Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on December 23, 2019, 10:54:10 AM
-
If I were convinced that Pope Francis wasn't the Pope -- in other words, if I was a sedevacantist, I would certainly believe that the Catholic Church needs a Pope. Because Catholic dogma. So why has the Sedevacantist world not elected a pope in the last 50 years? Come on guys, get your ship together, we need a pope! Come on, what are you waiting for?
I know, many have tried. Pope Michael is a comical example, but there have been more serious attempts as well.
But why are most American sedevacantists (but I repeat myself -- aren't 95% of sedevacantists American? I think sedevacantism is a mostly American phenomenon) of the NON-Conclavist variety?
That is as contradictory as any R&R position could ever be.
If you think the current claimant is ZERO percent Pope, and the Conciliar Church is ZERO percent Catholic, and the Trad bishops are "it", then why the photon don't they get together and elect a pope already? Most sedes believe the last valid Pope was Pope Pius XII -- who died in 1958. That's a long interregnum, guys. Don't you think it's Pope time yet?
Do they deny the Catholic dogma that the Catholic Church needs a Pope? Do they deny the teaching that the Catholic Church including its structure must be visible? Do they deny Christ's promise to Peter?
I think most American sedevacantist bishops and priests are "non-conclavist" because they want to compromise in order to appear more sane, legitimate, etc. for the sake of getting a higher number of pari$hioner$$$. Money equals power and comfort. And so they teach their sedevacantist parishioners not to desire or look for a new pope to be elected. They avoid the issue. The Sede clergy are also embarrassed by early attempts by sedevacantists to elect a pope, so they won't "go there". But I'm here to say: you contradict your own position, and I have more respect for those sedes who actually are consistent with their beliefs and attempt to elect a pope.
Seriously, what is their lame excuse? Why haven't +Dolan, +Sanborn, +Pivarunas, and all the other Sede bishops elected a pope yet? They must have some lame excuse.
-
P.S. I'm not just poking the sedes here or trying to start trouble. I genuinely want to know their reasoning. I can't fathom a possible reason, even with my considerable imagination. So I wait...
:popcorn:
-
Obviously you would need universal acceptance. Firstly you would need all the Catholic groups to be talking together in some sort of open forum regarding the state of the church. That would require some humility to even begin so good luck with that.
-
If I were convinced that Pope Francis wasn't the Pope -- in other words, if I was a sedevacantist, I would certainly believe that the Catholic Church needs a Pope. Because Catholic dogma. So why has the Sedevacantist world not elected a pope in the last 50 years? Come on guys, get your ship together, we need a pope! Come on, what are you waiting for?
Speaking for myself, I actually trust God and know He will resolve the crisis in His own good time. Hey, I wasn’t called to save the Church and neither were you and I assume most people who hold the sedevacantist position agree with me.
Now look at your R&R position, how do you explain the problem of the superfluous pope? It follows from the R&R position that the pope is only a figurehead at best and a danger to salvation at worst.
BTW Matthew, you aren’t going to ban me again for speaking my mind, are you? 😀
-
Obviously you would need universal acceptance. Firstly you would need all the Catholic groups to be talking together in some sort of open forum regarding the state of the church. That would require some humility to even begin so good luck with that.
Francis has universal acceptance, and according to the sedes, it does him no good: Those who accept him are not Catholic enough, they say.
But if the sedes are the only pure and true Catholics, then by the same logic, only they should need to agree upon a pope, and the universal acceptance threshold is met.
So the question stands: Why DOESN'T the sede movement elect a Pope?
-
But if the sedes are the only pure and true Catholics, then by the same logic, only they should need to agree upon a pope, and the universal acceptance threshold is met.
Very, very true.
-
Francis has universal acceptance, and according to the sedes, it does him no good: Those who accept him are not Catholic enough, they say.
But if the sedes are the only pure and true Catholics, then by the same logic, only they should need to agree upon a pope, and the universal acceptance threshold is met.
Check...and mate!
-
Speaking for myself, I actually trust God and know He will resolve the crisis in His own good time. Hey, I wasn’t called to save the Church and neither were you...
Hey you can't get all passive on me. Sedevacantists actually TOOK THE WHEEL and made a turn off the DEFAULT setting.
The choice between "he's the Pope" and "he's not the Pope" is not a T in the road where you have to go left or right, and both are equally positive/active choices.
The choice of "He's not the Pope" is a POSITIVE, ACTIVE CHOICE like turning off the road to the left or right. Those who R&R just keep driving forward on the road, taking no positive action at all -- using the defaults, that is.
If you're just going to be all passive about it, leaving the mystery and the solution to the Crisis in God's hands, why not stick with the DEFAULTS in the meantime, which is: he's the pope. The Church has a pope.
If you're going to get all activist and "do something about it", why not be consistent and elect a pope as well?
You can't be proactive/activist and passive at the same time.
Like I said: a contradiction.
-
Catholics didn't set the purity test the Catholic Church did! Labels are for those outside the bastion the one holy Catholic Church. Modernist voluntarily put themselves outside the church. Sad but true.
Ok...
And while we're talking randomness, "I like onions."
You haven't mentioned anything about why the majority of American sedevacantists shrink from taking the bull by the horns and electing a Pope.
I can't even tell what your opinion is on the matter. Your statement above is neither here nor there.
-
Hey you can't get all passive on me. Sedevacantists actually TOOK THE WHEEL and made a turn off the DEFAULT setting.
The choice between "he's the Pope" and "he's not the Pope" is not a T in the road where you have to go left or right, and both are equally positive/active choices.
The choice of "He's not the Pope" is a POSITIVE, ACTIVE CHOICE like turning off the road to the left or right. Those who R&R just keep driving forward on the road, taking no positive action at all -- using the defaults, that is.
If you're just going to be all passive about it, leaving the mystery and the solution to the Crisis in God's hands, why not stick with the DEFAULTS in the meantime, which is: he's the pope. The Church has a pope.
If you're going to get all activist and "do something about it", why not be consistent and elect a pope as well?
You can't be proactive/activist and passive at the same time.
Like I said: a contradiction.
For the sedevacantist Laity, I think they can be passive, but for the Bishops they need to be active as they have the responsibility to elect a Pope and continue the Church assuming they really believe they are the last of the Catholics. But if they deep down do not believe it, then they should say their position is just a personal opinion or theory, and thus they can be excused for not taking action.
-
For the sedevacantist Laity, I think they can be passive, but for the Bishops they need to be active as they have the responsibility to elect a Pope and continue the Church assuming they really believe they are the last of the Catholics. But if they deep down do not believe it, then they should say their position is just a personal opinion or theory, and thus they can be excused for not taking action.
Yes of course. It has never been the responsibility of the laity to elect a Pope, in good times or bad.
