, without declaration, ipso facto, by tacit renunciation, the see of the Roman Pontiff would become vacant if a fide catholica publice defecerit by adhering publicly to a non-catholic or schismatic sect, breaking all links with the catholic religion or completely abandoning the Christian faith.”
Canonists integrate 2314 and other canons to 184.4, like Fr Ayrinhac: “If they have been formally affiliated with a non-Catholic sect, or publicly adhere to it, they incur ipso facto the note of infamy. Clerics lose all ecclesiastical office they might hold (Canon 188.4), and after a fruitless warning they should be deposed.” (Penal legislation, p.193, 1920). A cleric, should he even join the Adventists publicly, which is the correct meaning of ‘defecting publicly from the Faith’, is entitled to be warned before being deposed. So far Francis has not done so, but only multiplied heretical statements.
How many more references would you like to have? We could go on forever on what all say about 188.4.
Sedevacantists totally miss the meaning of 188 as a whole, for if one analyses the other dots, .1, .2, .3, .5, .6, .7, the Church requires canonical monitions as well
Hence, in the other instances of loss of office:
=> Canon 2388 mentions the loss of office of priests attempting marriage after warnings are made. It is just to underline that the office is lost in this special way, but never without warnings. And naturally, what follows an unheeded warning is a declaration that 188 has taken effect.
=> Same for 188.7: Clerics who do not wear the ecclesiastical habit, get warning first, by virtue of Canon 2379, then lose their office. How many more references and examples do you want?
=> In 2314, the expression “with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188” occurs, meaning the loss of office for heresy is not impeded by monitions, but part of the process.
To conclude, 188.4 is not like some canons that are derived directly from Divine Law, like the canons that stat the properties of Marriage. It bears all the marks of a human positive law, unfolding the different ways of what is called a tacit resignation.
But no, Centro, you cannot even admit of a doubt. You have the right. Out with the sword and off with his head! Sounds Catholic to me, yeah, sure.
-
Stubborn,
My argument is not based on cuм Ex Apostolatus. My argument is based on Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Code of Canon Law merely footnotes cuм Ex Apostolatus. I acknowledged that there are counter-arguments to cuм Ex Apostolatus. I do not know of any valid argument to the Code of Canon Law of 1917, unless one were to reject that CoCL in favor of the 1983 CoCL. Heresy by notoriety of fact without the need for any declarations whatsoever are the key problem for those who reject the sede vacante position. It is here wherein the argument lies that there is no counter. Accepting a heretic pope leads one to reject the 1983 CoCL and enter into the Novus Ordo sect as many have done. The only tenable position in light of this is the sede vacante position. cuм Ex Apostolatus is nothing more than an intersting footnote. Canon 188.4 is the heart of the matter when notoriety of fact is applied from the same Code of Canon Law.
Produce the foot note.
Nobody in their right Catholic mind would think for one second that the Church would vacate any office "without the need for any declarations whatsoever" because of the scandal that idea would most certainly cause.
At any rate, I sure can't find it in my copy of the 1917 Code, so kindly prove the quote.
I find that there are plenty of references for "Pope Pius X Vacante Sede Apostolica of 25 Dec. 1904 are to be most assiduously observed" (which abrogated cuм ex), but zero on cuм Ex Apostolatus anywhere in the 1917 CCL.
Below, canon 188.4 is explained in canon 2314, which law says that there must be repeated warnings and the heretic is to be "declared infamous." This is the law. This makes Catholic sense.
Canon 188.4
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
On delicts against the faith and unity of the Church
Canon 2314
§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication;
2.° Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] are deposed;
3.° If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4, clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.
-
To conclude, 188.4 is not like some canons that are derived directly from Divine Law, like the canons that stat the properties of Marriage. It bears all the marks of a human positive law, unfolding the different ways of what is called a tacit resignation.
But no, Centro, you cannot even admit of a doubt. You have the right. Out with the sword and off with his head! Sounds Catholic to me, yeah, sure.
We posted about the same time but yours is way better! I still want to see the footnote that he's talking about.
-
I'm still waiting for R&R to refute Archbishop Lefebvre:
:sleep:
-
We posted about the same time but yours is way better! I still want to see the footnote that he's talking about.
My code doesn't have it either, but I'm sure it does exist, however it changes nothing.
The point you make about Canon 2314 is perhaps the most pertinent of all, because it demonstrates very clearly how the Church means to apply canon 188.4.
Yet does the Church mean to apply it to the head of the Church?
For the sedevacantists there is no doubt whatsoever. Off with his head. Such extraordinary recklessness, it just beggars belief.
-
My code doesn't have it either, but I'm sure it does exist, however it changes nothing.
The point you make about Canon 2314 is perhaps the most pertinent of all, because it demonstrates very clearly how the Church means to apply canon 188.4.
Yet does the Church mean to apply it to the head of the Church?
For the sedevacantists there is no doubt whatsoever. Off with his head. Such extraordinary recklessness, it just beggars belief.
Well that's the thing, I do not think it applies to the pope, but if it does, then as with all other heretics, the formality the Church uses to make the decree is necessary. As an aside, the abrogated cuм ex applies to all clerics - not just popes.
I could be wrong, but I do not believe it exists in the old CL, I believe it's a lie.
The sedes are so concerned (rightly so) about validity of ordinations of priests and bishops, yet can't see that per cuм ex, those ordinations whether conditional or re-ordinations are always invalid if either the ordaining bishop or the ones being ordained were ever detected to have been anything other than born and raised in, and maintained the true Catholic faith.
-
The argument is not my argument. I got it from Bishop Pivarunas and supplemented by Peter Dimond. These R&R folks all went their bookshelves and pulled out their 1917 Code of Canon Law like the bishop did and yeah well, I doubt it. Plenus Venters Code doesn’t have the footnote either. Probably because he doesn’t have a Code and used google search like everyone else here. (The online version contains 1983 footnotes by the way. check for yourselves the JP2 references). So by acting like you own a Code here you claim Bishop Pivarunas is a liar (the youtube video I posted is where the claim was made). But let’s not talk about pride.
Point is:
1.) Does Francis hold the integral Catholic Faith?
2.) If one does not hold the Catholic Faith, are they members of the Catholic Church?
3.) If one is a non-member of the Catholic Church (heretic, schismatic or apostate), can they be the Church’s head?
In order to claim Francis as the leader of your religion, one of the above questions must be marked yes. However, everything in the pre-Vatican 2 religion indicates that the answer to all these questions are a resounding “no”.
By answering yes to one of the above questions, the Catholic Faith turns into a masonic religious indifferentism. It also helps bring about the one world religion as time will soon tell.
-
I have been R and R for many years but it has become unsupportable. Not only does Bergoglio appear to not be Catholic but he appears to be the False Prophet.
-
Point is:
1.) Does Francis hold the integral Catholic Faith?
2.) If one does not hold the Catholic Faith, are they members of the Catholic Church?
3.) If one is a non-member of the Catholic Church (heretic, schismatic or apostate), can they be the Church’s head?
In order to claim Francis as the leader of your religion, one of the above questions must be marked yes. However, everything in the pre-Vatican 2 religion indicates that the answer to all these questions are a resounding “no”.
By answering yes to one of the above questions, the Catholic Faith turns into a masonic religious indifferentism. It also helps bring about the one world religion as time will soon tell.
I’ll answer.
1) a resounding NO!
2) a resounding NO!
3) Absolutely NOT!
(The only correction I would make is that you should use the word “profess” not the word “hold”.)
If the dogmatic R&R adherents want to claim Bergoglio as their pope, they *MUST* accept Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and “cardinal” McCarrick as their brothers in faith in their pseudo “catholic” Church.
-
The argument is not my argument. I got it from Bishop Pivarunas and supplemented by Peter Dimond. These R&R folks all went their bookshelves and pulled out their 1917 Code of Canon Law like the bishop did and yeah well, I doubt it. Plenus Venters Code doesn’t have the footnote either. Probably because he doesn’t have a Code and used google search like everyone else here. (The online version contains 1983 footnotes by the way. check for yourselves the JP2 references). So by acting like you own a Code here you claim Bishop Pivarunas is a liar (the youtube video I posted is where the claim was made). But let’s not talk about pride.
Point is:
1.) Does Francis hold the integral Catholic Faith?
2.) If one does not hold the Catholic Faith, are they members of the Catholic Church?
3.) If one is a non-member of the Catholic Church (heretic, schismatic or apostate), can they be the Church’s head?
In order to claim Francis as the leader of your religion, one of the above questions must be marked yes. However, everything in the pre-Vatican 2 religion indicates that the answer to all these questions are a resounding “no”.
By answering yes to one of the above questions, the Catholic Faith turns into a masonic religious indifferentism. It also helps bring about the one world religion as time will soon tell.
It certainly was at least implied, wasn't it? Besmirching His Excellency's character. Nice.
-
The argument is not my argument. I got it from Bishop Pivarunas and supplemented by Peter Dimond. These R&R folks all went their bookshelves and pulled out their 1917 Code of Canon Law like the bishop did and yeah well, I doubt it. Plenus Venters Code doesn’t have the footnote either. Probably because he doesn’t have a Code and used google search like everyone else here. (The online version contains 1983 footnotes by the way. check for yourselves the JP2 references). So by acting like you own a Code here you claim Bishop Pivarunas is a liar (the youtube video I posted is where the claim was made). But let’s not talk about pride.
Point is:
1.) Does Francis hold the integral Catholic Faith?
2.) If one does not hold the Catholic Faith, are they members of the Catholic Church?
3.) If one is a non-member of the Catholic Church (heretic, schismatic or apostate), can they be the Church’s head?
In order to claim Francis as the leader of your religion, one of the above questions must be marked yes. However, everything in the pre-Vatican 2 religion indicates that the answer to all these questions are a resounding “no”.
By answering yes to one of the above questions, the Catholic Faith turns into a masonic religious indifferentism. It also helps bring about the one world religion as time will soon tell.
1) No.
2) If you mean if one does not hold it publicly, then the answer to your question is "no".
3) No.
-
The argument is not my argument. I got it from Bishop Pivarunas and supplemented by Peter Dimond. These R&R folks all went their bookshelves and pulled out their 1917 Code of Canon Law like the bishop did and yeah well, I doubt it. Plenus Venters Code doesn’t have the footnote either. Probably because he doesn’t have a Code and used google search like everyone else here. (The online version contains 1983 footnotes by the way. check for yourselves the JP2 references). So by acting like you own a Code here you claim Bishop Pivarunas is a liar (the youtube video I posted is where the claim was made). But let’s not talk about pride.
Point is:
1.) Does Francis hold the integral Catholic Faith?
2.) If one does not hold the Catholic Faith, are they members of the Catholic Church?
3.) If one is a non-member of the Catholic Church (heretic, schismatic or apostate), can they be the Church’s head?
In order to claim Francis as the leader of your religion, one of the above questions must be marked yes. However, everything in the pre-Vatican 2 religion indicates that the answer to all these questions are a resounding “no”.
By answering yes to one of the above questions, the Catholic Faith turns into a masonic religious indifferentism. It also helps bring about the one world religion as time will soon tell.
Ah, the workings of the sede mind. The sedes can only look at the whole thing with sede eyes, which is to say they see only what they already believe, and what they do not believe, they do not see. That's just the way it is, I am not making this up.
It is very simple, either produce the quote or it is a lie. I do not believe the 1917 CL would quote a law that Pope St. Pius X abrogated unless it is referencing that fact.
-
Ah, the workings of the sede mind. The sedes can only look at the whole thing with sede eyes…
It is very simple, either produce the quote or it is a lie. I do not believe the 1917 CL would quote a law that Pope St. Pius X abrogated unless it is referencing that fact.
Stubborn says…”produce the quote [that references cuм EX Apostolatus in the 1917 Code] or it is a lie”. A lie declared as such by His Excellency Stubborn. Hitherto as forth and such to be denied by none.
Get real. That’s not how things work. I produced the youtube video of Bishop Pivarunas making the claim of the footnote. If you want to publicly call him a liar because Centroamerica can’t provide a notarized official Vatican state photocopy of the 1917 Code of Canon law with the footnote on Cath Info, that is your own problem.
You’re only deflecting because you want Francis to be your pope but again and again Cath Info members have proved your position untenable using common sense and pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism. In the process, you’ve wanted to be right more than ever and resorted to lashing out and calling people liars for unfounded reasons.
-
Stubborn says…”produce the quote [that references cuм EX Apostolatus in the 1917 Code] or it is a lie”. A lie declared as such by His Excellency Stubborn. Hitherto as forth and such to be denied by none.
Get real. That’s not how things work. I produced the youtube video of Bishop Pivarunas making the claim of the footnote. If you want to publicly call him a liar because Centroamerica can’t provide a notarized official Vatican state photocopy of the 1917 Code of Canon law with the footnote on Cath Info, that is your own problem.
