Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 21, 2016, 02:06:38 PM
-
https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/6/d/c/6dc5dc229dabc630/Fr_Fliess_Opinionism__7_3_16.mp3?c_id=12119325&expiration=1469128465&hwt=735269f781c06c062160b35e13b476d6
- linked from Novus Ordo Watch for discussion here
-
I have heard this argument so many times that I cannot count from sedevacantists and I think it is a good argument for sedevacantism. But he acts as if this argument ends all debate and proves that sedevacantism is true. I disagree. He does not adress the point which I think is a strong agrument for sedeplenism which is that it is a teaching of the Church that if the whole Church accepts a man as Pope it is proof that he is really the Pope. All of the concilar Popes (especially John XXIII and Paul VI. There were a few thousand sedevacantists who rejected the conciliar Popes I believe starting around the time the Novus Ordo came out but I don't think that there were enough for it to be significant) have been accepted by the whole Church so that should prove that they were and are true Popes. Even today of the billion people who claim to be Catholic all but a few thousand sedevacantists accept Francis, so pretty much the whole Church accepts him.
-
Thanks for your reply. Your point is interesting. In summary, you indicate [the Church teaches] that if a person is recognized as the Pope then that person is in fact the pope. Is it possible for a non-Catholic to become pope in this manner? May I request a reference to material that supports this sedeplenism orientation?
-
Thanks for your reply. Your point is interesting. In summary, you indicate [the Church teaches] that if a person is recognized as the Pope then that person is in fact the pope. Is it possible for a non-Catholic to become pope in this manner? May I request a reference to material that supports this sedeplenism orientation?
I am sorry but I cannot give you a link. It is just something I learned about the Church from others who were more knowledgeable than me who know which exact docuмents of the Church teach this. Hopefully someone who knows more than me can point you in the right direction. I have read it used as an argument against sedevacantism and I have read sedevacantists acknowledge the teaching as true and try to explain how it does not contradict sedevacantism.
As far as non-Catholics becoming Pope, I don't know what would happen because I do not know how to reconcile these teachings in that case. Should I accept a non-Catholic as Pope as Padre Pio recognized Paul VI (who I consider to have been a non-Catholic) or should I reject him as Pope like Bishop Pivarunas? I don't know which is why my position is one of doubt. I think both sides have good arguments and it is a mystery to me.
-
Only God knows what the whole Church really believed in their heart, speaking of the Catholics in the Church only. Now would this principle apply to those pretenders who were supposed part of the Church as in the word "infiltrators", I wonder? Of course, they would accept their man who worked so hard to rise to the top.
Read the message of LaSalette in the library forum here. Or get a copy of the Alta Vendita and read it.
Matto, you can go on and deny day after day, but in truth you know the answer. I can feel it, that you know.
-
Matto, you can go on and deny day after day, but in truth you know the answer. I can feel it, that you know.
I do not deny but I do not affirm either. I just really don't know. If I had to choose a side I would choose sedevacantism, but I have doubts that I cannot reconcile.
-
Thanks for your reply. Your point is interesting. In summary, you indicate [the Church teaches] that if a person is recognized as the Pope then that person is in fact the pope. Is it possible for a non-Catholic to become pope in this manner? May I request a reference to material that supports this sedeplenism orientation?
Someone saw my post and sent me this via PM:
The citation is from Cardinal Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, §3
“Finally, whatever one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic"
This was posted on this forum a while back by Nishant. I'm sure others can find similar quotes from other sources.
-
We know for sure that those who excommunicate themselves are not to be followed, or we too shall excommunicate ourselves.
All those who do the the New Order, follow the new order are excommunicated. You will know them by their fruits.
Now, if the clergy are excommunicated, by their own desires, they are not followers of Christ. Very simple.
They say an adulterated mess, no Precious Blood! I can't think of anything so rotten as that!
Some may call it sedevacantism but excommunication is where "they" are. You can not follow them or excommunicate yourself.
-
Define "Pope" and define "Church". Church is what Christ founded. Then Church defined "Pope" and nomination, at Vatican 1. Nomination of one that is "Catholic".Well any one does the New Order and makes no consecration of clergy is not to be nominated.