When I criticize the contradiction, I'm primarily aiming it at the bishops but also the priests, who collectively have responsibility in the matter. A simple layman can be "neutral", but a priest or bishop has to take a position on each of the issues. There's a difference between a shepherd and a sheep.
Of course, the laity should be somewhat less-than-content with all their pastors' collective waffling on the matter -- they should have been saying stuff like in my OP for decades now. They should be wondering aloud about this. So some measure of criticism falls to them as well for failing to do so -- failing to care. But that's another story.
-
P.S. I'm not just poking the sedes here or trying to start trouble. I genuinely want to know their reasoning. I can't fathom a possible reason, even with my considerable imagination. So I wait...
:popcorn:
:laugh1: Really Matthew? After all of these years on this forum you've never gotten any answers to these questions?
-
:laugh1: Really Matthew? After all of these years on this forum you've never gotten any answers to these questions?
Yes really. If someone ever gave me an answer, it either didn't truly answer the dilemma (a non-answer), and/or I can't remember it.
-
Yes really. If someone ever gave me an answer, it either didn't truly answer the dilemma (a non-answer), and/or I can't remember it.
Well, then maybe you're asking the wrong folks. Perhaps you need to ask the bishops, but then that wouldn't give us a 20 page sede thread that "doesn't poke at sedes or start trouble", now would it? ;)
-
Hey you can't get all passive on me. Sedevacantists actually TOOK THE WHEEL and made a turn off the DEFAULT setting.
The choice between "he's the Pope" and "he's not the Pope" is not a T in the road where you have to go left or right, and both are equally positive/active choices.
The choice of "He's not the Pope" is a POSITIVE, ACTIVE CHOICE like turning off the road to the left or right. Those who R&R just keep driving forward on the road, taking no positive action at all -- using the defaults, that is.
If you're just going to be all passive about it, leaving the mystery and the solution to the Crisis in God's hands, why not stick with the DEFAULTS in the meantime, which is: he's the pope. The Church has a pope.
If you're going to get all activist and "do something about it", why not be consistent and elect a pope as well?
You can't be proactive/activist and passive at the same time.
Like I said: a contradiction.
Recognizing the truth of a situation doesn’t mean you are active or passive, come on Mathew, that’s a really poor argument.
-
Francis has universal acceptance, and according to the sedes, it does him no good: Those who accept him are not Catholic enough, they say.
But if the sedes are the only pure and true Catholics, then by the same logic, only they should need to agree upon a pope, and the universal acceptance threshold is met.
So the question stands: Why DOESN'T the sede movement elect a Pope?
Textbook example of a straw man argument.
-
I'm not a sedevacantist but I know sedevacantist priests and a couple of bishops from former Latinamerican Catholic countries. Many of them focus their work on their flocks and leave the solution to the crisis to God since they don't have the means (internet, contact with European traditional clergy, don't speak English, French or other language) that would allow them to get information. Regarding the papal question, they say that according to tradition, if one does not have certainty, at least one is obliged to take the most probable position (no pope in this case), but always knowing that there is a slight chance that they could be wrong. This is one of the reasons they don't elect a new pope. Another reason is that a pope has to be the bishop of Rome, so that leaves the issue to the European clergy since it would be difficult to get universal acceptance of a pope elected in other parts of the world.
-
Can Pius the X excommunicate this pope? Can they elect a Pope? If so, who can we trust to be one? Do they not all say the New Order Mess?! So, maybe no one is available to be a true pope? Are they not all serving Satan? We have many prophecies that tell us what is coming. Daniel says, Mass will come to end. We have a remnant left.
-
Francis has universal acceptance, and according to the sedes, it does him no good: Those who accept him are not Catholic enough, they say.
But if the sedes are the only pure and true Catholics, then by the same logic, only they should need to agree upon a pope, and the universal acceptance threshold is met.
So the question stands: Why DOESN'T the sede movement elect a Pope?
for starters i don't believe only sedes are the only pure and true Catholics, they are just correct on an issue that Francis is not a true pope...you and Matthew and others here are wrong on the issue for you believe a non catholic jew freemason from the pits of hell who is trying to destroy the Church of Christ is your pope
-
Francis has universal acceptance, and according to the sedes, it does him no good: Those who accept him are not Catholic enough, they say.
Constantly fumbling and bumbling. No, it is not that Francis has universal acceptance and "it does him no good". Francis has no universal acceptance. 95%+ of those who accept him aren't Catholic at all. According to you, the Pope himself and 95% of the hierarchy in union with him "are not Catholic enough". That is in fact why you have severed communion with them. Could the Resistance find some other spokesman for their cause who doesn't embarrass himself every time he posts?
-
Indeed, if all the Traditional Catholic bishops and priests united to select a Pope, then I'd say you would have something there. But due to the theological fragmentation among Traditional Catholics, it does not appear as if any such consensus would be possible in the foreseeable future.
-
95%+ of those who accept him aren't Catholic at all.
I accept your concession.
Let me know if I can help you again.
-
Indeed, if all the Traditional Catholic bishops and priests united to select a Pope, then I'd say you would have something there. But due to the theological fragmentation among Traditional Catholics, it does not appear as if any such consensus would be possible in the foreseeable future.
Your quick follow-up implies your own dissatisfaction and sensed insufficiency of your previous blather (which, i reiterate, conceded my argument even as you thought to oppose it)!
Ha-ha. Look, I am now defeating you with 2-sentence posts!!!
-
Can Pius the X excommunicate this pope?
He is deceased. ;)
-
you and Matthew and others here are wrong on the issue for you believe a non catholic jew freemason from the pits of hell who is trying to destroy the Church of Christ is your pope
He's not from the pits of hell...
-
Indeed, if all the Traditional Catholic bishops and priests united to select a Pope, then I'd say you would have something there. But due to the theological fragmentation among Traditional Catholics, it does not appear as if any such consensus would be possible in the foreseeable future.
I agree. And there certainly is fragmentation but that doesn’t mean there is no communication at all. In fact, I’m pretty sure elections have been discussed recently. But it is a very tricky thing to get right. If there isn’t a significant acceptance of the pope, it will immediately become a doubtful situation. It’s really hard to get trads to agree on anything. So it could happen but not without a lot of prayer and penance. Ideally, the sspx would also accept the results. But maybe that’s not realistic. I’m speaking here of Catholic bishops. Matthew is absolutely right. The hierarchy of the Church elects popes, not the laity.
-
I agree. And there certainly is fragmentation but that doesn’t mean there is no communication at all. In fact, I’m pretty sure elections have been discussed recently. But it is a very tricky thing to get right. If there isn’t a significant acceptance of the pope, it will immediately become a doubtful situation. It’s really hard to get trads to agree on anything. So it could happen but not without a lot of prayer and penance. Ideally, the sspx would also accept the results. But maybe that’s not realistic.
So you would be a conclavist, if there were sufficient support for it.
This more or less evinces the schismatic sedevacantist spirit.