You’re only deflecting because you want Francis to be your pope but again and again Cath Info members have proved your position untenable using common sense and pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism. In the process, you’ve wanted to be right more than ever and resorted to lashing out and calling people liars for unfounded reasons.
More BS.
I am calling it out as a lie for 2 reasons, 1) THAT'S WHAT IT IS. 2) You refuse to admit it because you gotta maintain a vacant chair at all costs. Nothing else really matters.
You said get real - this ^ is real.
-
The argument is not my argument. I got it from Bishop Pivarunas and supplemented by Peter Dimond. These R&R folks all went their bookshelves and pulled out their 1917 Code of Canon Law like the bishop did and yeah well, I doubt it. Plenus Venters Code doesn’t have the footnote either. Probably because he doesn’t have a Code and used google search like everyone else here. (The online version contains 1983 footnotes by the way. check for yourselves the JP2 references). So by acting like you own a Code here you claim Bishop Pivarunas is a liar (the youtube video I posted is where the claim was made). But let’s not talk about pride.
Point is:
1.) Does Francis hold the integral Catholic Faith?
2.) If one does not hold the Catholic Faith, are they members of the Catholic Church?
3.) If one is a non-member of the Catholic Church (heretic, schismatic or apostate), can they be the Church’s head?
In order to claim Francis as the leader of your religion, one of the above questions must be marked yes. However, everything in the pre-Vatican 2 religion indicates that the answer to all these questions are a resounding “no”.
By answering yes to one of the above questions, the Catholic Faith turns into a masonic religious indifferentism. It also helps bring about the one world religion as time will soon tell.
This batch of BS was refuted and ignored here (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sede-zero-upsides-nothing-but-downsides/msg919858/#msg919858) and also here. (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sede-zero-upsides-nothing-but-downsides/msg919863/#msg919863) Both replies you completely ignored. That's how it typically works with sedes when they get squashed. Nothing new, just pointing out the obvious is all.
-
Stubborn says…”produce the quote [that references cuм EX Apostolatus in the 1917 Code] or it is a lie”. A lie declared as such by His Excellency Stubborn. Hitherto as forth and such to be denied by none.
You'll see the reference to Pope Paul IV, cuм ex apostolatus at the bottom of this screenshot, a footnote to Canon 188. It took a few minutes to find an actual Latin copy WITH the footnotes (official publication from the Vatican), since most copies out there are simply a side by side with the 1983 code. Evidently Pope St. Pius V also had a cuм ex Apostolatus, with which I'm not familiar.
(https://i.ibb.co/TKsZJ8q/188-4.png)
-
If I was Stubborn, I would issue an apology and seek confession, in light of the proof that Ladislaus just commented. Then I would adopt a sede vacante position as well.
-
If I was Stubborn, I would issue an apology and seek confession, in light of the proof that Ladislaus just commented. Then I would adopt a sede vacante position as well.
Yes, I admit I was wrong, cuм ex is in fact mentioned - but per Lad's post, cuм ex is clearly referenced for canon 188.8, not for canon 188.4.
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
188.8.° Deserts illegitimately the residence to which he is bound and, having received a warning from the Ordinary and not being detained by a legitimate impediment, neither appears nor answers within an appropriate time as determined by the Ordinary.
Which, yet again does not say what the sedes want it to say.
He has to desert his office illegitimately, he has to ignore and not appear before his superior. IOW, he has to physically abandon ship without telling anybody.
That's the canon law that is referencing cuм ex.....which gives cuм ex a whole new meaning - to sedes.
So while I was wrong, it's still a lie that it references canon 188.4.
-
Yes, I admit I was wrong, cuм ex is in fact mentioned - but per Lad's post, cuм ex is clearly referenced for canon 188.8, not for canon 188.4.
Which, yet again does not say what the sedes want it to say.
It's not. Footnote 2 at the end is for the entirety of Canon 188 (8 just happens to be the last part), as the various citations apply to the different parts of it. Admittedly, the footnote convention is confusing to say the least. I can't make heads or tails out of what applies to what. It's clear, however, that cuм ex was in reference to defection from the faith, so #4 ... and not things like prior marriage, joining the military, or abandonment of residence, or any of the other criteria listed in 188. #8 refers to a tacit resignation due to having abandoned one's office (about which cuм ex said nothing).
-
Yes, I admit I was wrong, cuм ex is in fact mentioned - but per Lad's post, cuм ex is clearly referenced for canon 188.8, not for canon 188.4.
Which, yet again does not say what the sedes want it to say.
He has to desert his office illegitimately, he has to ignore and not appear before his superior. IOW, he has to physically abandon ship without telling anybody.
That's the canon law that is referencing cuм ex.....which gives cuм ex a whole new meaning - to sedes.
So while I was wrong, it's still a lie that it references canon 188.4.
While the footnoting is cryptic, it's obvious that cuм ex nowhere deals with 188.8, tacit resignation due to abandonment, but rather to 4, defection from the faith. (2) appears at the end of 8 only because 8 is the last part of 188 and not because it refers to 8. Use some common sense, would you?
-
It's not. Footnote 2 at the end is for the entirety of Canon 188 (8 just happens to be the last part), as the various citations apply to the different parts of it. Admittedly, the footnote convention is confusing to say the least. I can't make heads or tails out of what applies to what. It's clear, however, that cuм ex was in reference to defection from the faith, so #4 ... and not things like prior marriage, joining the military, or abandonment of residence, or any of the other criteria listed in 188. #8 refers to a tacit resignation due to having abandoned one's office (about which cuм ex said nothing).
Negative, that's not the way foot notes work. There are like 20 references in that footnote, take for instance that taking two random references from that footnote translates (via google translate):
"from the clergy not to be resident in the church or to be preached"
and another saying:
"concerning the grant of a gift and a church not vacant"
The point is, those footnotes have to do with Canon 188.8 where the cleric physically deserts his post (his office).
-
While the footnoting is cryptic, it's obvious that cuм ex nowhere deals with 188.8, tacit resignation due to abandonment, but rather to 4, defection from the faith. (2) appears at the end of 8 only because 8 is the last part of 188 and not because it refers to 8. Use some common sense, would you?
Canon 188.4 is explained here (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sede-zero-upsides-nothing-but-downsides/msg919863/#msg919863).
-
So proof was produced that cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
None of that will matter to those who desire to have Francis as their pope. They will look for any out. It’s grasping for straws to say it applies to one part of canon 188 put not the part that is actually pertinent to the relevancy of the docuмent. Not even worth discussing anymore. And still accusing people including a bishop of telling lies. Really pathetic actually.
-
Negative, that's not the way foot notes work. There are like 20 references in that footnote, take for instance that taking two random references from that footnote translates (via google translate):
"from the clergy not to be resident in the church or to be preached"
and another saying:
"concerning the grant of a gift and a church not vacant"
The point is, those footnotes have to do with Canon 188.8 where the cleric physically deserts his post (his office).
Here is the English and as you can see cuм Ex applies to 188.4:
-
Produce the foot note.
Nobody in their right Catholic mind would think for one second that the Church would vacate any office "without the need for any declarations whatsoever" because of the scandal that idea would most certainly cause.
At any rate, I sure can't find it in my copy of the 1917 Code, so kindly prove the quote.
I find that there are plenty of references for "Pope Pius X Vacante Sede Apostolica of 25 Dec. 1904 are to be most assiduously observed" (which abrogated cuм ex), but zero on cuм Ex Apostolatus anywhere in the 1917 CCL.
Are you going to retract, Stubborn?
-
So proof was produced that cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
None of that will matter to those who desire to have Francis as their pope. They will look for any out. It’s grasping for straws to say it applies to one part of canon 188 put not the part that is actually pertinent to the relevancy of the docuмent. Not even worth discussing anymore. And still accusing people including a bishop of telling lies. Really pathetic actually.
It's been a long time since I've posted this but:
"Anything but Sedevacantism!"
-
So proof was produced that cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
None of that will matter to those who desire to have Francis as their pope. They will look for any out. It’s grasping for straws to say it applies to one part of canon 188 put not the part that is actually pertinent to the relevancy of the docuмent. Not even worth discussing anymore. And still accusing people including a bishop of telling lies. Really pathetic actually.
You know what Centro, you would do better to sthu rather than go on slandering those of us who, since the novel idea began, see sedeism for what it is and what it does. At best, the whole idea is iniquitous, and we all know what God tells workers of iniquity when they meet Him. As per the sede program, you completely ignored the refutations, twice posted to you.
No, we have zero desire for Francis as our pope, we pray for a good and holy pope. So sthu with your stinking BS already. Hopefully I made this clear for you.
-
It's been a long time since I've posted this but:
"Anything but Sedevacantism!"
Well, you've got that only partially right. It's not "anything but sedeism." Try "Catholicism, not sedeism."
-
Are you going to retract, Stubborn?
Of course not. He's Stubborn. :fryingpan:
-
So proof was produced that cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
None of that will matter to those who desire to have Francis as their pope. They will look for any out. It’s grasping for straws to say it applies to one part of canon 188 put not the part that is actually pertinent to the relevancy of the docuмent. Not even worth discussing anymore. And still accusing people including a bishop of telling lies. Really pathetic actually.
This is the most pathetic of it all. Absolutely no excuse for it. And still no retraction. I guess it's open season on sedevacantist bishops.
-
Of course not. He's Stubborn. :fryingpan:
No, it doesn’t seem so. :facepalm:
-
Canon 188.4 is explained here (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sede-zero-upsides-nothing-but-downsides/msg919863/#msg919863).
Stubborn, in that link above, you are referencing your earlier post that includes the following quote from 1917 Canon Law:
On delicts against the faith and unity of the Church
Canon 2314
§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication;
2.° Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] are deposed;
3.° If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4, clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.
In 1917 Canon Law there are 3 levels of excommunication:
1. automatic, ipso facto, excommunication.
2. declared excommunication.
3. banned excommunication.
Each of these levels has its own penalties that are increased at each level. At the first level, the automatic [ipso facto] level, the excommunicate is "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts" and "prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices or responsibilities" (Canon 2263). At the next level, the "declared" level, the excommunicate is further deprived of "the fruits" of his office, such as a salary or pension (Canon 2266). And at the "banned" level, the excommunicate is finally deposed from the office itself (Canon 2266).
Now let's move to our current situation and apply Canon 2314 and Canon 2263 to Jorge Bergoglio. Following Canon 2314, Bergoglio, is an ipso facto excommunicate on account of manifest heresy. Therefore, he is automatically "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts" and "prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices and responsibilities" according to Canon 2263.
This means Bergoglio is in a state of being "deprived" of his legal ability to act as a governor of the Church. In other words, he is "impounded" until the next step is taken to "declare" him as "infamous."
However, for all practical purposes, even as a simple ipso facto excommunicate, Bergoglio cannot be viewed legally as an "acting Pope." At best, he is in a state of legal suspension awaiting a juridical declaration. Therefore, by the above logic of 1917 Canon Law, one who believes that Bergoglio is a manifest heretic must be at least a Sede-privationist or Sede-impoundist.
P.S. All of the above assumes that Bergoglio was lawfully-elected (which he wasn't (https://www.antipope.com)). And since Bergoglio never was lawfully-elected Pope, the See is, in fact, completely vacant, practically and ontologically.
-
Of course not. He's Stubborn. :fryingpan:
No, I directly answered dozens of his questions already, he did not answer dozens of my questions, and I won't answer this question until he answers.
But I already admitted I was wrong on one point, that cuм ex is indeed foot noted in the 1917 CL, which is all I will offer until he answers.....which almost certainly means I will never answer. Especially since he will have to go back and look for the questions as I won't do that for him.
-
I consider this thread a stain on the reputation of Stubborn. It is very real proof that his position is based on a fundamental pride of being right. I was willing to state publicly that I was misled into believing that cuм Ex Apostolatus was in the Code of Canon Law and that I was wrong. I would have gladly conceded to Stubborn and Plenus that they were right and that I was wrong. Yet, after being accused of being a liar and aggressively demanding proof or else I am a liar. Then not giving proof quick enough and being given the reason that I am lying, proof is presented. When proof is presented I am told to STHU as Stubborn squirms like a little worm to try to find a way to still seem like he is right and even continue to accuse one of lying.
Honestly, this thread demonstrates the character of man he is, which is unbecoming of a Traditional Catholic. I suspect there are many in his camp just like him and this is a base level reason why the Crisis in the Church is prolonged.
-
P.S. All of the above assumes that Bergoglio was lawfully-elected (which he wasn't (https://www.antipope.com)). And since Bergoglio never was lawfully-elected Pope, the See is, in fact, completely vacant, practically and ontologically.
Dissecting Canon Law only adds to the problem. I can dissect it too.
This quote of yours reminds me of when one of the Dimond's in his pre-sede days during an interview with Fr. Wathen, wholly agreed with him when Fr. said that sedevacantism is inherently anarchistic: "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the only consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism."