The true Church has her teachings and definitions in order. We must read and some people don't do that.
-
St. Bellarmine considered the case of a Bishop teaching his flock heterodox doctrine, this is, anything that is contrary to the precedent timeless doctrine. He concluded that people should not listen to him; although he acknowledges that they have no the power to actually depose him. The Catholic Principle of Non-Contradiction is what determines the action followed by the laity in such a case.
"It is true that the people should discern the true prophet from the false, but not by any other rule than the following: Observe carefully if what he teaches is contrary to what his predecessors have said,[70] or that which is said by other pastors, ordinaries, and above all the Apostolic See and the principal Church; for it is commanded that the people should listen to their pastors: Luke X: He who listens to you listens to me; and Matt. XXIII, do that which they tell you to do. The people ought not to judge their pastors except when they introduce innovations or doctrines which are in disagreement with those of the other
pastors."[71]
"Moreover, it is necessary to observe that the people can clearly discriminate, by the rule that we have given, between true and false prophets. But for all that they cannot depose of a false pastor if he is a bishop and substitute another in his place. For the Lord and Apostle only commanded that false prophets not be listened to by the people; but not that the people should depose them. It has always been the practice of the Church to depose heretical bishops by councils of bishops or by an act of the sovereign pontiffs." (Cf. loc. cit., Note 15).
-
Not to worry Cantarella, no one is deposing Francis, and that is the problem.
-
Thanks for your reply. Your point is interesting. In summary, you indicate [the Church teaches] that if a person is recognized as the Pope then that person is in fact the pope. Is it possible for a non-Catholic to become pope in this manner? May I request a reference to material that supports this sedeplenism orientation?
Someone saw my post and sent me this via PM:
The citation is from Cardinal Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, §3
“Finally, whatever one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic"
All these quotes are good and wonderful in normal times but who here thinks we are in normal times. If my memory is correct Alexander VI was a Catholic, just a sinner.
Keyword = Catholic
-
Thanks for your reply. Your point is interesting. In summary, you indicate [the Church teaches] that if a person is recognized as the Pope then that person is in fact the pope. Is it possible for a non-Catholic to become pope in this manner? May I request a reference to material that supports this sedeplenism orientation?
Someone saw my post and sent me this via PM:
The citation is from Cardinal Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, §3
“Finally, whatever one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic"
This was posted on this forum a while back by Nishant. I'm sure others can find similar quotes from other sources.
Thanks you for the quote. This then presents quite a significant obstacle to understanding the present situation as an extended condition of sede vacante.
-
Not to worry Cantarella, no one is deposing Francis, and that is the problem.
True, this is because it is not possible. The process of deposing the one elected and accepted as pope, necessarily begins with the Church accusing him, which, because no one can do that, the process to depose a pope can never even get started. It's dead in it's tracks right at the starting line. Most likely, this is why it has never been done or even attempted.
The sedevacantists have a problem which has no solution.
The question now becomes, why is a problem without a solution a problem at all? - or, is a problem without a solution still a problem?
-
Someone saw my post and sent me this via PM:
The citation is from Cardinal Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, §3
“Finally, whatever one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic"
I think we should read the entire final sentence from Cardinal Billot rather than cut it off in the middle:
"Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever."
It seems that the this provides an whole different understanding to the complete thought Cardinal Billot was trying to convey. It's easy to distort what someone says by simply ending the sound byte in the middle.
-
Thank you very much for correcting this deception. The complete quote certainly supports the sede vacante position.
-
Not to worry Cantarella, no one is deposing Francis, and that is the problem.
True, this is because it is not possible. The process of deposing the one elected and accepted as pope, necessarily begins with the Church accusing him, which, because no one can do that, the process to depose a pope can never even get started. It's dead in it's tracks right at the starting line. Most likely, this is why it has never been done or even attempted.
The sedevacantists have a problem which has no solution.
The question now becomes, why is a problem without a solution a problem at all? - or, is a problem without a solution still a problem?
Nobody on Earth can depose a reigning pope.
-
That's what I said.