-
So you would be a conclavist, if there were sufficient support for it.
This more or less evinces the schismatic sedevacantist spirit.
All Catholics are “conclavists” during a sede vacante. There is no other way to obtain a pope. Unbelievable that you would mock sedes for not electing a pope and then minutes later accuse them of schism for discussing an election. Get your head out of your ass!
-
All Catholics are “conclavists” during a sede vacante. There is no other way to obtain a pope. Unbelievable that you would mock sedes for not electing a pope and then minutes later accuse them of schism for discussing an election. Get your head out of your ass!
Claudel-
I expect a long, loquacious diatribe about Clemens' profanity.
Oh yes, I definitely mock the schismatics.
You should definitely, to be consistent, elect a fake pope.
It only highlights your disguised schismatic mentality, which sometimes needs to be provoked out of you (as in this instance).
-
Yes, if sede-ism was actually true, they would have correctly elected a Pope decades ago, and he would have received universal acceptance. The Pope receiving universal acceptance in the Church is the work of the Holy Ghost. When God does not approve of an election, He will not give UA.
Here's why the situation doesn't resolve for the sedes: Only the Roman Clergy strictly have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff. But only the Roman Pontiff can appoint or incardinate Roman Clergy, among whom the Cardinals are the chief. Thus, the sedes are looking for Roman Clergy incardinated into the Roman Church to whom they can say "you are the electors of the Pope". But all those electors recognize the Pope. +ABL said, "The subsequent unanimous acceptance of the Cardinals and the Roman Clergy suffices to validate it (the Papal election). That is the teaching of theologians". So, sede-ism will go nowhere until they have Roman Clergy, which they don't.
The very fact that all the Roman Clergy recognize the recent Popes should be, as +ABL said, a sufficient proof that they are the Popes.
Next, some sedes will claim, if the Roman Clergy don't elect, then - supposedly - any group of Bishops, even vagrant Bishops without ordinary jurisdiction - again supposedly - can get together and elect. This too leads to stalemate, because no one knows who these Bishops are, how many there should be, what agreement is sufficient etc. And all that besides the fact that the SSPV, CMRI etc don't work together and SSPV believes CMRI and Thuc line orders to be invalid. If Christianity depended on sede-ism, Christianity would end.
All this because of simple unwillingness to accept the Dogma of Perpetual Papal Successors and acknowledge the plain fact that the Popes have truly been Popes.
-
Yes, if sede-ism was actually true, they would have correctly elected a Pope decades ago, and he would have received universal acceptance. The Pope receiving universal acceptance in the Church is the work of the Holy Ghost. When God does not approve of an election, He will not give UA.
Here's why the situation doesn't resolve for the sedes: Only the Roman Clergy strictly have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff. But only the Roman Pontiff can appoint or incardinate Roman Clergy, among whom the Cardinals are the chief. Thus, the sedes are looking for Roman Clergy incardinated into the Roman Church to whom they can say "you are the electors of the Pope". But all those electors recognize the Pope. +ABL said, "The subsequent unanimous acceptance of the Cardinals and the Roman Clergy suffices to validate it (the Papal election). That is the teaching of theologians". So, sede-ism will go nowhere until they have Roman Clergy, which they don't.
The very fact that all the Roman Clergy recognize the recent Popes should be, as +ABL said, a sufficient proof that they are the Popes.
Next, some sedes will claim, if the Roman Clergy don't elect, then - supposedly - any group of Bishops, even vagrant Bishops without ordinary jurisdiction - again supposedly - can get together and elect. This too leads to stalemate, because no one knows who these Bishops are, how many there should be, what agreement is sufficient etc. And all that besides the fact that the SSPV, CMRI etc don't work together and SSPV believes CMRI and Thuc line orders to be invalid. If Christianity depended on sede-ism, Christianity would end.
All this because of simple unwillingness to accept the Dogma of Perpetual Papal Successors and acknowledge the plain fact that the Popes have truly been Popes.
why are you quoting ABL? you anti sedites are quite comical
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976: “The Council [Vatican II] turned its back on Tradition and broke with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council… If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope… Because ultimately, since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate, the conscience and faith of all Catholics have been faced with a serious problem. How is it that the pope, the true successor of Peter, who is assured of the help of the Holy Ghost, can officiate at the destruction of the Church – the most radical, rapid, and widespread in her history – something that no heresiarch has ever managed to achieve?”[11] (https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/sspx-society-st-pius-x-lefebvre/#_edn11)
-
Conspiracy Factist, here are the questions, and my response to your quote:
1. Where are the Roman Clergy of the Catholic Church today? It is Catholic Teaching that there will always be at least some Roman Clergy. So where are they? Do they accept Pope Francis? If yes, you should too; because their acceptance shows that he is Pope. But if they don't accept him, why haven't you, or the Dimonds whom you took that quote from, convinced them to elect a new Roman Pontiff? You need a new Pope to continue the Church, to appoint Cardinals or Clergy in Rome, and in order to perpetuate the Petrine Succession.
2. Where is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Catholic Church today? It is also Catholic Teaching that the Ecclesia Docens, the Teaching Church, cannot defect. Pure Protestants like the Dimond Brothers either don't know all this, or don't want you to know it; but it is sure and true doctrine, and you can easily verify it by checking your Catechism of Pope St. Pius X. So where is the OUM? Where are the Bishops appointed to office by the Pope? If there are no such, the Church has defected. If there are such Bishops and they accept the Pope, he is Pope. If supposedly these Bishops don't accept the Pope, then why haven't you convinced them to elect a Pope? You need a new Pope to continue the Church, to appoint new diocesan Bishops or Ordinaries to Office, and continue Apostolic Succession.
3. Thirdly, regarding your quote: even some so-called trads will deny this, but the question +ABL raises is a legitimate one, and the answer given by the Mother of God in many places surpasses by far that of all the various sects combined; during the late 60s and up to almost the end of the 70s, the Vatican was basically run by 3 evil Cardinals: Benelli, Casaroli and Villot. Do the research and it will check out. Benelli was almost elected in 78, but God intervened. Casaroli told Agca to αssαssιnαtҽ Pope John Paul II. Villot, as Fr. Nantes and others docuмented, murdered Pope John Paul I after a pontificate of 33 days. This was the true power struggle going on in the Vatican.
That the Catholic Church is still standing after such a vicious attack from Her Communist enemies is a divine miracle; the Holy Father indeed had much to suffer, just like Our Lady of Fatima said he would. This explanation is not so-called "R&R" but could be called "RPWR" -Recognize, Pray, Work, Restore, and preserves the Papacy and Tradition.
-
All Catholics are “conclavists” during a sede vacante. There is no other way to obtain a pope. Unbelievable that you would mock sedes for not electing a pope and then minutes later accuse them of schism for discussing an election.
Unbelievable? Nah.