-
I consider this thread a stain on the reputation of Stubborn. It is very real proof that his position is based on a fundamental pride of being right. I was willing to state publicly that I was misled into believing that cuм Ex Apostolatus was in the Code of Canon Law and that I was wrong. I would have gladly conceded to Stubborn and Plenus that they were right and that I was wrong. Yet, after being accused of being a liar and aggressively demanding proof or else I am a liar. Then not giving proof quick enough and being given the reason that I am lying, proof is presented. When proof is presented I am told to STHU as Stubborn squirms like a little worm to try to find a way to still seem like he is right and even continue to accuse one of lying.
Honestly, this thread demonstrates the character of man he is, which is unbecoming of a Traditional Catholic. I suspect there are many in his camp just like him and this is a base level reason why the Crisis in the Church is prolonged.
Well of course you think that. As long as you ignore everything that squashes your opinion, why would you think any different?
The reality is, I am not going to simply relinquish what to me are pearls, but to him and you is heresy.
-
No, I directly answered dozens of his questions already, he did not answer dozens of my questions, and I won't answer this question until he answers.
But I already admitted I was wrong on one point, that cuм ex is indeed foot noted in the 1917 CL, which is all I will offer until he answers.....which almost certainly means I will never answer. Especially since he will have to go back and look for the questions as I won't do that for him.
What questions. Make a very simple list instead of hiding vague questions in thousand words which have nothing to with whether or not Jorge Maria Bergoglio is:
who professes the integrity of the Catholic Faith.
You’re just squirming because you called the cuм Ex Apostolatus citation BS and accused faithful Catholics of lying.
When this was wrong you tried to misapply the citation to an irrelevant code (188.8).
When this was proved wrong you told me to STHU and refused to answer questions until I comb through your every post and answer irrelevant, vague questions. Basically, force me to waste a bunch of time so you can only get aggressive, disrespectful and accusatory instead of humbling yourself.
It’s appalling to imagine how many people would approach the sacraments after behavior like this as if there were nothing wrong with it.
-
Sedes won this thread Matthew. Thanks everyone for your participation.
-
What questions. Make a very simple list instead of hiding vague questions in thousand words which have nothing to with whether or not Jorge Maria Bergoglio is:
who professes the integrity of the Catholic Faith.
You’re just squirming because you called the cuм Ex Apostolatus citation BS and accused faithful Catholics of lying.
When this was wrong you tried to misapply the citation to an irrelevant code (188.8).
When this was proved wrong you told me to STHU and refused to answer questions until I comb through your every post and answer irrelevant, vague questions. Basically, force me to waste a bunch of time so you can only get aggressive, disrespectful and accusatory instead of humbling yourself.
It’s appalling to imagine how many people would approach the sacraments after behavior like this as if there were nothing wrong with it.
Go back and read what you wrote. I did not call the citation BS, I called the things you said BS, because that's what they are.
And the questions I referred to are ones I asked to QV, not to you.
Now if you want to be a good sede, go back and look for the 2 posts I made and the one PV made that you ignored, and acknowledge them by answering the refutations.
-
I consider this thread a stain on the reputation of Stubborn. It is very real proof that his position is based on a fundamental pride of being right. I was willing to state publicly that I was misled into believing that cuм Ex Apostolatus was in the Code of Canon Law and that I was wrong. I would have gladly conceded to Stubborn and Plenus that they were right and that I was wrong. Yet, after being accused of being a liar and aggressively demanding proof or else I am a liar. Then not giving proof quick enough and being given the reason that I am lying, proof is presented. When proof is presented I am told to STHU as Stubborn squirms like a little worm to try to find a way to still seem like he is right and even continue to accuse one of lying.
Honestly, this thread demonstrates the character of man he is, which is unbecoming of a Traditional Catholic. I suspect there are many in his camp just like him and this is a base level reason why the Crisis in the Church is prolonged.
I will say that I don't dislike Stubborn. We have had decent interactions privately as well as publicly (although obviously this particular topic is one that is quite challenging for us...it is why both of us had stopped getting into the sede vs non-sede arguments for quite some time). He is typically charitable with me unlike some other posters I have had issues with here on CI.
I don't recall ever seeing him use "BS" nor "STHU" nor accusing others of lying (especially a bishop!) the way he has used them today, and I suspect this behavior is not just about what's going on in the threads.
Perhaps I'm a sucker (and maybe I'm wrong), but I feel badly that I've gotten on his case today. I think he needs our prayers right now. Really. Sorry Stubborn.
-
Stubborn, in that link above, you are referencing your earlier post that includes the following quote from 1917 Canon Law:
In 1917 Canon Law there are 3 levels of excommunication:
1. automatic, ipso facto, excommunication.
2. declared excommunication.
3. banned excommunication.
Each of these levels has its own penalties that are increased at each level. At the first level, the automatic [ipso facto] level, the excommunicate is "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts" and "prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices or responsibilities" (Canon 2263). At the next level, the "declared" level, the excommunicate is further deprived of "the fruits" of his office, such as a salary or pension (Canon 2266). And at the "banned" level, the excommunicate is finally deposed from the office itself (Canon 2266).
Now let's move to our current situation and apply Canon 2314 and Canon 2263 to Jorge Bergoglio. Following Canon 2314, Bergoglio, is an ipso facto excommunicate on account of manifest heresy. Therefore, he is automatically "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts" and "prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices and responsibilities" according to Canon 2263.
This means Bergoglio is in a state of being "deprived" of his legal ability to act as a governor of the Church. In other words, he is "impounded" until the next step is taken to "declare" him as "infamous."
However, for all practical purposes, even as a simple ipso facto excommunicate, Bergoglio cannot be viewed legally as an "acting Pope." At best, he is in a state of legal suspension awaiting a juridical declaration. Therefore, by the above logic of 1917 Canon Law, one who believes that Bergoglio is a manifest heretic must be at least a Sede-privationist or Sede-impoundist.
P.S. All of the above assumes that Bergoglio was lawfully-elected (which he wasn't (https://www.antipope.com)). And since Bergoglio never was lawfully-elected Pope, the See is, in fact, completely vacant, practically and ontologically.
Even when you cite all of these facts that are indisputable which conclusively prove beyond any and all doubt that Bergoglio is not a pope, the R&R trads will still refuse to accept them because they are too comfortable living in their own "theological fantasy land" and many don't want to face the unfortunate fact that what they believed most of their lives is completely false.
-
I will say that I don't dislike Stubborn. We have had decent interactions privately as well as publicly (although obviously this particular topic is one that is quite challenging for us...it is why both of us had stopped getting into the sede vs non-sede arguments for quite some time). He is typically charitable with me unlike some other posters I have had issues with here on CI.
I don't recall ever seeing him use "BS" nor "STHU" nor accusing others of lying (especially a bishop!) the way he has used them today, and I suspect this behavior is not just about what's going on in the threads.
Perhaps I'm a sucker (and maybe I'm wrong), but I feel badly that I've gotten on his case today. I think he needs our prayers right now. Really. Sorry Stubborn.
2V, I consider you a very special, a very blessed Catholic in the eyes of God who got bitten by the sede bug. I feel certain those who were raised, shall we just say, outside of the Church, received many, many - and extra special graces to get you into the Church. IOW, you are one who is extra, extra special to God.....for reasons only He knows. I believe this, always have and always will.
You take offense when sedes get slammed, well, I take offense when sedes intentionally, and not intentionally lie about reasons non-sedes are not sede, that we are heretics and the like - then completely ignore explanations and refutations as they just stay the course of their BS - this is what I am calling out as BS.
I've been in this my whole life and have remained as I am for many reasons, but I think mainly from seeing what happens to others who've changed - always ends up being for the worse. So when some dip pops in who has experienced a whole 5 or 10 years of this crisis and starts spouting BS against Catholic truths as a means to defend sedeism, I decided to start calling that what it is.
-
No, I directly answered dozens of his questions already, he did not answer dozens of my questions, and I won't answer this question until he answers.
But I already admitted I was wrong on one point, that cuм ex is indeed foot noted in the 1917 CL, which is all I will offer until he answers.....which almost certainly means I will never answer. Especially since he will have to go back and look for the questions as I won't do that for him.
Nice out! :facepalm:
-
Firstly Stubborn, it’s very arrogant to assume you know the experience of other posters on this forum. You are completely delusional, dishonest and disrespectful. My Cath Info account alone is 10 years old. My first SSPX Mass was in 1985, which started in a hotel. I have never been to a Novus Ordo Mass. I have attended Masses all over the country and the Americas. I was for a time a regular attendee of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona where I received guidance from some of the best SSPX priests in the country. I’ve visited SSPX chapels in Guatemala and El Salvador. I’ve personally known and befriended several bishops. My wedding was performed by a resistance bishop. I’ve spent hours on buses chatting with Bishop Williamson. I’ve also had many conversations and opportunities to meet with sede bishops, including Bishop Dolan and Bishop Pivarunas. A now sede bishop was a lay brother at my wedding. In the early days of the resistance, I assisted the resistance with many translations between Spanish, Portuguese and English.
That’s a lot more than some “dip pop with 5 or ten years in this crisis”.
I didn’t just wake up one day and say “you know what, I feel like making divisions among all my lifelong friends and family by accepting a position contrary to theirs”. No. I arrived at the conclusion of sede vacante through constant reading and ruminating upon the crisis in the Church.
-
I will say that I don't dislike Stubborn. We have had decent interactions privately as well as publicly (although obviously this particular topic is one that is quite challenging for us...it is why both of us had stopped getting into the sede vs non-sede arguments for quite some time). He is typically charitable with me unlike some other posters I have had issues with here on CI.
I don't recall ever seeing him use "BS" nor "STHU" nor accusing others of lying (especially a bishop!) the way he has used them today, and I suspect this behavior is not just about what's going on in the threads.
Perhaps I'm a sucker (and maybe I'm wrong), but I feel badly that I've gotten on his case today. I think he needs our prayers right now. Really. Sorry Stubborn.
I actually like him and agree with him on many issues, but I can’t tolerate his stubbornness and especially his promotion of unorthodox ideas. Unfortunately, he has made himself the arbiter of tradition and has, in his own mind, made the papacy superfluous, he has in reality become his own pope.
-
he has made himself the arbiter of tradition and has, in his own mind, made the papacy superfluous, he has in reality become his own pope.
No, no, that doesn't sound like ANYONE on this forum!!!
-
No, no, that doesn't sound like ANYONE on this forum!!!
The logical consequences when there is no real pope for decades.
-
I'm more of a lurker, and may be late to the party, but for the record, cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced 14-15 times in the 1917 code of canon law (i.e. not just 188.4).
-
The logical consequences when there is no real pope for decades.
Yes, or one who doesn't do his duty, whichever way you look at it.
-
I'm more of a lurker, and may be late to the party, but for the record, cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced 14-15 times in the 1917 code of canon law (i.e. not just 188.4).
Thank you, lurker librorum, and those references are definitely a part of the original code as published by the Holy See?
What do you make of that, if anything at all?
-
I'm more of a lurker, and may be late to the party, but for the record, cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced 14-15 times in the 1917 code of canon law (i.e. not just 188.4).
Do you have those references?
-
Nice out! :facepalm:
Directly after me making two posts on the Church's indefectibility, you ask what I thought about the Church's indefectibility, says all I need to know about your malevolent intentions.
-
Firstly Stubborn, it’s very arrogant to assume you know the experience of other posters on this forum. You are completely delusional, dishonest and disrespectful. My Cath Info account alone is 10 years old. My first SSPX Mass was in 1985, which started in a hotel. I have never been to a Novus Ordo Mass. I have attended Masses all over the country and the Americas. I was for a time a regular attendee of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona where I received guidance from some of the best SSPX priests in the country. I’ve visited SSPX chapels in Guatemala and El Salvador. I’ve personally known and befriended several bishops. My wedding was performed by a resistance bishop. I’ve spent hours on buses chatting with Bishop Williamson. I’ve also had many conversations and opportunities to meet with sede bishops, including Bishop Dolan and Bishop Pivarunas. A now sede bishop was a lay brother at my wedding. In the early days of the resistance, I assisted the resistance with many translations between Spanish, Portuguese and English.
That’s a lot more than some “dip pop with 5 or ten years in this crisis”.
I didn’t just wake up one day and say “you know what, I feel like making divisions among all my lifelong friends and family by accepting a position contrary to theirs”. No. I arrived at the conclusion of sede vacante through constant reading and ruminating upon the crisis in the Church.
No, what's arrogant an full of pride is to accuse me of calling cuм ex BS, never thinking that I was referring to, and explained that I was referring to your words around the citation. That's arrogant and prideful to think your words are above cuм ex.
So you're an even worse case then I thought - not surprising for one who, initially at least, knew better. You are another one who listened to the wrong voices when you should have bewared. Now look at you.