-
Someone saw my post and sent me this via PM:
The citation is from Cardinal Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, §3
“Finally, whatever one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic"
I think we should read the entire final sentence from Cardinal Billot rather than cut it off in the middle:
"Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever."
It seems that the this provides an whole different understanding to the complete thought Cardinal Billot was trying to convey. It's easy to distort what someone says by simply ending the sound byte in the middle.
Thanks for the lesson TKGS, we should not take these quotes at face value, let this be a lesson learned.
-
St. Bellarmine considered the case of a Bishop teaching his flock heterodox doctrine, this is, anything that is contrary to the precedent timeless doctrine. He concluded that people should not listen to him; although he acknowledges that they have no the power to actually depose him. The Catholic Principle of Non-Contradiction is what determines the action followed by the laity in such a case.
"It is true that the people should discern the true prophet from the false, but not by any other rule than the following: Observe carefully if what he teaches is contrary to what his predecessors have said,[70] or that which is said by other pastors, ordinaries, and above all the Apostolic See and the principal Church; for it is commanded that the people should listen to their pastors: Luke X: He who listens to you listens to me; and Matt. XXIII, do that which they tell you to do. The people ought not to judge their pastors except when they introduce innovations or doctrines which are in disagreement with those of the other
pastors."[71]
"Moreover, it is necessary to observe that the people can clearly discriminate, by the rule that we have given, between true and false prophets. But for all that they cannot depose of a false pastor if he is a bishop and substitute another in his place. For the Lord and Apostle only commanded that false prophets not be listened to by the people; but not that the people should depose them. It has always been the practice of the Church to depose heretical bishops by councils of bishops or by an act of the sovereign pontiffs." (Cf. loc. cit., Note 15).
Is that from De Romano Pontifice?
-
Not to worry Cantarella, no one is deposing Francis, and that is the problem.
True, this is because it is not possible. The process of deposing the one elected and accepted as pope,
That assumes that Francis was validly elected and accepted - both claims are doubtful at best.
-
I have heard this argument so many times that I cannot count from sedevacantists and I think it is a good argument for sedevacantism. But he acts as if this argument ends all debate and proves that sedevacantism is true. I disagree. He does not adress the point which I think is a strong agrument for sedeplenism which is that it is a teaching of the Church that if the whole Church accepts a man as Pope it is proof that he is really the Pope. All of the concilar Popes (especially John XXIII and Paul VI. There were a few thousand sedevacantists who rejected the conciliar Popes I believe starting around the time the Novus Ordo came out but I don't think that there were enough for it to be significant) have been accepted by the whole Church so that should prove that they were and are true Popes. Even today of the billion people who claim to be Catholic all but a few thousand sedevacantists accept Francis, so pretty much the whole Church accepts him.
This is illogical as it would make a valid papacy subjective, dependent on what the people think. Our Lord did not set up a democracy. This is different then when you have two Catholics who claim to be Pope and one is accepted by the vast majority. That is not what makes a man pope. Unless you can show me where it is taught that you can "pope" a public heretic in this manner?
-
Someone saw my post and sent me this via PM:
The citation is from Cardinal Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, §3
“Finally, whatever one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic"
I think we should read the entire final sentence from Cardinal Billot rather than cut it off in the middle:
"Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever."
It seems that the this provides an whole different understanding to the complete thought Cardinal Billot was trying to convey. It's easy to distort what someone says by simply ending the sound byte in the middle.
Another example of the intellectual dishonesty I have repeatedly seen in the R & R and the Feeney camps who stick to their preferred belief above that which the Church teaches.
-
Not to worry Cantarella, no one is deposing Francis, and that is the problem.
True, this is because it is not possible. The process of deposing the one elected and accepted as pope, necessarily begins with the Church accusing him, which, because no one can do that, the process to depose a pope can never even get started. It's dead in it's tracks right at the starting line. Most likely, this is why it has never been done or even attempted.
The sedevacantists have a problem which has no solution.
The question now becomes, why is a problem without a solution a problem at all? - or, is a problem without a solution still a problem?
Nobody on Earth can depose a reigning pope.
Correct. When will those in the R & R camp get this? If we can unite around facts instead of wishes we might get somewhere.