-
Indeed, if all the Traditional Catholic bishops and priests united to select a Pope, then I'd say you would have something there. But due to the theological fragmentation among Traditional Catholics, it does not appear as if any such consensus would be possible in the foreseeable future.
Yes. But of course the first thing they all would have to agree on is that the Chair is in fact Empty (aka sedevacantism).
-
Yes. But of course the first thing they all would have to agree on is that the Chair is in fact Empty (aka sedevacantism).
Of course, and that's part of my point about why they'll not reach any consensus in the near future. Now, only the most dogmatic sedevacantists can be conclavists (and this answers Matthew's question) ... since the sedevacantists realize that you can't just get two Thuc bishops together and legitimately elect a pope. Only the most dogmatic sedevacantists think that they are the last few Catholics left in the world and so their election of a Pope would be legitimate. Even some of the dogmatic SVs (say, those aligned with Bishop Sanborn) think this is a non-starter. And, of course, +Sanborn et al. are also sedeprivationists who think that the See is materially occupied and therefore cannot be filled with another by an election.
So, no it's not a self-contradicition to be a sedevacantist and non-conclavist.
-
Yes, if sede-ism was actually true, they would have correctly elected a Pope decades ago, and he would have received universal acceptance.
False. See my previous response. Once again you're setting up straw men against sedevacantism.
-
Claudel-
I expect a long, loquacious diatribe about Clemens' profanity.
Oh yes, I definitely mock the schismatics.
You should definitely, to be consistent, elect a fake pope.
It only highlights your disguised schismatic mentality, which sometimes needs to be provoked out of you (as in this instance).
You know Sean, I think you should forget about this forum and just obey the advice of your “pope”, on religious matters of course, kinda like this guy:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/italys-national-soccer-team-manager-pope-francis-told-me-not-to-make-sign-of-the-cross-on-the-field-video/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/italys-national-soccer-team-manager-pope-francis-told-me-not-to-make-sign-of-the-cross-on-the-field-video/)
I believe schism consists in the refusal to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or the refusal to be united to other Catholics in union with him. I refuse to recognize a non Catholic heretic as a pope, thus I’m not subject to him. But to you, he IS the pope, and you refuse to be subject to him! Sad case indeed!
-
None of the problems mentioned are insurmountable even if some will be quite difficult to overcome. But I’m hoping that most Catholics can agree that heretical apostate pagan demon-worshiping men, regardless of their Roman collars, cannot possibly elect a true pope.
-
You know Sean, I think you should forget about this forum and just obey the advice of your “pope”, on religious matters of course, kinda like this guy:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/italys-national-soccer-team-manager-pope-francis-told-me-not-to-make-sign-of-the-cross-on-the-field-video/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/italys-national-soccer-team-manager-pope-francis-told-me-not-to-make-sign-of-the-cross-on-the-field-video/)
I believe schism consists in the refusal to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or the refusal to be united to other Catholics in union with him. I refuse to recognize a non Catholic heretic as a pope, thus I’m not subject to him. But to you, he IS the pope, and you refuse to be subject to him! Sad case indeed!
Ahh, the sede-mantra:
“If he is pope, you must obey!”
-
None of the problems mentioned are insurmountable even if some will be quite difficult to overcome. But I’m hoping that most Catholics can agree that heretical apostate pagan demon-worshiping men, regardless of their Roman collars, cannot possibly elect a true pope.
Ecclesiavacantism!
“The Church has defected,” cry the sedes!
-
Ahh, the sede-mantra:
“If he is pope, you must obey!”
And the R&R answer......crickets
-
Ecclesiavacantism!
“The Church has defected,” cry the sedes!
No, the defection problem is clearly in favor of the sedevacantists. Church continues during the vacancy of the Holy See; true defection happens when the Church fails in her mission.
from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible.
Who cares if the hierarchy continues on materially if this hierarchy can lead the entire Church into error? We'd be better off without such a hierarchy.
-
No, the defection problem is clearly in favor of the sedevacantists. Church continues during the vacancy of the Holy See; true defection happens when the Church fails in her mission.
from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Who cares if the hierarchy continues on materially if this hierarchy can lead the entire Church into error? We'd be better off without such a hierarchy.
No, ecclesiavacantism is not merely the disappearance of a pope, but of any and every clerical authority in the Church...thereby making restoration impossible, and therefore the failure of the Church.
The truth is, sedes have no church.
-
No, ecclesiavacantism is not merely the disappearance of a pope, but of any and every clerical authority in the Church...thereby making restoration impossible, and therefore the failure of the Church.
The truth is, sedes have no church.
If you read more of what we wrote instead of constantly bloviating (in the written word, of course), you would realize that your objection has been answered many times.
-
No, ecclesiavacantism is not merely the disappearance of a pope, but of any and every clerical authority in the Church...thereby making restoration impossible, and therefore the failure of the Church.
Not true. That is merely your assertion, but I find it to be unfounded. We've had long threads about this subject including quotations from theologians who disagree. I in fact used to agree that this so-called ecclesia-vacantist argument was a legitimate criticism of sedevacantism ... but the theological sources provided by some of the sedevacantists caused me to change my mind. I used to say that sedeprivationism solves this problem, but I no longer believe that it is a problem.
-
Not true. That is merely your assertion, but I find it to be unfounded. We've had long threads about this subject including quotations from theologians who disagree. I in fact used to agree that this so-called ecclesia-vacantist argument was a legitimate criticism of sedevacantism ... but the theological sources provided by some of the sedevacantists caused me to change my mind. I used to say that sedeprivationism solves this problem, but I no longer believe that it is a problem.
Huh?
You have citations from “theologians” who say the permanent vanishing of a hierarchy is really not fatal to the indefectibility of the Church??
Do tell!
-
Huh?
You have citations from “theologians” who say the permanent vanishing of a hierarchy is really not fatal to the indefectibility of the Church??
Do tell!
Hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction.
-
Your question implies something that does not follow.
You are saying that someone who recognizes that Bergoglio is not a true pope automatically has the right to elect a new pope. This is false and sedevacantists do not believe this.
To answer your original question, the reason they do not elect a pope is because they do not have the power to do so.
By the way, sedevacantists don't deviate from the default setting of being Catholic by rejecting Bergoglio. The default setting of a Catholic is that he has to obey, and follow a pope and accept his teachings. Actually, this isn't a default setting, it's Catholic doctrine. Recognize and resist is a setting that was condemned before Vatican 2 when it was used by people like the Gallicans and Anglicans.
-
To provide perhaps a better answer to Matthew's original question (and it really is a good question, by the way), let me paste in here a quote from Fr. Cekada's pamphlet called Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope:
Where Would We Get a True Pope?
.
IF THE POST-VATICAN II popes are not true popes, how might the Church one day get a true pope again? Here are some theories:
.