-
I actually like him and agree with him on many issues, but I can’t tolerate his stubbornness and especially his promotion of unorthodox ideas. Unfortunately, he has made himself the arbiter of tradition and has, in his own mind, made the papacy superfluous, he has in reality become his own pope.
My unorthodox ideas are based (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919991/#msg919991)on this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919991/#msg919991), which you call heresy, say makes me my own pope.
Will you ever retract the lie?
-
In an effort to keep the debate in one thread.....
"But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." [Acts Of Apostles 5:29]
Quote: (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg919788/#msg919788)
Yikes, this "obey God rather than man" stuff is scary non-Catholic thinking. When a Pope teaching, he's acting as Christ's Vicar. This is not about Jorge spewing nonsense on his pope-plane or in an interview with Scalfari, but about the man you claim to be the Vicar of Christ teaching with the authority of St. Peter, which is the authority of Christ.
So, is this an absolute statement? Old Catholics decided they were obeying God rather than man in rejecting papal infallibility as contrary to Tradition. Were they obeying God rather than man also? If so, how can you find fault with them? On what basis?
Let those who claim this maxim applies to Papal authority explain why the Old Catholics were wrong. This should be interesting.
Here we have the typical sede error. The error is in his denying the very meaning of the Scripture, using the very words of St. Peter Himself to do it, to prove that what St. Peter [the first pope] does not apply to popes.
Rather than believe St. Peter as we are supposed to, he uses St. Peter's words in his effort to prove Christ's Vicar is something other or more than a man - because he's Christ's Vicar, not a man. Never considering that it is the [first] pope himself who is professing that Scripture. Which is to say to misinterpret that Scripture the way he is, St. Peter is making himself out to be something other than a man, which is absurd. This is Catholic thinking? I call it out as BS.
This post of his is the heresy and not one sede called him out on it. Why? Because sedeism.
-
My unorthodox ideas are based (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919991/#msg919991)on this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919991/#msg919991), which you call heresy, say makes me my own pope.
Will you ever retract the lie?
Is it possible that the Archbishop was wrong or even that your understanding of him is incorrect?
The Archbishop should not be the absolute standard on which you base your understanding of tradition on.
-
2V, I consider you a very special, a very blessed Catholic in the eyes of God who got bitten by the sede bug. I feel certain those who were raised, shall we just say, outside of the Church, received many, many - and extra special graces to get you into the Church. IOW, you are one who is extra, extra special to God.....for reasons only He knows. I believe this, always have and always will.
You take offense when sedes get slammed, well, I take offense when sedes intentionally, and not intentionally lie about reasons non-sedes are not sede, that we are heretics and the like - then completely ignore explanations and refutations as they just stay the course of their BS - this is what I am calling out as BS.
I've been in this my whole life and have remained as I am for many reasons, but I think mainly from seeing what happens to others who've changed - always ends up being for the worse. So when some dip pops in who has experienced a whole 5 or 10 years of this crisis and starts spouting BS against Catholic truths as a means to defend sedeism, I decided to start calling that what it is.
I appreciate what you have said about me Stubborn. That is very kind. However, I have mixed feelings about the rest of this post, so I want to give it more time before I respond. I want to be honest, fair and thoughtful.
-
No, what's arrogant an full of pride is to accuse me of calling cuм ex BS, never thinking that I was referring to, and explained that I was referring to your words around the citation. That's arrogant and prideful to think your words are above cuм ex.
So you're an even worse case then I thought - not surprising for one who, initially at least, knew better. You are another one who listened to the wrong voices when you should have bewared. Now look at you.
I suspect he was referring to this comment about the cuм Ex footnote (it is correct that you didn't use "BS", but you did call the footnote a lie):
I could be wrong, but I do not believe it exists in the old CL, I believe it's a lie.
Basically, you (at best) implied that Bishop Pivarunas was lying. Where have you retracted that implication?
-
More BS.
I am calling it out as a lie for 2 reasons, 1) THAT'S WHAT IT IS. 2) You refuse to admit it because you gotta maintain a vacant chair at all costs. Nothing else really matters.
You said get real - this ^ is real.
I never meant to say you directly called cuм Ex Apostolatus BS. I was referring to the claims I made, which were true. Though you knew a bishop made the claim you continued to assert it was a lie when it was not.
-
In an effort to keep the debate in one thread.....
"But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." [Acts Of Apostles 5:29]
Here we have the typical sede error. The error is in his denying the very meaning of the Scripture, using the very words of St. Peter Himself to do it, to prove that what St. Peter [the first pope] does not apply to popes.
Rather than believe St. Peter as we are supposed to, he uses St. Peter's words in his effort to prove Christ's Vicar is something other or more than a man - because he's Christ's Vicar, not a man. Never considering that it is the [first] pope himself who is professing that Scripture. Which is to say to misinterpret that Scripture the way he is, St. Peter is making himself out to be something other than a man, which is absurd. This is Catholic thinking? I call it out as BS.
This post of his is the heresy and not one sede called him out on it. Why? Because sedeism.
Stubborn,
They will say, "we ought to obey God, and not man, only when it comes to determining who the pope is." Lad, for one, says this. But after it's ascertained that a man is pope, you simply believe man, the pope, and the men, the bishops in union with him, when he (they) teach anything universally. The verse evaporates from relevance at that point.
As I think you have said before - and I paraphrase of course - we would have never gotten here, i.e., the Conciliar religion, without this idea that we suspend our judgment once the pope and the bishops decide something is true, and teach it to the Church. It - the Conciliar religion - would never have happened without that mindset.
I am sorry you are called a heretic for recognizing this. The Conciliar religion is a chastisement, in part because of this mindset that gave birth to it, and I am sorry that you have to endure this, which also is bred of the same mindset.
But remember Christ - and St. Stephen, as St. Paul himself was only too painfully aware - was killed with a similar mindset and "zeal":
Romans 10:2-4
2 For I bear them witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they, not knowing the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God. 4 For the end of the law is Christ, unto justice to every one that believeth.
Christ, not the Church. The Church (and the pope, the bishops) is (are) used by God to preach and spread Our Lord's Gospel; She (and the pope, the bishops) is (are) not the end.
In the end She will be gone, and Christ will remain, and His people with Him and the apostles, saints. The "temple" will be gone:
Apocalypse 20:21-27
21 And the twelve gates are twelve pearls, one to each: and every several gate was of one several pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. 22 And I saw no temple therein. For the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb. 23 And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof. 24 And the nations shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates thereof shall not be shut by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.
The "sun" and the "moon" are the Church (with the pope and the bishops of earth).
I am sorry, again, that you have to endure this, brother, even if it is nothing in the great scheme of things.
DR
-
Is it possible that the Archbishop was wrong or even that your understanding of him is incorrect?
The Archbishop should not be the absolute standard on which you base your understanding of tradition on.
The Archbishop merely put into words what we believed and lived then, now, and (hopefully) will until we die. +ABL is not my absolute standard for anything, what he is, is one of tradition's/traditional Catholics' hero's. The problem sedes will have with his declaration, is that (with good reason) he not only does not blame the pope, he never even mentions his name.
What I find remarkable is that you cannot fathom that it is even remotely possible that it might be you who are wrong, I'm not sure exactly why, but I find that fact somewhat fascinating, I guess I always have.
Again, here is the magisterium (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612) +ABL speaks of, all you need to do is believe these popes, which far as I can tell, is impossible for sedes to do.
I believe that's because sedes believe that those clear papal quotes only applied prior to V2, and that since then "the magisterium has been corrupted."
Sedes believe this contrary-to-the-popes' teachings because although sedes think they know what the Church's Magisterium is, in reality they do not know what Church's Magisterium is. Worse yet, they think it is something it is not. But to settle the matter within the sede mind, imo all they need to do is believe those popes.
-
I appreciate what you have said about me Stubborn. That is very kind. However, I have mixed feelings about the rest of this post, so I want to give it more time before I respond. I want to be honest, fair and thoughtful.
Don't worry about replying, heat of the battle and all of that. I should have just not said anything. But the way true teachings get twisted, then say I'm a heretic based on twisted teachings is what it is - BS.
I know of other converts who I look up to who against all odds became trads. No way (imo) would they have stood any possible chance of converting except for God taking a very special interest in each and every one of them, singularly - and of course them cooperating with the graces He gave them.
Make no mistake about it, God watches very closely those He chooses to do this for. Many are called, but only few are chosen.
-
The Archbishop merely put into words what we believed and lived then, now, and (hopefully) will until we die. +ABL is not my absolute standard for anything, what he is, is one of tradition's/traditional Catholics' hero's. The problem sedes will have with his declaration, is that (with good reason) he not only does not blame the pope, he never even mentions his name.
What I find remarkable is that you cannot fathom that it is even remotely possible that it might be you who are wrong, I'm not sure exactly why, but I find that fact somewhat fascinating, I guess I always have.
Again, here is the magisterium (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612) +ABL speaks of, all you need to do is believe these popes, which far as I can tell, is impossible for sedes to do.
I believe that's because sedes believe that those clear papal quotes only applied prior to V2, and that since then "the magisterium has been corrupted."
Sedes believe this contrary-to-the-popes' teachings because although sedes think they know what the Church's Magisterium is, in reality they do not know what Church's Magisterium is. Worse yet, they think it is something it is not. But to settle the matter within the sede mind, imo all they need to do is believe those popes.
Now you need to reconcile what *you want* to believe of the Archbishop to what he actually said regarding the pope-heretic question:
-
Now you need to reconcile what *you want* to believe of the Archbishop to what he actually said regarding the pope-heretic question:
So you again just completely ignore my post(s) as if I only posted them for you to use to drive your sede agenda. What the heck is it with you guys?
+ABL questioned the whole valid pope issue - who the heck didn't back then? I posted a video where Fr. Wathen, I think it was recorded in 1984 or so, had to explain what "sedevacantism" was, because the new idea was spreading itself among trad priests and faithful, prior to that no one could hardly even pronounce it, let alone make it the latest de fide doctrine that it is today. And there was another youtube I posted with one of the pre-sede Dimonds who apparently only heard of it in his interview, he had to have Fr. Wathen explain it to him - and Dimond whole heartedly agreed sedeism was wrong, even quoting Pope Martin V against it.
So what? It is with good reason that +ABL never said we MUST proclaim sede vacante, and we must name this new de fide doctrine sedevacantism and we must build our entire faith around it, being ever watchful not to impede in any way on this new doctrine. +ABL never said to split up, divide out, and whoever wants go get consecrated as sede bishops, and get away from all other Catholics who will not accept that the pope is not the pope. He never said anything of the sort.
He said one day we may be able to say the pope is not the pope.
-
It is with good reason that +ABL never said we MUST proclaim sede vacante, and we must name this new de fide doctrine sedevacantism and we must build our entire faith around it, being ever watchful not to impede in any way on this new doctrine. +ABL never said to split up, divide out, and whoever wants go get consecrated as sede bishops, and get away from all other Catholics who will not accept that the pope is not the pope. He never said anything of the sort.
He said one day we may be able to say the pope is not the pope.
If +ABL were alive in 2023 (32 years after his actual death) there is no doubt whatsoever that he would proclaim sede vacante. The Church has gotten a billion times worse in 32 years, especially in the last 10 years alone with Bergoglio, and things are only going to get worse. So can any rational person even think that +ABL would hesitate in 2023 to declare sede vacante? The answer is definitely no. The reason why the leaders of the SSPX and the leaders of the Resistance (e.g. +Williamson) will never proclaim sede vacante is because they know they will lose more than 80% of their parishioners and fellow clergy if they did so. The truth doesn't matter anymore to the R&R leaders. That's obvious by now. If this was still the 90s or even pre-2013, I could understand but to Recognize Bergoglio as The Vicar of Christ who is the Living Rule of Faith on Earth in 2023????????:facepalm:
What more does Bergoglio have to do to prove to you R&R people that he is not The Vicar of Christ/The Living Rule Of Faith on Earth?? Speak in demonic tones? Spit on a Crucifix? (He's already ashamed of the Crucifix because he covers it up whenever he meets with non-Catholics) Organize a gαy pride parade inside St. Peter's Basilica?
I'm guessing that 5 years from now (once the Church is even in a worse condition than it is right now) you R&R sheep will still be living in your "theological fantasy land" because you'll still be listening to your Fellays and your Williamsons who do not want their "tithing gravy train" to ever run out of cash.
-
Don't worry about replying, heat of the battle and all of that. I should have just not said anything. But the way true teachings get twisted, then say I'm a heretic based on twisted teachings is what it is - BS.
It seems both sides could say the same thing, so I don't think it's fair for you to point fingers at the sedes as if it never happens on the non-sede side. All one needs to look at is the recent "Old Catholic" thread for proof of that...including name calling, false assertions, etc.