1. Direct Divine Intervention. This scenario is found in the writings of some approved mystics.
.
2. The Material/Formal Thesis. This holds that should a post-Vatican II pope publicly renounce the heresies of the post-Conciliar Church, he would automatically become a true pope.
.
3. An Imperfect General Council. The theologian Cajetan (1469–1534) and others teach that, should the College of Cardinals be-come extinct, the right to elect a pope would devolve to the clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church. (de Comparatione 13, 742, 745)
.
Each of these seems to present some difficulties. But this should not be surprising, because the precise solution to an un-usual problem in the Church cannot always be predicted before-hand. This can be seen from the following comment in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: “No canonical provisions exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romanâ impeditâ,i.e. in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history.” (“Cardinal,” CE 3:339)
.
Moreover, an inability at present to determine exactly how another true pope would be chosen in the future does not some-how make Paul VI and his successors into true popes by default.
.
Nor does it change what we already know: that the post-Conciliar popes promulgated errors, heresies and evil laws; that a heretic cannot be a true pope; and that promulgating evil laws is incompatible with possessing authority from Jesus Christ.
.
To insist despite this that the post-Conciliar popes must be true popes creates an insoluble problem for the indefectibility of the Church — Christ’s representatives teach error and give evil. Whereas a long vacancy of the Holy See, as noted in Appendix 4, is not contrary to the indefectibility or the nature of the Church.
-
If I may add my own commentary to that quote, I'd like to point to number 3. Cajetan says that if the cardinals can't elect a pope, then the clergy of Rome do so, and if they can't, then the whole Church does so. Since we still have a "whole Church", then we still have the power to elect a pope. The idea that the power to elect another pope no longer exists if we have no pope or bishops with jurisdiction or Roman clergy doesn't seem to be compatible with that quote from Cajetan.
It is compelling that none of the authors that Fr. Cekada quotes ever said, "Well, it can't happen that all the bishops or clergy of Rome could ever fall into heresy because then the Church would have disappeared, which is impossible." No, they don't say that. They basically give a flow-chart in which you go down the hierarchy one step at at time, arriving at last at "the whole Church". And since the whole Church cannot defect (indefectibility), that means that option will always be available, and therefore is available today.
So it certainly doesn't seem like Cajetan believed that the college of bishops could never defect, or that the Roman clergy could never defect, since he discussed the possibility of it and provided a solution to how to elect a pope if that ever happened.
EDIT: typo
-
Hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction.
No. If there is no hierarchy, there is no ordinary jurisdiction.
-
To answer your original question, the reason they do not elect a pope is because they do not have the power to do so.
Yeti, to put Matthew's point into practice, related to your last 2 posts...
.
The vast majority of sedes believe that point #2, where a V2 pope would convert, is an impossibility because they believe the moment he proclaims heresy that he has lost his office because a heretic is no longer a catholic, being outside the church. This would mean that he could not “convert” and regain his office, as he would have to be re-elected again. So #2 is an impossibility, per the logic of 99% of sedes.
.
Point #1 is of Divine intervention and would only seem to be a solution if the other points not be possible. So this can’t be relied upon being that point #3 is still possible.
.
You say (in the quoted part above) that sedes believe they “don’t have the power” to elect a new pope? Why not?
.
99% of sedes on this board (which corresponds to the the major arguments that I’ve run across in real life too) say that ALL the Cardinals in Rome are heretics. So they have lost their offices and are no longer catholic nor able to elect a pope. This goes also for the Roman clergy, since they also follow V2 and the new mass and are heretics. Thus, all that’s left are the “whole church” to elect a new pope.
.
So who makes up the “whole church” remnant? It’s either sedes or the sspx of Tradition. Well, the sspx has accepted V2, generally speaking, and they aren’t really Trads anymore. Same thing for all indulters. Who’s left but the Resistance and the sedes. The Resistance are heretics (at least materially, according to sede logic) because they accept a heretic pope, so the inly group left in the “whole church” who is 100% orthodox is the sede movement. This is point #3. So why haven’t sedes elected a pope? Per point 3, they DO have the power.
-
Yeti, there’s a 4th possibility. The traditional Catholic clergy of Rome even if only a handful have the right and authority, absent the College of Cardinals to provide themselves with a bishop. That seems to me the simplest solution. I have no idea who are the traditional clergy of Rome. But if they held an election, I don’t know how any traditional Catholics could justify refusing submission if the claimant is traditional Catholic and has valid orders.
-
Yeti, to put Matthew's point into practice, related to your last 2 posts...
.
The vast majority of sedes believe that point #2, where a V2 pope would convert, is an impossibility because they believe the moment he proclaims heresy that he has lost his office because a heretic is no longer a catholic, being outside the church. This would mean that he could not “convert” and regain his office, as he would have to be re-elected again. So #2 is an impossibility, per the logic of 99% of sedes.
Actually Pax, I think nearly all sedes believe that cuм ex is still in force, as such, even if they allowed for the pope converting, cuм ex denies him his office once he or any member of the hierarchy who deviated from the faith converts, the best they can hope for "is to be 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".
So we have to completely cross out his option #2.
Yeti, there’s a 4th possibility. The traditional Catholic clergy of Rome even if only a handful have the right and authority, absent the College of Cardinals to provide themselves with a bishop. That seems to me the simplest solution. I have no idea who are the traditional clergy of Rome. But if they held an election, I don’t know how any traditional Catholics could justify refusing submission if the claimant is traditional Catholic and has valid orders.
This idea also fails per cuм ex, the only chance this has is if it is first proven to someone (the sedes?) that this ambiguous traditional clergy that supposedly exists in Rome never participated with, or ever said the new "mass", and were only always fully orthodox trads and never NOers or worse at any point in their lives.
Otherwise, they too fall into the cuм ex's "Anysoever who...shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy..." so the only thing they're good for is to be sequestered to a monastery for the rest of their lives.
-
No. If there is no hierarchy, there is no ordinary jurisdiction.
Sigh. There must be a hierarchy, but there need not always be a hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction deriving from a Pope. Christ Himself would provide jurisdiction through the "color of title" ... according to the theologians cited.
XavierSem started a thread on the subject. At the time I had agreed with the ecclesia-vacantist objection to sedevacantism, but the sedevacantists cited theologians to the contrary.
-
Quote Sigh. There must be a hierarchy, but there need not always be a hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction deriving from a Pope.
:facepalm: Where did you learn this, Ladislaus?
Vatican I: "3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505 (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505)
Pope St. Pius X: "43 Q. Of whom is the Teaching Church composed?
A. The Teaching Church is composed of all the Bishops, with the Roman Pontiff at their head, be they dispersed throughout the world or assembled together in Council."
The Teaching Church cannot defect, period. That is Christianity 101. There will always be a visible Apostolic Hierarchy in the Catholic Church.