I personally have always tried to refrain from false assertions and the name-calling whether it's just a rude name or names like "heretic" or "schismatic" (although I'm sure I'm not completely innocent in that regard). Having said that, I think it's reasonable for someone to write that they believe someone holds "heretical beliefs" or is "objectively schismatic" without that being considered name calling.
And while I'm at it, I am still disturbed that you have not retracted your accusation that Bishop Pivarunas lied about the cuм Ex footnote in the 1917 CCL.
-
What more does Bergoglio have to do to prove to you R&R people that he is not The Vicar of Christ/The Living Rule Of Faith on Earth??
Give up the white clothes? 🤣
-
Now you need to reconcile what *you want* to believe of the Archbishop to what he actually said regarding the pope-heretic question:
Thank you for these two pages. I have the interviews, but not from the original Angelus hard media magazine.
The Archbishop taught that whether a man is pope or not is based on the evidence. He did not teach some universal principle that a putative pope must be accepted as pope until the Church declares otherwise.
-
The reason why the leaders of the SSPX and the leaders of the Resistance (e.g. +Williamson) will never proclaim sede vacante is because they know they will lose more than 80% of their parishioners and fellow clergy if they did so.
My opinion (at least one of them) as to why the Resistance hesitates to proclaim sede vacante is that the bishops and priests are so used to tolerating bad popes that when an evident public manifest formal heretic comes around their previous toleration blinds them in seeing the difference.
-
Now you need to reconcile what *you want* to believe of the Archbishop to what he actually said regarding the pope-heretic question:
For anyone who's honest, the object truth of the matter is that Archbishop Lefebvre, with the exception of a period in the early 1980s where he was seeking a practical arrangement with Rome to make the "experiment of Tradition", was always open to the possibility of sedevacantism.
He also stated clearly that the Holy Ghost's protection over the papacy (as taught also by Vatican I) would preclude this degree of destruction. He hesitated to unequivocally affirm sedevacantism because he could not in his mind definitively (and with the certainty of faith) rule out some other possible explanation for how this happened. But he upheld the principle that the R&R here are now denying while claiming to be the "faithful heirs" of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Plenus in particular here pretends to speak for the Archbishop, creating his own sock puppet version of the Archbishop that he pretends is regurgitating the same stuff that he is posting here. But the real Archbishop was open to sedevacantism, did NOT consider it a "danger to souls" (except, as I said, in the early 1980s), and affirmed the principle that the Holy Spirit protects the papacy from this kind of destruction.
Plenus also pretends to speak for the Resistance ("the Resistance hold that sedevacantism is a danger to souls"). Well, Bishop Williamson has said that it's possible Jorge's not the pope and also has said that it's quite understandable why someone would hold that he isn't. Avrille also said that it's understandable. Father Chazal stated that +Vigano is a Resistance bishop (at least in spirit) ... after the latter declared it to be morally certain that Jorge is not the Pope. I should think I'd listen to Bishop Williamson, Avrille, and Father Chazal regarding what "the Resistance" hold rather than to Plenus.
So Plenus is misappropriating Archbishop Lefebvre AND making claims about what the Resistance hold that don't stand up to reality ... based on his wishful thinking that they support his position. They do not.
-
My opinion (at least one of them) as to why the Resistance hesitates to proclaim sede vacante is that the bishops and priests are so used to tolerating bad popes that when an evident public manifest formal heretic comes around their previous toleration blinds them in seeing the difference.
There was a lot of bad blood between Bishop Williamson and The Nine in the early 1980s. Bishop Williamson was sent in by +Lefebvre to be the enforcer to deal with The Nine problem. I think it was the entire episode with the Nine that turned a lot of SSPX and former SSPX into intransigent enemies of sedevacantism in principle, and it's been difficult for them to shake that.
-
There was a lot of bad blood between Bishop Williamson and The Nine in the early 1980s. Bishop Williamson was sent in by +Lefebvre to be the enforcer to deal with The Nine problem. I think it was the entire episode with the Nine that turned a lot of SSPX and former SSPX into intransigent enemies of sedevacantism in principle, and it's been difficult for them to shake that.
What’s funny is that several years ago Bishop Williamson and Bishop Sanborn were together at someone’s house and had a fairly long discussion, I think.
-
Thank you for these two pages. I have the interviews, but not from the original Angelus hard media magazine.
The Archbishop taught that whether a man is pope or not is based on the evidence. He did not teach some universal principle that a putative pope must be accepted as pope until the Church declares otherwise.
Here is the whole article:
-
Here is the whole article:
Thank you so much for your generosity! God bless you!
-
Do you have those references?
Canons 167, 188, 218, 373, 1435, 1556, 1657, 1757, 2198, 2209, 2264, 2294, 2314, and 2316.
-
Thank you, lurker librorum, and those references are definitely a part of the original code as published by the Holy See?
What do you make of that, if anything at all?
Codex iuris canonici Benedicti Papae XV, 1918
https://archive.org/details/codex_iuris_canonici_1918-benedicti_papae_xv/page/n7/mode/2up
-
Incidentally, on page 51 of his Contra Cekadam, Fr Chazal writes:
"Some sedevacantists argue that cuм ex is mentioned in a footnote of the Code, yet, so far, no edition of the Pio-Benedictine code having such a footnote has ever been shown to me."
I'm not sure if he's seen that edition of the Code, but there it is.
-
Incidentally, on page 51 of his Contra Cekadam, Fr Chazal writes:
"Some sedevacantists argue that cuм ex is mentioned in a footnote of the Code, yet, so far, no edition of the Pio-Benedictine code having such a footnote has ever been shown to me."
I'm not sure if he's seen that edition of the Code, but there it is.
Good work, librorum, I've just sent Fr Chazal a link to this post.
-
My opinion (at least one of them) as to why the Resistance hesitates to proclaim sede vacante is that the bishops and priests are so used to tolerating bad popes that when an evident public manifest formal heretic comes around their previous toleration blinds them in seeing the difference.
What I want to know, CK, is when you and Hank are going to give us a Pope and stop waiting around for a non Catholic sect to give you a 'true Pope'. Seriously, though, what is the answer to that?
And even if you call this Pope a formal heretic, is it absolutely certain that he can therefore be deposed? Does the Church have an infallible teaching on this, or any teaching whatsoever?
-
Now you need to reconcile what *you want* to believe of the Archbishop to what he actually said regarding the pope-heretic question:
To be honest, QVD, is it not you, rather, who needs to reconcile why the Archbishop so seriously considered the question of sedevacantism, yet never adopted that position and continued to advise against it? ABL even says here that he believes there is nothing worse that a Pope can do. Now that certainly demolishes the arguments of those who say "oh, but now things are so much worse, the Archbishop would certainly be a sede now"... just like Hank says above.
-
Canons 167, 188, 218, 373, 1435, 1556, 1657, 1757, 2198, 2209, 2264, 2294, 2314, and 2316.
Thank you!
-
To be honest, QVD, is it not you, rather, who needs to reconcile why the Archbishop so seriously considered the question of sedevacantism, yet never adopted that position and continued to advise against it? ABL even says here that he believes there is nothing worse that a Pope can do. Now that certainly demolishes the arguments of those who say "oh, but now things are so much worse, the Archbishop would certainly be a sede now"... just like Hank says above.
No, I’ll pass. Although, the Archbishops was a great man, I never held him as a rule of faith as some posters on this forum seem to.
It is plainly evident from the Angelus article I posted that he was, at the very least, not opposed to sedevacantism, like you want your readers to believe. The Archbishop knew the principles involved and that a heretic could not be a pope, he was just waiting for evidence. Sadly, you want to spin his words to fit your narrative.
-
No, I’ll pass. Although, the Archbishops was a great man, I never held him as a rule of faith as some posters on this forum seem to.
It is plainly evident from the Angelus article I posted that he was, at the very least, not opposed to sedevacantism, like you want your readers to believe. The Archbishop knew the principles involved and that a heretic could not be a pope, he was just waiting for evidence. Sadly, you want to spin his words to fit your narrative.
Here is the Archbishop years later in 1989:
"It is a request of the Litany of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litany of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions... Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it..." - Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
Read 'Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican' - it is full of letters addressed "Most Holy Father", again, years after the article you cite.
Here is what Pere Jean from the Morgon Franciscans wrote (He knew the Archbishop well, ABL was a Franciscan tertiary and often spent time at Morgon):
“It is understandable that some Traditional Catholics... be deeply troubled by the scandals of Pope Francis, who seems to have surpassed his predecessors'. The sedevacantist solution may appear to them as the simplest, most logical, and best. In fact, the fundamental problem remains the same since the '70s, and the prudent attitude of Abp Lefebvre, in considering the risk of excessive and rash judgement, with the attendant danger of schism, should not be abandoned. In 2001, the “Small Catechism on Sedevacantism” published by Le Sel de la Terre concluded: “This is a position that has not been proven at the speculative level, and it is imprudent to hold it at a practical level, an imprudence that can bear very serious consequences.” (No. 36, p. 117) This conclusion holds as much for Pope Francis as for Pope John-Paul II who had kissed the Quran.
These are just a few examples immediately to hand which testify to the well known conclusion of the Archbishop on this matter. It is rather touching though to see so many sedes so esteeming this great man of the Church that they want to claim him as their own. I get that!
-
It seems both sides could say the same thing, so I don't think it's fair for you to point fingers at the sedes as if it never happens on the non-sede side. All one needs to look at is the recent "Old Catholic" thread for proof of that...including name calling, false assertions, etc.
I personally have always tried to refrain from false assertions and the name-calling whether it's just a rude name or names like "heretic" or "schismatic" (although I'm sure I'm not completely innocent in that regard). Having said that, I think it's reasonable for someone to write that they believe someone holds "heretical beliefs" or is "objectively schismatic" without that being considered name calling.
And while I'm at it, I am still disturbed that you have not retracted your accusation that Bishop Pivarunas lied about the cuм Ex footnote in the 1917 CCL.
I retract my accusation that +P lied about the footnote. If you read what I wrote, I made my accusation of it being a lie conditional upon someone providing proof via a quote, which was provided.
Just for the record, no sede here has retracted, nor do I expect they could get themselves to retract their accusation against me being a heretic and (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919936/#msg919936)in heresy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919936/#msg919936) <--- that's only one example. Later I even posted what is essentially the exact same thing as I said, only in a lot more detail and much, much clearer, declared by +ABL (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919991/#msg919991) to no avail whatsoever, instead +ABL was questioned as being wrong, which I can only give a giant facepalm to but there's not one big enough on this forum.
So it's not a matter being thin or think skinned, it's a matter of truth. Lad and other sedes goes about spreading his/their false ideas as if they're Gospel - which are, to quote Pope Martin V "offensive to the ears of the devout."
-
Sedevacantism without "conclavism" is completely useless and superfluous.
It's like after a complete collapse scenario (no grid electricity, Internet, public utilities anywhere), a complete Mad Max scenario, having some survivors "pro Internet" and others being "anti Internet". Now if a group of survivors was trying to actively rebuild electronics and computers from the ground up, and actively working to rebuild the Internet, that would be something. But that would be the equivalent of "conclavist sedevacantism".
At least the conclavists are consistent, and giving some MEANING to their sedevacantism. They are trying to "do something about it". To bring the theory into the practical realm, so it has SOME relevance or reason to actually hold the position.
My position is that sedevacantism, unless you add conclavism, is no better and usually worse than "plain vanilla" Traditional Catholicism. It adds nothing, and solves nothing. All it adds is another point of division, another reason for parishioners to stay home on Sunday when there's not a "sede" group chapel within driving distance.
Yes, many sedes are more practical than that (they aren't "dogmatic" about it; they are willing to attend SSPX for example) but why start a movement like "sedevacantism" when a certain percent are going to be dogmatic about it (unnecessarily divisive and condemnatory) and/or end up Home Aloners?
Zero upsides, nothing but downsides!
Would you take a medicine that has no chance of helping you with anything, but has a 30% chance of killing you? Neither would I.
Bishop Pivarunas answers Matthews objection under objection 3 of Answering Objections to the Sede Vacante position. I have posted all the objections and answers from Bishop Pivarunas (with opportunity of expanding on those if necessary) here
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/answering-objections-to-the-sedevacantist-position-72981/
-
No, I’ll pass. Although, the Archbishops was a great man, I never held him as a rule of faith as some posters on this forum seem to.
It is plainly evident from the Angelus article I posted that he was, at the very least, not opposed to sedevacantism, like you want your readers to believe. The Archbishop knew the principles involved and that a heretic could not be a pope, he was just waiting for evidence. Sadly, you want to spin his words to fit your narrative.
You know what? That's a VERY good point. So good of a point, that I want to turn this into a new thread.
Ok, let's say the Archbishop was providentially prepared by God to de-facto lead the Traditional Movement for many years, start the SSPX, etc. This much is simply a matter of history. If you read his biography, it's clear he was arranged by God to help so many Catholics into lifeboats so they could survive (keep the Faith).