Oath Against Modernism: " I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the Charism of Truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the Succession of the Episcopacy from the Apostles"
Successors of the Apostles are Bishops who have Succeeded to Episcopal Sees, viz Bishops with Teaching Office and Ordinary Jurisdiction.
Christ Himself would provide jurisdiction through the "color of title" ... according to the theologians cited.
Color of Title does not apply to a heretic anti-pope, although it could apply to a Catholic Anti-Pope. At any rate, this opinion is not held anymore after Pope Pius XII, the "last Pope" of the sedevacantists, expressly and word-for-word, precluded it. Christ does not confer ordinary jurisdiction on the Bishops except through the Supreme Pastor, the Vicar of Christ on Earth: "in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff."[13] 40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the Successor of Peter" http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html (http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html)
In 1958, no less, the alleged year of the laughable supposed "interregnum" of the sede-vacantists. :laugh1: It referenced two earlier Encyclicals. Here is Msgr. Fenton, and Cardinal Ottaviani, on that: "Prior to the issuance of this encyclical Catholic theologians had debated as to whether the residential bishops of the Catholic Church derived their power of jurisdiction immediately from Our Lord or from Him through the Roman Pontiff. In this docuмent, Pope Pius XII took occasion to speak of the Bishops' power of jurisdiction and he described it as something "which they receive directly (immediate) from the same Supreme Pontiff."[9] In the edition of his which came out after the issuance of the , Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII.[10]" https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pope-pius-xii-and-the-theological-treatise-on-the-church-13700 (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pope-pius-xii-and-the-theological-treatise-on-the-church-13700)
God Bless, everyone.
-
:facepalm: Where did you learn this, Ladislaus?
From the theologians cited on that thread you started a while back ... rather than from your own private interpretation of Vatican I, Scripture, etc.
-
In 1958, no less, the alleged year of the laughable supposed "interregnum" of the sede-vacantists. :laugh1:
No, what is laughable is the claim by R&R that the Magiserium has become thoroughly corrupted for 60 years. But then, you actually agree with this, since you don't think there's anything really wrong with Vatican II. So not sure why you keep posting on this forum. Your Traditional Catholicism reduces to little more than a preference for the Traditional smells and bells. You attack both SVs and R&R.
-
Color of Title does not apply to a heretic anti-pope, although it could apply to a Catholic Anti-Pope. At any rate, this opinion is not held anymore after Pope Pius XII, the "last Pope" of the sedevacantists, expressly and word-for-word, precluded it. Christ does not confer ordinary jurisdiction on the Bishops except through the Supreme Pastor, the Vicar of Christ on Earth: "in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff."[13] 40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the Successor of Peter" http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html (http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html)
Here you go again with your Prot-like interpretation of Magisterial quotes read out of context. This is the ordinary mode in which jurisdiction is conferred, through the Pope, but where does jurisdiction go during a papal interregnum? This is the type of scenario the theologians were addressing During times of sedevacante Christ Himself confers the necessary jurisdiction to the Church to any extent necessary except in regards to powers reserved to the Pope Himself. This is the teaching of Catholic theologians, and not the private interpretation of XavierSem. Just as jurisdiction does not cease and the Church does not defect during a papal interregnum, the same principles can readily be applied to the current sedevacantist position.
-
You're a Gallican through and through. Anyway, I bumped the supposed other thread for you. Not sure what you intend to prove by it.
I explained my position above, which is not R&R: "That the Catholic Church is still standing after such a vicious attack from Her Communist enemies is a divine miracle; the Holy Father indeed had much to suffer, just like Our Lady of Fatima said he would. This explanation is not so-called "R&R" but could be called "RPWR" -Recognize, Pray, Work, Restore, and preserves the Papacy and Tradition."
the same principles can readily be applied to the current sedevacantist position.
Sede-vacantism word for word denies the dogma that there will be Perpetual Successors to St. Peter until the end of time; that is incompatible with an indefinite interregnum. When all Bishops appointed by the last Pope die, as they have, the Church loses Apostolicity.
The Church also loses Her Romanitas, the Roman Centre of the Universal Church, when all Roman Clergy incardinated into the Church of Rome by the last Pope, also die. These things will happen when there are no Successors of St. Peter perpetually in an indefinite SV.
-
Sede-vacantism word for word denies the dogma that there will be Perpetual Successors to St. Peter until the end of time; that is incompatible with an indefinite interregnum.
Pfft. So does any even-5-minute interregnum if one were to distort and misinterpret this quote the way you do.
You're rather desperate to justify your schismatic position, aren't you?
You've been thoroughly refuted by the sedevacantists on this point ... so move along to something else already, would you?
-
You're a Gallican through and through. Anyway, I bumped the supposed other thread for you. Not sure what you intend to prove by it.
This just proves that you haven’t a clue what Gallicanism is.
-
Seriously, what is their lame excuse? Why haven't +Dolan, +Sanborn, +Pivarunas, and all the other Sede bishops elected a pope yet? They must have some lame excuse.
I don't think that anyone has directly answered the above question, as of yet.
Evidently, the above sedevacantists don't believe that there needs to be a Pope of the Catholic Church. Or, if there is a Modernist Pope, than he's not really a proper Pope, so it's better to not have a Pope at all. Therefore, there is no Pope.
I agree too that the sedes should elect their Pope, and stop bothering everyone else in trying to force sedeism on all of the trad Catholics (or the Resistance Catholics, rather. I think they've given up on everyone else).
Maybe if they have their own Pope, they'll leave the Resistance trads alone. Or, maybe not. On second thought, if the sedes elected a Pope, they might insist that all trads accept their Pope, or this means that they are not really Catholic, and may be condemned. I can see that as a potential problem with the sedes electing their own Pope. They will become even more annoying, if they have their own Pope.
But then again, they might not be able to come to a consensus. After all, sedeism is highly individualistic. How could they ever agree on who it is that would be Pope? A sede conclave could potentially go on forever, with endless debates and opinions about who should be elected Pope.
-
I don't think that anyone has directly answered the above question, as of yet.
Meg, the question has been answered at least a half dozen times on this thread. It's just that your mind is so poisoned against sedevacantism that you filter these out through your cognitive dissonance.
-
Evidently, the above sedevacantists don't believe that there needs to be a Pope of the Catholic Church.
There certainly need not be a non-Catholic heretic pope. R&R is content to have a warm body in the chair and pay no attention to the fact that their position is tantamount to proclaiming a defection of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
-
This just proves that you haven’t a clue what Gallicanism is.
To be fair most Sedes don't either. Whichever clown runs Novus Ordo Watch calls Archbishop Lefebvre one (to be clear, I respectfully disagree with the Sede opinion, but when some stupid layman on the internet is calling the Archbishop a Gallican, that's way out of line IMO.)
Gallicanism isn't even denying papal infallibility, as much as that's wrong. Gallicanism is claiming that the monarch has ecclesial authority OVER the Pope.