But you're right -- the Archbishop died in 1991. Would he have become Sedevacantist? We honestly don't know.
But here's the point: I (and others) adhered to the SSPX because they were the most Catholic position, blessed by God, with good fruit, not going an ounce further than they had to, in their resistance/opposition to Modernism and the new man-made Conciliar Church. It was the safest place to park your Faith during the Crisis in the Church, and +ABL was clearly providential, so he was a good man to follow.
But today, aside from following the same line (today it would be the Resistance, as the neo-SSPX is closer to the FSSP now than to the classic SSPX position), what obviously providential figure is there to trust or follow?
No one. There is no sedevacantist individual OR group which screams "God is here", or "this is where you should leave (wherever you are right now) and get your butt over here, because HERE is the safest/best place to keep the Faith during this Crisis in the Church."
-
And even if you call this Pope a formal heretic, is it absolutely certain that he can therefore be deposed? Does the Church have an infallible teaching on this, or any teaching whatsoever?
Yes.
"That heresy, apostasy, and schism.....according to their very nature constitute defection from the faith or from communion with the Church, and accordingly sever a man from the body of the Church by themselves, apart from any human law, and therefore without any judgment or censure by ecclesiastical authority, must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It is plainly set forth and proven by Bellarmine that it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers interpreting scripture, that heresy in its very nature not only severs one from the Church, but also directly brings about the loss of ecclesiastical office before and even without any judgment of the Church; and being the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, it must be believed de fide."
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)
-
Yes.
"That heresy, apostasy, and schism.....according to their very nature constitute defection from the faith or from communion with the Church, and accordingly sever a man from the body of the Church by themselves, apart from any human law, and therefore without any judgment or censure by ecclesiastical authority, must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It is plainly set forth and proven by Bellarmine that it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers interpreting scripture, that heresy in its very nature not only severs one from the Church, but also directly brings about the loss of ecclesiastical office before and even without any judgment of the Church; and being the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, it must be believed de fide."
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)
Why then does St Robert Bellarmine say that the Pope remains the supreme pastor until he is judged and declared by the Council?
You see, CK, this is the problem with the sede position, it just does away with all doubt, all contrary opinions, and declares certainty where there is none. A whole stack of theologians differ from St Robert, yet again, they just lack credibility according to you or Fr K or someone else, which basically comes down to you or Fr K or someone else setting yourself up as Pope in the matter and settling the matter when the Church never has. The book title should be "Fr Kramer's non-Catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope"
-
Why then does St Robert Bellarmine say that the Pope remains the supreme pastor until he is judged and declared by the Council?
You see, CK, this is the problem with the sede position, it just does away with all doubt, all contrary opinions, and declares certainty where there is none. A whole stack of theologians differ from St Robert, yet again, they just lack credibility according to you or Fr K or someone else, which basically comes down to you or Fr K or someone else setting yourself up as Pope in the matter and settling the matter when the Church never has. The book title should be "Fr Kramer's non-Catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope"
Interesting…..
Now, can you please provide the quote from Saint Robert with reference.
-
Interesting…..
Now, can you please provide the quote from Saint Robert with reference.
There are quite a few passages from St Robert that at the very least should make us hesitate to declare a Pope 'ipso facto' deposed because we see 'manifest heresy' as some understand his fifth and 'true opinion', and that is all I want to establish. Of course, other theologians have other opinions also about heretic popes and whether they can be deposed, and the Church has tolerated all these opinions, for example Suarez, Billuart, John of St Thomas... but we have been through this so many times.
But here are a few considerations from St Robert that should at least make us hesitate before lopping off the Pope's head:
1. ...the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party - On The Church, Vol I, On Councils, Ch XXI
2. ...inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... Furthermore, it is impertinent because that oath does not take away the freedom of the bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic - Ibid
3. ...whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves - Ibid, Ch XIV
4. Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church... - Ibid, On The Church Militant, Ch X
5. ...we cannot depose catholic bishops who have possessed their sees for so many centuries peacefully, unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing it is better... - Ibid, On The Marks of the Church, Ch VII
6. ...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff... - De Membris Ecclesiae, Lib I De Clericis, Cap 7 (Opera Omnia, Paris: Vives, 1870, pp 428-429). You will note that Bellarmine's proof from 'authority and reason' of his fifth opinion applies just the same to an heretical bishop. Manifest heresy renders you outside the Church whether you are a Pope, bishop, priest or layman. Yet the bishop is not ipso facto deposed?
7. ...jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, THEREFORE, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. - On The Roman Pontiff, Bk II Ch XXX, second opinion
8. ...in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - Ibid, fourth opinion
-
Why then does St Robert Bellarmine say that the Pope remains the supreme pastor until he is judged and declared by the Council?
Where does he state this?
-
But here are a few considerations from St Robert that should at least make us hesitate before lopping off the Pope's head:
Sure, but it's OK to lop off the head of the Catholic Church. This is not about Jorge or his predecessors. If Jorge were going around spewing heresy on his papal plane or in interviews with Scalfari, I could hardly care less and would let the Cardinals deal with him.
You keep quibbling about the "5 Opinions" when NONE of the 5 Opinions held that the Pope could become a heretic as Pope, i.e. that he could teach error to the Church. They all discuss Pope "as private person".
More missing the forest for the trees, focusing on the "5 Opinions" (what Avrille called the a priori arguments for sedevacantism, but they're really a list of possible explanations for the how/why) and quibbling about the precise limits of infallibility. Those are both distractions from the core problem which you keep dodging by continuing to bring everyone's focus down on the trees (into arguments that we'll never resolve here).
I keep trying to point out, "Look at the forest. It's rotten." but you ignore that perspective and keep responding by saying, "No, look at this tree and that tree. I see a piece of bark here."
-
Where does he state this?
Immediately above your post I provided some references.
-
Sure, but it's OK to lop off the head of the Catholic Church. This is not about Jorge or his predecessors. If Jorge were going around spewing heresy on his papal plane or in interviews with Scalfari, I could hardly care less and would let the Cardinals deal with him.
You keep quibbling about the "5 Opinions" when NONE of the 5 Opinions held that the Pope could become a heretic as Pope, i.e. that he could teach error to the Church. They all discuss Pope "as private person".
More missing the forest for the trees, focusing on the "5 Opinions" (what Avrille called the a priori arguments for sedevacantism, but they're really a list of possible explanations for the how/why) and quibbling about the precise limits of infallibility. Those are both distractions from the core problem which you keep dodging by continuing to bring everyone's focus down on the trees (into arguments that we'll never resolve here).
I keep trying to point out, "Look at the forest. It's rotten." but you ignore that perspective and keep responding by saying, "No, look at this tree and that tree. I see a piece of bark here."
Yes, Ladislaus, I do understand what you are saying. I'm not focusing on the tree, I do see the woods. Archbishop Lefebvre saw the woods from afar better than anyone. However, I think you are trying to say too much, it is not in any way certain that a Pope cannot be a heretic and promote heresy through the Ordinary Magisterium.
If you read Dom Paul Nau's study, he talks about the intention manifested by the Pope in his teaching which determines whether or not he is teaching as a private person, rather than the mode of teaching, such as a radio interview, an encyclical, a Wednesday allocution, etc. I get the same impression reading past theologians, opposing private teaching to infallible teaching. Am I wrong here? Maybe.
I don't doubt that you are right that St Robert Bellarmine was not envisaging, in his five opinions, a situation like we currently have in the Church. Let's face it, he didn't even believe that the Pope would or could fall into heresy. And yet his is only an opinion. We can't lop off the head of the Pope so easily it seems to me, the Church has never made certain these teachings, whether it is regarding the magisterium, or the heretic pope...
Nothing has substantially changed with this current Pope, I don't believe, let us continue to observe the prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre. Maybe the African Cardinals will now join ranks with Archbishop Vigano and bring the Pope to account... I shudder to imagine the consequences if such a thing happened, I think the Good Lord will wait for more opportune times following upon a chastisement to give us a truly Catholic Pope for His greater glory and the greatest salvation of souls.
-
Yes, Ladislaus, I do understand what you are saying. I'm not focusing on the tree, I do see the woods. Archbishop Lefebvre saw the woods from afar better than anyone. However, I think you are trying to say too much, it is not in any way certain that a Pope cannot be a heretic and promote heresy through the Ordinary Magisterium.
If you read Dom Paul Nau's study, he talks about the intention manifested by the Pope in his teaching which determines whether or not he is teaching as a private person, rather than the mode of teaching, such as a radio interview, an encyclical, a Wednesday allocution, etc. I get the same impression reading past theologians, opposing private teaching to infallible teaching. Am I wrong here? Maybe.
I don't doubt that you are right that St Robert Bellarmine was not envisaging, in his five opinions, a situation like we currently have in the Church. Let's face it, he didn't even believe that the Pope would or could fall into heresy. And yet his is only an opinion. We can't lop off the head of the Pope so easily it seems to me, the Church has never made certain these teachings, whether it is regarding the magisterium, or the heretic pope...
Nothing has substantially changed with this current Pope, I don't believe, let us continue to observe the prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre. Maybe the African Cardinals will now join ranks with Archbishop Vigano and bring the Pope to account... I shudder to imagine the consequences if such a thing happened, I think the Good Lord will wait for more opportune times following upon a chastisement to give us a truly Catholic Pope for His greater glory and the greatest salvation of souls.
PV, you've said "it is not in any way certain that a Pope cannot be a heretic and promote heresy through the Ordinary Magisterium."
And: "the Church has never made certain these teachings, whether it is regarding the magisterium, or the heretic pope..."
But Vatican I teaches the following:
"For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour."
And:
"this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples"
And:
"This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine"
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm
-
PV, you've said "it is not in any way certain that a Pope cannot be a heretic and promote heresy through the Ordinary Magisterium."
And: "the Church has never made certain these teachings, whether it is regarding the magisterium, or the heretic pope..."
But Vatican I teaches the following:
"For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour."
And:
"this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples"
And:
"This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine"
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm
If you read the whole docuмent, libro, you will see that the Church is telling us in Pastor Aeternus that this is the very meaning of the Extraordinary Magisterium - it is in this that the never failing faith of Peter consists, it is in this that the See of Peter is unblemished by error. That is exactly what the Council says, exactly! Not some imaginary idea that there is never any error in faith or morals in its teaching, but only under the very specific conditions that it defines. We just went through all this on another thread. Yes, it has always been preserved unblemished in its extraordinary magisterium, that is the privilege that Our Divine Lord willed it to have for that purpose. Check it out!
-
If you read the whole docuмent, libro, you will see that the Church is telling us in Pastor Aeternus that this is the very meaning of the Extraordinary Magisterium - it is in this that the never failing faith of Peter consists, it is in this that the See of Peter is unblemished by error. That is exactly what the Council says, exactly! Not some imaginary idea that there is never any error in faith or morals in its teaching, but only under the very specific conditions that it defines. We just went through all this on another thread. Yes, it has always been preserved unblemished in its extraordinary magisterium, that is the privilege that Our Divine Lord willed it to have for that purpose. Check it out!
But in ch 3 "on faith", the Council teaches:
"[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]8. [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Wherefore, [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]which are [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]contained[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] in the word of God as found in [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]scripture[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] and [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]tradition[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]and which are proposed by the [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]church[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]whether by her [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]solemn judgment [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]or in her [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]ordinary and universal[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] magisterium."[/color]
So, we have to not only believe what is proposed by the Extraordinary Magisterium, but also by the Ordinary Magisterium. Which means it cannot err.
-
Sorry, don't know how to edit :facepalm:. It should read:
"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believedwhich are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,whether by her solemn judgmentor in her ordinary and universal magisterium."
-
I retract my accusation that +P lied about the footnote. If you read what I wrote, I made my accusation of it being a lie conditional upon someone providing proof via a quote, which was provided.
Just for the record, no sede here has retracted, nor do I expect they could get themselves to retract their accusation against me being a heretic and (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919936/#msg919936)in heresy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919936/#msg919936) <--- that's only one example. Later I even posted what is essentially the exact same thing as I said, only in a lot more detail and much, much clearer, declared by +ABL (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919991/#msg919991) to no avail whatsoever, instead +ABL was questioned as being wrong, which I can only give a giant facepalm to but there's not one big enough on this forum.
So it's not a matter being thin or think skinned, it's a matter of truth. Lad and other sedes goes about spreading his/their false ideas as if they're Gospel - which are, to quote Pope Martin V "offensive to the ears of the devout."
Just wanted to thank you for this. None of us are perfect, but I do appreciate when others can apologize/admit they are wrong. Not everyone is like that.
-
I know I started this thread, but it's 17 pages long now.
So here is my latest contribution:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/response-to-all-the-sede-threads/
-
Sorry, don't know how to edit :facepalm:. It should read:
"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believedwhich are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,whether by her solemn judgmentor in her ordinary and universal magisterium."
We must understand things in the sense that they are meant, and this gives the sense: which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed. Read it in the context of the whole, it removes all doubt.
See also the thread I started on the infallible magisterium. Even look at the study of Cardinal Franzelin that one of your fellow sedes posted. The ordinary teaching of the Pope is not automatically guaranteed free from error.
-
There are quite a few passages from St Robert that at the very least should make us hesitate to declare a Pope 'ipso facto' deposed because we see 'manifest heresy' as some understand his fifth and 'true opinion', and that is all I want to establish. Of course, other theologians have other opinions also about heretic popes and whether they can be deposed, and the Church has tolerated all these opinions, for example Suarez, Billuart, John of St Thomas... but we have been through this so many times.
But here are a few considerations from St Robert that should at least make us hesitate before lopping off the Pope's head:
1. ...the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party - On The Church, Vol I, On Councils, Ch XXI
2. ...inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... Furthermore, it is impertinent because that oath does not take away the freedom of the bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic - Ibid
3. ...whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves - Ibid, Ch XIV
4. Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church... - Ibid, On The Church Militant, Ch X
5. ...we cannot depose catholic bishops who have possessed their sees for so many centuries peacefully, unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing it is better... - Ibid, On The Marks of the Church, Ch VII
6. ...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff... - De Membris Ecclesiae, Lib I De Clericis, Cap 7 (Opera Omnia, Paris: Vives, 1870, pp 428-429). You will note that Bellarmine's proof from 'authority and reason' of his fifth opinion applies just the same to an heretical bishop. Manifest heresy renders you outside the Church whether you are a Pope, bishop, priest or layman. Yet the bishop is not ipso facto deposed?
7. ...jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, THEREFORE, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. - On The Roman Pontiff, Bk II Ch XXX, second opinion
8. ...in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - Ibid, fourth opinion
I am not certain about the context of the all the quotes you provided above, but no theologian holds that St. Robert Bellarmine's position is that "the Pope remains the supreme pastor until he is judged by the Church" (i.e., the Fourth Opinion). Rather, apart from the First Opinion (which is the position he actually held), he held certain that a pope would fall "ipso facto" from office for manifest heresy, which is the Fifth Opinion.
-
Plenus Venter, in the video below, Fr. Chazal acknowledges that St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that manifest heresy results in ipso facto loss of office. Start at about the 26 minutes mark.
At about the 23 minutes mark, Fr. Chazal acknowledges that most authors hold that a true pope cannot be a formal heretic. This is Opinion No. 1, which is the one that St. Robert Bellarmine truly held. Now if Fr. Chazal held to these authors, then he would conclude that Jorge Bergoglio cannot be a true pope. Here is the syllogism:
A true pope cannot be a formal heretic.
But Jorge Bergoglio is a formal heretic.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio cannot be a true pope.
From what I understand, Fr. Chazal currently holds Jorge Bergoglio to be a true pope, so he denies the major premise, which he admits is held by most authors. Why, then, does he oppose most authors, including St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church?
Now this video is a bit outdated (February 2015), so perhaps Fr. Chazal has changed his position since then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkoG3rznTwQ
-
Father Chazal leans toward the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position, or, rather some synthesis of the two, since they're not identical. He opens one of his talks by saying that the sedevacantists seem to hold that only St. Robert's opinion is legitimate, but the Church has not ruled on the matter. He does have a point.
He comes up with a position that ends up being very similar to sedeprivationism, and the one towards which I myself lean, in theory. In practice, I don't believe these V2 papal claimants had even material claim to the papacy, because I am convinced of the so-called "Siri Theory".
-
I like this movie here (though I don't agree with everything in it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-VqjJW_lOM
-
Father Chazal leans toward the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position, or, rather some synthesis of the two, since they're not identical. He opens one of his talks by saying that the sedevacantists seem to hold that only St. Robert's opinion is legitimate, but the Church has not ruled on the matter. He does have a point.
He comes up with a position that ends up being very similar to sedeprivationism, and the one towards which I myself lean, in theory. In practice, I don't believe these V2 papal claimants had even material claim to the papacy, because I am convinced of the so-called "Siri Theory".
From your understanding, does Fr. Chazal hold that Jorge Bergoglio is a true pope (i.e., that Christ bestowed upon him the papal munus) or not?
-
From your understanding, does Fr. Chazal hold that Jorge Bergoglio is a true pope (i.e., that Christ bestowed upon him the papal munus) or not?
While he's never addressed that old munus thing, I would imagine he's say yes, that he has the munus, the office, but is incapable of exercising it due to manifest heresy.
-
While he's never addressed that old munus thing, I would imagine he's say yes, that he has the munus, the office, but is incapable of exercising it due to manifest heresy.
I agree with you, but there is a distinction to be made, that is, according to Fr. Chazal, Jorge Bergoglio is incapable of exercising the munus licitly because of his manifest heresy, but is capable nonetheless of exercising the munus validly. This means that, according to Fr. Chazal, Jorge Bergoglio is capable, amongst other things, of defining as dogma a proposition of Divine Revelation and making it binding upon the Universal Church.
-
I agree with you, but there is a distinction to be made, that is, according to Fr. Chazal, Jorge Bergoglio is incapable of exercising the munus licitly because of his manifest heresy, but is capable nonetheless of exercising the munus validly. This means that, according to Fr. Chazal, Jorge Bergoglio is capable, amongst other things, of defining as dogma a proposition of Divine Revelation and making it binding upon the Universal Church.
No, according to Canon 2263, an ipso facto excommunicate (while in that state) is "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts." Meaning a Pope is not a "legitimate authority" while in a state of ipso facto excommunication.
But his acts while in that excommunicated state could, in theory, become valid later if and only if he were to repent of his errors before he was formally condemned (Level 3 excommunication). So his "acts" are suspended awaiting resolution of the problem. In the meantime, we have no obligation to follow an ipso facto excommunicates dictates. Rather, we should ignore them.
Of course, none of this applies to Bergoglio because he was not lawfully elected anyway, according to UDG. He is simply a usurper and should be expelled.
-
No, according to Canon 2263, an ipso facto excommunicate (while in that state) is "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts." Meaning a Pope is not a "legitimate authority" while in a state of ipso facto excommunication.
But his acts while in that excommunicated state could, in theory, become valid later if and only if he were to repent of his errors before he was formally condemned (Level 3 excommunication). So his "acts" are suspended awaiting resolution of the problem. In the meantime, we have no obligation to follow an ipso facto excommunicates dictates. Rather, we should ignore them.
Of course, none of this applies to Bergoglio because he was not lawfully elected anyway, according to UDG. He is simply a usurper and should be expelled.
Angelus, are you stating that your position is the same as Fr. Chazal's position?
-
Angelus, are you stating that your position is the same as Fr. Chazal's position?
What I mean is this:
1. You stated "according to Fr. Chazal, Jorge Bergoglio is incapable of exercising the munus licitly because of his manifest heresy, but is capable nonetheless of exercising the munus validly."
The above statement seems to agree in spirit with what I said about 1917 Canon Law. See timestamp 24:00 in the video that you posted. There Fr. Chazal seems to agree with 1917 Canon Law (on that point) as I read it: that the illicit acts of a heretic Pope CAN LATER be revived if he repents prior to his final condemnation (Level 3 Excommunication). And I explained how I understand how that would make sense according to the Canons. However, you are using phrases like "munus licitly" and "munus validly" which I cannot find in the Canons. The actual language of the Canons is different.
2. You then stated, "according to Fr. Chazal, Jorge Bergoglio is capable, amongst other things, of defining as dogma a proposition of Divine Revelation and making it binding upon the Universal Church." If Fr. Chazal said that, and he believes that Bergoglio could do that while in a state of ipso facto excommunication, it would seem to contradict Canon 2263 directly. Can you provide the direct quote from Fr. Chazal about that?
-
I agree with you, but there is a distinction to be made, that is, according to Fr. Chazal, Jorge Bergoglio is incapable of exercising the munus licitly because of his manifest heresy, but is capable nonetheless of exercising the munus validly. This means that, according to Fr. Chazal, Jorge Bergoglio is capable, amongst other things, of defining as dogma a proposition of Divine Revelation and making it binding upon the Universal Church.
Sure, but your question was whether had HAS the munus (where you made no such distinction). Given that he has it validly, according to Fr. Chazal, one would say he has it. Trying to reduce a secundum quid to a simpliciter is not very clean.
I don't buy the valid/licit distinction outside of the Sacraments. I think it was something he invented to distance himself from the sedeprivationists.
-
I saw another article where Fr. Chazal goes more detail about his position. I think I have it wrong in regards to the details. Here is part of what Fr. Chazal wrote:
"2) Guerard used the wrong distinction. I stated that in my booklet in the conclusion i wish you to read. Conciliar popes (Not just pope Francis, but others, and especially Benedict, and i want to be abundantly clear about that!) defect per se from office, and in this i totally concurr with Fr Kramer. Yet the Church remains a juridical and public society, who, even in normal times, takes time to catch up with heretical delinquents.
"Too many people having not caught up with the heresies of Benedict, is the proof of a need to declare heresies."
By "defect per se from office", it seems Fr. Chazal is saying that any valid acts posited by Jorge Bergoglio are due to supplied jurisdiction and not to habitual jurisdiction. This seems to line up with what Angelus wrote.
I may have no choice but to buy Fr. Chazal's "Contra Cekadam" do get the full details about his position. :laugh1:
Here is the link to the article:
https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/02/franciswar-continues-to-heat-up.html (https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/02/franciswar-continues-to-heat-up.html)
-
I saw another article where Fr. Chazal goes more detail about his position. I think I have it wrong in regards to the details. Here is part of what Fr. Chazal wrote:
"2) Guerard used the wrong distinction. I stated that in my booklet in the conclusion i wish you to read. Conciliar popes (Not just pope Francis, but others, and especially Benedict, and i want to be abundantly clear about that!) defect per se from office, and in this i totally concurr with Fr Kramer. Yet the Church remains a juridical and public society, who, even in normal times, takes time to catch up with heretical delinquents.
"Too many people having not caught up with the heresies of Benedict, is the proof of a need to declare heresies."
By "defect per se from office", it seems Fr. Chazal is saying that any valid acts posited by Jorge Bergoglio are due to supplied jurisdiction and not to habitual jurisdiction. This seems to line up with what Angelus wrote.
I may have no choice but to buy Fr. Chazal's "Contra Cekadam" do get the full details about his position. :laugh1:
Here is the link to the article:
https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/02/franciswar-continues-to-heat-up.html (https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/02/franciswar-continues-to-heat-up.html)
The way I read it, what you wrote about supplied/habitual “jurisdiction” doesn’t line up with Canon 2264 (and make sure you understand what is meant by “jurisdiction” in 2264 by carefully reading 2261). I read 2264/2261 as referring to Sacramental jurisdiction there, which the ipso facto heretic loses except in certain corner cases.
A popes legislative “acts” and his “appointments” are different from his sacramental “jurisdiction.”
Although, I think the Canons are consistent in taking away those things in stages. First step (ipso facto), those things all become “illicit.” And as a practical matter, we as Catholics must avoid “legislation,” sacraments, or appointments carried out by one in a state of illegitimacy, even if, theoretically he and his currently dead acts MIGHT one day come to life.
-
The way I read it, what you wrote about supplied/habitual “jurisdiction” doesn’t line up with Canon 2264 (and make sure you understand what is meant by “jurisdiction” in 2264 by carefully reading 2261). I read 2264/2261 as referring to Sacramental jurisdiction there, which the ipso facto heretic loses except in certain corner cases.
A popes legislative “acts” and his “appointments” are different from his sacramental “jurisdiction.”
Although, I think the Canons are consistent in taking away those things in stages. First step (ipso facto), those things all become “illicit.” And as a practical matter, we as Catholics must avoid “legislation,” sacraments, or appointments carried out by one in a state of illegitimacy, even if, theoretically he and his currently dead acts MIGHT one day come to life.
Thank you for your clarification. I think I do need to read more closely the canons in question.
What source substantiates the position that "currently dead acts MIGHT one day come to life"?
-
"2) Guerard used the wrong distinction. I stated that in my booklet in the conclusion i wish you to read. Conciliar popes (Not just pope Francis, but others, and especially Benedict, and i want to be abundantly clear about that!) defect per se from office, and in this i totally concurr with Fr Kramer. Yet the Church remains a juridical and public society, who, even in normal times, takes time to catch up with heretical delinquents.
Interesting. I'll just have to disagree that Bishop Guerard "used the wrong distinction". You can see the formal / material distinction already present in Bellarmine (in principle), and I'd have to take the word of the Church's top theologian before Vatican II over that of Father Chazal (with all due respect to Father).
-
Nice little quote of Pius X. Could use more of that these days...
(https://i.imgur.com/qfCpmct.png)
-
Thank you for your clarification. I think I do need to read more closely the canons in question.