-
Here's a refreshingly-honest examination of the Bergoglio "formal heresy" issue ... by someone who recently came around to a sedevacantist view --
http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2018/03/okay-ill-say-it-i-do-not-anymore.html (http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2018/03/okay-ill-say-it-i-do-not-anymore.html)
If Bergoglio is a formal heretic, it is not because he was implicitly judged to be so by the authors of the dubia or the other letters. Rather, it is at least partly because he was given every chance to clarify or renounce his views - after being reminded of their nature - and chose not to do so, while elsewhere confirming that these were in fact views he solidly held. Such can be part of the process where mere material heresy becomes known as formal.
-
There certainly need not be a non-Catholic heretic pope. R&R is content to have a warm body in the chair and pay no attention to the fact that their position is tantamount to proclaiming a defection of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
Better to have a warm body saving a spot in the chair of Peter than to have no spot saved for many decades. We have hope, perhaps, that a good and decent pope will eventually be elected.
You may believe that R&R is tantamount to proclaiming defection of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline, but +ABL didn't see it that way. I'll go with his stance.
-
Better to have a warm body saving a spot in the chair of Peter than to have no spot saved for many decades.
Yet ... better to have an empty chair with no warm body in it than to have a corrupted Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church. Rocks-Paper-Scissors.
-
Yet ... better to have an empty chair with no warm body in it than to have a corrupted Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church. Rocks-Paper-Scissors.
:laugh1:
Well, you're entitled to your opinion of course. I'm pretty sure that +ABL didn't overthink the situation. We acknowledge the Pope, but we don't follow him in his errors. Pretty simple.
And, +ABL didn't focus solely on the Pope, as if the problem only exists with the Pope. For +ABL, it was a system-wide problem. That's why he so often referred to the Modernists in Rome, rather than single out the Pope, except when the Pope made really serious errors.
-
We acknowledge the Pope, but we don't follow him in his errors Magisterium.
Fixed it for you above there. Basically, you pay him lip service but then ignore his teaching. That is not Catholic. Pretty simple
-
On the subject of sedevacantes, I do not bother to read what XavierSem, Meg, Sean Johnson and others like them say, I just scroll down the comments and just read Ladislaus, or read how Laslaus responds. It's a big time saver. If I were proven wrong as much as those people are, I would learn a lot. They have learned nothing.
Keep up the good work Ladislaus, don't ever think your work is fruitless because of those wood heads, we people who learn something new every day are all learning a ton.
-
Fixed it for you above there. Basically, you pay him lip service but then ignore his teaching. That is not Catholic. Pretty simple
Matthew, the forum owner, recently stated that we aren't supposed to do what you did above - we aren't supposed to say to another forum member, in response to a post...""Fixed it for you above there." Did you see that post of Matthew's? I could report your post.
I take the same stance as Archbishop Lefebvre, which I keep pointing out to you, and you keep ignoring. I assume that you believe that Archbishop Lefebvre's view was not Catholic either.
-
Matthew, the forum owner, recently stated that we aren't supposed to do what you did above - we aren't supposed to say to another forum member, in response to a post...""Fixed it for you above there." Did you see that post of Matthew's? I could report your post.
Nope, I never saw that. Be my guest and report the post. Matthew could then delete it.
-
I take the same stance as Archbishop Lefebvre, ...
No, you really don't, Meg. You don't understand the position of +Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre considered the status of the Vatican II popes to be doubtful, but resolved the doubt in their favor based on a type of "benefit of the doubt" position and various prudential considerations. EVERYBODY claims to be the authentic follower of +Lefebvre. I for one do not worship him ... just respect and admire him. If I happen to come to the same conclusion as +Lefebvre on some issue, then that's great. But I don't feel any need to constantly pretend that I am an authentic disciple of +Lefebvre. That card is usually played when someone is losing an argument ... the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.
So, for instance, I have absolutely no hesitation in disagreeing with +Lefebvre's statement regarding the EENS dogma.
-
No, you really don't, Meg. You don't understand the position of +Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre considered the status of the Vatican II popes to be doubtful, but resolved the doubt in their favor based on a type of "benefit of the doubt" position and various prudential considerations. EVERYBODY claims to be the authentic follower of +Lefebvre. I for one do not worship him ... just respect and admire him. If I happen to come to the same conclusion as +Lefebvre on some issue, then that's great. But I don't feel any need to constantly pretend that I am an authentic disciple of +Lefebvre. That card is usually played when someone is losing an argument ... the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.
So, for instance, I have absolutely no hesitation in disagreeing with +Lefebvre's statement regarding the EENS dogma.
You accuse me of worshiping Lefebvre? That's another thing we aren't supposed to do - to put words in anyone's mouth, or to make unfounded accusations. When you aren't winning a debate, you resort to immature responses.
+ABL spent very little time focusing on the status of the Pope. You know that, and yet you still promote the idea.
-
On the subject of sedevacantes, I do not bother to read what XavierSem, Meg, Sean Johnson and others like them say, I just scroll down the comments and just read Ladislaus, or read how Laslaus responds. It's a big time saver. If I were proven wrong as much as those people are, I would learn a lot. They have learned nothing.
Keep up the good work Ladislaus, don't ever think your work is fruitless because of those wood heads, we people who learn something new every day are all learning a ton.
LT, you may just want to watch out for whenever Lad quotes Fr. Fenton's wrong teachings, like this one he likes to quote from Fr. Fenton: "God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense..."
What Fr. Fenton's idea does, under the pretext of a more profound understanding of course, is it abandons the meaning of the sacred dogma of papal infallibility "which has once been declared by Holy Mother the Church".
So you may just want to beware of that. Hard to tell how many people over the last +60 years believed Fr. Fenton's teaching and on that account, went the way of the NO. The great Lad himself has in the past said that if he could be convinced that the pope was the pope, that he'd also go the way of the NO. If that's what a firm belief in that idea can do to him, then it can do it to you too, so just beware my friend.
-
What Fr. Fenton's idea does, under the pretext of a more profound understanding of course, is it abandons the meaning of the sacred dogma of papal infallibility "which has once been declared by Holy Mother the Church".
Stubborn, you just keep failing when it comes to basic logic, which is what causes us to be so terribly frustrated with you. Just because Vatican I defined two different modes in which the Church's infallibility can be exercised, these definitions do not positively rule out other ways in which the Holy Ghost guides the Church and preserves her from error. So, for instance, theologians nearly-unanimously hold that the Church's Universal Discipline is infallible ... as well as canonization.
-
You accuse me of worshiping Lefebvre?
It's implicit in your use of the "argument from authority" fallacy. Whenever you've been rebutted, you pull out the "I'm simply following Archbishop Lefebvre card," even when you are actually. It's a subtle way of trying to shut down your opponent by waving a sock-puppet of +Lefebvre in front of you ... not unlike what the Jews do with the h0Ɩ0cαųst ("if you're against the massacre of Palestinians, then you are like Hitler and for the h0Ɩ0cαųst.")