What source substantiates the position that "currently dead acts MIGHT one day come to life"?
My point was that when an excommunicate is in a state of ipso facto excommunication, certain "acts" would be merely "illegitimate." But when that same excommunicate fails to respond to warnings and is either "declared" or "condemned," the same types of acts become not only "illegitimate" but completely "invalid."
If they are "illegitimate," the acts did happen but they have no force while the state of illegitimacy continues. But if they are "invalid," they never happened.
I'm saying that maybe those "illegitimate" acts could be granted "legitimacy," retroactively, if the competent authority decides to make it so. This might happen when a bishop or cardinal was appointed illegitimately while the Pope was in a state of illegitimacy (Canon 2265). But rather than re-do all of the appointments one by one, the competent authority would simply recognize that they are now all "legitimate" because the Pope has repented of his errors.
Canon 2265 §2 seems to suggest something like this when it makes the distinctions that it makes.
-
Plenus Venter, in the video below, Fr. Chazal acknowledges that St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that manifest heresy results in ipso facto loss of office. Start at about the 26 minutes mark.
At about the 23 minutes mark, Fr. Chazal acknowledges that most authors hold that a true pope cannot be a formal heretic. This is Opinion No. 1, which is the one that St. Robert Bellarmine truly held. Now if Fr. Chazal held to these authors, then he would conclude that Jorge Bergoglio cannot be a true pope. Here is the syllogism:
A true pope cannot be a formal heretic.
But Jorge Bergoglio is a formal heretic.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio cannot be a true pope.
From what I understand, Fr. Chazal currently holds Jorge Bergoglio to be a true pope, so he denies the major premise, which he admits is held by most authors. Why, then, does he oppose most authors, including St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church?
Now this video is a bit outdated (February 2015), so perhaps Fr. Chazal has changed his position since then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkoG3rznTwQ
I retract what I wrote above. I also retract my public accusation against Fr. Francois Chazal of opposing the Magisterium of Vatican I and Pope Pius XII with his sedeimpoundist position. I apologize for the confusion I have caused. At the time, I thought that Fr. Chazal held Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope, but that is not the case based on e-mail conversation I had with him. See the link below:
Fr. Chazal on whether Jorge Bergoglio Is a True Pope (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Fr_Chazal_on_Whether_Jorge_Bergoglio_Is_Pope.pdf)
The e-mail addresses have been removed.
-
Fr. Chazal is emphatic that he does not accept Bergoglio as pope due to pertinacious heresy. What is the essential distinction between Chazalism and The Thesis?
-
Fr. Chazal is emphatic that he does not accept Bergoglio as pope due to pertinacious heresy. What is the essential distinction between Chazalism and The Thesis?
I think it's more of an academic disagreement, where Father Chazal disagreed with the formal/material distinction. End result of the two, however, is the same, that Jorge has the legal title, but doesn't really exercise papal authority. I have no problem with this whatsoever, and don't like wasting time quibbling over academic disputes.
-
At the time, I thought that Fr. Chazal held Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope, but that is not the case based on e-mail conversation I had with him.
We had this debate before in the context of sedeprivationism, around the term "true pope". But my argument then and my argument now is that you can't say yes or no simpliciter to the term "true pope". He may be "true" in one respect, i.e. secundum quid but not true in another respect. Now, if you hold to the St. Gallen mafia theory or the vitium consensus you may have different "distinctions", as Father Chazal stated, but the key question is whether Jorge has the authority as Vicar of Christ to teach the faithful.
-
If 'the end result of the two, however, is the same' then what is the crying all about? While his book was titled 'Contra Cekadum' couldn't he have titled it 'Pro Sanbornum' or something? Franco, et al, are clearly heretics so loss of office but they're still tied legally to the institution?
-
If 'the end result of the two, however, is the same' then what the hell is the crying all about? While his book was titled 'Contra Cekadum' couldn't he have titled it 'Pro Sanbornum' or something? Franco, et al, are clearly heretics so loss of office but they're still tied legally to the institution?
It's emotional. There's a stigma around sedevacantism and Father Chazal doesn't want to be associated with the term. Shortly after he developed his position around "sedeimpoundism" (not a term he used, but one I use for convenience ... his was several syllables longer), many pointed out that it was very close to sedeprivationism, and so Father Chazal became defensive about it.
While some of these terms (sedevacantist, sedeprivationist, sedeimpoundist, R&R, Bennyvacantist, etc.) are used for convenience, sometimes they're impediments from people recognizing that which they hold in common, feeling they need to belogn to one of these "camps".
-
I retract what I wrote above. I also retract my public accusation against Fr. Francois Chazal of opposing the Magisterium of Vatican I and Pope Pius XII with his sedeimpoundist position. I apologize for the confusion I have caused. At the time, I thought that Fr. Chazal held Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope, but that is not the case based on e-mail conversation I had with him. See the link below:
Fr. Chazal on whether Jorge Bergoglio Is a True Pope (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Fr_Chazal_on_Whether_Jorge_Bergoglio_Is_Pope.pdf)
The e-mail addresses have been removed.
CK, in your email exchange with Fr. Chazal, I think there is some imprecision in the language used on both sides when considered in the context of 1917 Canon Law (https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf). But Fr. Chazal said that his comments were "off the cuff," which I take to mean not precisely worded.
I think Fr. Chazal's position is the same one I have been trying to convey, which is contained in Canons 188.4, 2314, and 2257-67 (and other Canons I'm sure).
A heretic is "ipso facto excommunicated" (level 1) upon manifesting heresy publicly. And faithful Catholics are required to avoid submission to all heretics in religious matters (including ipso facto excommunicates who are excommunicated for heresy). There doesn't need to be an official "declaration" (level 2 excommunication) or "condemnation" (level 3 excommunication) for a faithful Catholic to be under the obligation to avoid the public heretic.
The SSPX seems to think that faithful Catholics "cannot judge" a Pope's actions, which in the strict sense of that word ("judge") is true. But the kind of judgment being referred to in the Canon 1556 ("the First See is judge by no one") is in the section "on trials." The "judgement" in a "trial" would happen at the level 2 or level 3 of the excommunication process. There is no "trial" required for a faithful Catholic to recognize an "ipso facto heretic" as such. The faithful Catholic need only compare the erring proposition of the heretic to perennial Catholic teaching on the matter.
At that point, the fact of the manifestation of heresy is in the external forum and this fact speaks for itself. And that public manifestation is enough for a faithful Catholic to have moral certainty (i.e., certainty in the world of action) that the heretic in question must be avoided.
-
So Chazal and Vigano are squarely in the camp that Bergie is no pope. Chazal, however, is/was claiming Vigano as a Resistance bishop ??? I love Fr. Chazal for blowing the lid off the 2012 SSPX events but come on, man. Two leading Resisters don't believe the pope is the pope ??? Uh, that ain't the Resistance...
-
CK, in your email exchange with Fr. Chazal, I think there is some imprecision in the language used on both sides when considered in the context of 1917 Canon Law (https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf). But Fr. Chazal said that his comments were "off the cuff," which I take to mean not precisely worded.
I think Fr. Chazal's position is the same one I have been trying to convey, which is contained in Canons 188.4, 2314, and 2257-67 (and other Canons I'm sure).
A heretic is "ipso facto excommunicated" (level 1) upon manifesting heresy publicly. And faithful Catholics are required to avoid submission to all heretics in religious matters (including ipso facto excommunicates who are excommunicated for heresy). There doesn't need to be an official "declaration" (level 2 excommunication) or "condemnation" (level 3 excommunication) for a faithful Catholic to be under the obligation to avoid the public heretic.
The SSPX seems to think that faithful Catholics "cannot judge" a Pope's actions, which in the strict sense of that word ("judge") is true. But the kind of judgment being referred to in the Canon 1556 ("the First See is judge by no one") is in the section "on trials." The "judgement" in a "trial" would happen at the level 2 or level 3 of the excommunication process. There is no "trial" required for a faithful Catholic to recognize an "ipso facto heretic" as such. The faithful Catholic need only compare the erring proposition of the heretic to perennial Catholic teaching on the matter.
At that point, the fact of the manifestation of heresy is in the external forum and this fact speaks for itself. And that public manifestation is enough for a faithful Catholic to have moral certainty (i.e., certainty in the world of action) that the heretic in question must be avoided.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy causes one to lose office. This is Divine Law. After that, Ecclesiastical Law kicks in and the heretic is excommunicated. Supplied jurisdiction makes the heretic's actions valid but not licit until the Church declares him officially to be a heretic. This I believe is the substance of Fr. Chazal's argument.
-
The public sin of manifest formal heresy causes one to lose office. This is Divine Law. After that, Ecclesiastical Law kicks in and the heretic is excommunicated. Supplied jurisdiction makes the heretic's actions valid but not licit until the Church declares him officially to be a heretic. This I believe is the substance of Fr. Chazal's argument.
https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf
Yes, the public sin of heresy causes an automatic "vacancy" (Canon 188.4). But the person "loses the office" in stages, according to the Church (Canons 2314 and 2257-67). First, by the fact [ipso facto], he loses the power to exercise his office. Next, after he is "declared" a heretic, he loses the fruits of the office. And after he is "condemned," he loses the office per se, ontologically. It is the somewhat academic debate over those stages of excommunication that is confusing everyone.
The first stage "ipso facto excommunication for heresy" is enough for the faithful Catholic to know he must avoid "submission" and "communion" with the heretic former officeholder.
The "ipso facto vacancy" and "the ipso facto excommunication" are not, as you suggest, two separate events. Rather, the "public defection from the faith" (Canon 188.4) that causes the office to "become vacant upon the fact [ipso facto]" is the same event that causes "all apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic" to "incur by that fact [ipso facto] excommunication" (Canon 2314). In other words, the removal the cleric from office and the personal excommunication are two different effects of the same cause, the same event: the manifestation of "ipso facto heresy."
For practical purposes, we can stop the analysis there. The unrepentant, public ipso facto heretic cannot legally act in any official capacity in the Church. His actions are "impounded" until he repents. So his actions and dictates have no force for any Catholic. Not only do we not have to follow his dictates while he is in the state of illegitimacy, but we have the moral obligation to avoid "communication" with that heretic, as Canon 2316 states:
Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who
communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is suspected of
heresy.
It is not enough that we just say we disagree with the heretic on his heretical teachings. No, we must not give the impression that we are in any way "in communion" with that heretic. Otherwise, we are "consenting" to his heresies. This is what the SSPX does when they say that they are "in communion" with a heretic Pope. Their position flies in the face of Canon Law.
-
Yes, the public sin of heresy causes an automatic "vacancy" (Canon 188.4). But the person "loses the office" in stages, according to the Church (Canons 2314 and 2257-67). First, by the fact [ipso facto], he loses the power to exercise his office. Next, after he is "declared" a heretic, he loses the fruits of the office. And after he is "condemned," he loses the office per se, ontologically. It is the somewhat academic debate over those stages of excommunication that is confusing everyone.
It's "confusing everyone" except evidently you, because they're complete made up.
What the heck is a "fruit of the office"? And then he loses the office "ontologically"? You said that happened in the first step. If anything, the last step would be that he lost it quoad nos, to use John of St. Thomas' distinction ... whereas he would have lost it quoad se in the first step, aka "ontologically". Canon Law doesn't really apply to a Pope anyway, as he could abrogate it ... except for those aspects of Canon Law that are Divine Law, and that's precisely the debate.
-
It's "confusing everyone" except evidently you, because they're complete made up.
What the heck is a "fruit of the office"? And then he loses the office "ontologically"? You said that happened in the first step. If anything, the last step would be that he lost it quoad nos, to use John of St. Thomas' distinction ... whereas he would have lost it quoad se in the first step, aka "ontologically". Canon Law doesn't really apply to a Pope anyway, as he could abrogate it ... except for those aspects of Canon Law that are Divine Law, and that's precisely the debate.
You asked about the "fruit of the office." And you asked about losing the office "ontologically." Both of these concepts are dealt with in the same Canon.
Canon 2266 (1983 CIC 1331, 1335)
After a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, one excommunicated remains deprived of the
fruits of dignity, office, benefice, pension, and duty if he had one in the Church; and a banned
[excommunicate is deprived] of the dignity, office, benefice, pension, and duty itself [ipsamet].
Canon 2266
Post sententiam condemnatoriam vel declaratoriam excommunicatus manet privatus fructibus dignitatis, officii, beneficii, pensionis, muneris, si quod habeat in Ecclesia; et vitandus ipsamet dignitate, officio, beneficio, pensione, munere.
Latin: fructibus = fruits
Latin: ipsamet = itself = per se = ontologically
The excommunication process for heresy (outlined in Canon 2314) derives from the Epistle to Titus 3:10-11. That basic concept is grounded in divine law. Bellarmine mentions it in his discussion of the 5 opinions. The Pope cannot change that.