-
It's implicit in your use of the "argument from authority" fallacy. Whenever you've been rebutted, you pull out the "I'm simply following Archbishop Lefebvre card," even when you are actually. It's a subtle way of trying to shut down your opponent by waving a sock-puppet of +Lefebvre in front of you ... not unlike what the Jews do with the h0Ɩ0cαųst ("if you're against the massacre of Palestinians, then you are like Hitler and for the h0Ɩ0cαųst.")
Yes, I do believe that +ABL had more authority than you have, or will EVER have. We can still refer to what he wrote, said, and did, based on his authority and his good work. I don't have any intention of reinventing the wheel.
It may seem like I'm trying to shut you down, but that's not the case. You will ague continually from the supposed authority of your own opinions, as if we are bound to accept your opinions. We are not. I will continue to point our Archbishop Lefebvre's stance on the situation today. You might want to consider not responding to my posts, if it bothers you that I refer to +ABL quite a lot.
-
Yes, I do believe that +ABL had more authority than you have, or will EVER have.
Ya think? Obviously. This does not, however, mean that he was right about everything and that that he's some kind of infallible guide.
-
Ya think? Obviously. This does not, however, mean that he was right about everything and that that he's some kind of infallible guide.
I have never said that Archbishop Lefebvre was infallible or right about everything. You know that, and yet you like to infer things that have not been said or indicated. Exaggeration does not make for a good argument. I know that +ABL was not perfect or infallible. But he did a far, far better job of explaining the Crisis than you have ever done.
-
Yeti, to put Matthew's point into practice, related to your last 2 posts...
.
The vast majority of sedes believe that point #2, where a V2 pope would convert, is an impossibility because they believe the moment he proclaims heresy that he has lost his office because a heretic is no longer a catholic, being outside the church. This would mean that he could not “convert” and regain his office, as he would have to be re-elected again. So #2 is an impossibility, per the logic of 99% of sedes.
.
Point #1 is of Divine intervention and would only seem to be a solution if the other points not be possible. So this can’t be relied upon being that point #3 is still possible.
.
You say (in the quoted part above) that sedes believe they “don’t have the power” to elect a new pope? Why not?
.
99% of sedes on this board (which corresponds to the the major arguments that I’ve run across in real life too) say that ALL the Cardinals in Rome are heretics. So they have lost their offices and are no longer catholic nor able to elect a pope. This goes also for the Roman clergy, since they also follow V2 and the new mass and are heretics. Thus, all that’s left are the “whole church” to elect a new pope.
.
So who makes up the “whole church” remnant? It’s either sedes or the sspx of Tradition. Well, the sspx has accepted V2, generally speaking, and they aren’t really Trads anymore. Same thing for all indulters. Who’s left but the Resistance and the sedes. The Resistance are heretics (at least materially, according to sede logic) because they accept a heretic pope, so the inly group left in the “whole church” who is 100% orthodox is the sede movement. This is point #3. So why haven’t sedes elected a pope? Per point 3, they DO have the power.
.
Let's see, I don't think it's quite accurate to say sedes don't accept point 2, though the way they think it could happen is a little complex. I do accept point 2, as I suspect most sedes do, but the way I would explain it is that Bergoglio's current election is invalid, but if he were to repent, he would be accepted by the "whole Church" (of Cajetan), and he would become pope at that point by the method that Cajetan described of a pope being elected by the "whole Church". I'm not sure every sede accepts this, but as far as I can see it checks all the boxes. Actually, my personal belief is that this is the most likely way the papacy and hierarchy will be restored.
.
Point #1, divine intervention. I agree that we should not rely on miracles, but first of all this isn't the only solution to this crisis, so we aren't relying on expecting a miracle, but merely holding it out as one possibility of several to have a true pope. The way this could work could be that some miracle could show the whole Church whom God wants to be the pope, and the whole Church could accept him as pope, taking us back again to the "whole Church" electing a pope, as Cajetan said. It is important to stress here that the miracle would not be a new revelation from God about who the pope is (as Bp. Sanborn argued), but would rather be the catalyst for the whole Church to elect a new pope, and the pope's election would be valid based on the whole Church's election and not on the miracle itself.
.
"You say (in the quoted part above) that sedes believe they “don’t have the power” to elect a new pope? Why not?"
.
Sedevacantists don't think they are the only people in the Church (despite what a lot of R&R people on this forum seem to think), and thus do not constitute the whole Church. At this point in history it seems obvious there would have to be some unifying event that would bring together everyone left in the world who believes in the Catholic Faith and accept someone as pope. Until that happens, I don't think the whole Church will be able to elect a pope, and it seems that only God can bring something like that about, though I don't pretend to know.
.
(By the way, how do you quote from the same post several times? The browser puts the original quote at the top, but I can't figure out how to insert another quote from another post further down in the middle of my post. That's why I'm using italics instead.)
.
"99% of sedes on this board (which corresponds to the the major arguments that I’ve run across in real life too) say that ALL the Cardinals in Rome are heretics. So they have lost their offices and are no longer catholic nor able to elect a pope. This goes also for the Roman clergy, since they also follow V2 and the new mass and are heretics. Thus, all that’s left are the “whole church” to elect a new pope. "
.
Well, this certainly appears to be the case. Do you know of any clergy in Rome who still believes in the Catholic Faith? I don't.
.
For your last paragraph I will insert my own comments between your sentences, as I can't figure out how to make separate quotes from another post.
.
"So who makes up the “whole church” remnant? It’s either sedes or the sspx of Tradition. [I think it's a lot of people from both those groups, including others. Again, sedes don't think they are the only Catholics in the world, despite the popular straw-man argument on this forum.] Well, the sspx has accepted V2, generally speaking, and they aren’t really Trads anymore. [False] Same thing for all indulters. [Mostly false, but to a lesser degree than your previous statement.] Who’s left but the Resistance and the sedes. The Resistance are heretics (at least materially, according to sede logic) because they accept a heretic pope, so the inly group left in the “whole church” who is 100% orthodox is the sede movement. This is point #3. So why haven’t sedes elected a pope? Per point 3, they DO have the power" [No, they don't believe they have this power, as I have stated already.]
.
It would sure help a lot in discussing sedevacantism if people would just ask sedes what they believe instead of extrapolating their own analyses of the various errors they think sedes are logically committed to believing, and then assuming sedes believe those errors. There are numerous sedes on this forum who are happy and friendly and would love to explain what we believe to anyone who wants to ask. Try that first!
-
It would sure help a lot in discussing sedevacantism if people would just ask sedes what they believe instead of extrapolating their own analyses of the various errors they think sedes are logically committed to believing, and then assuming sedes believe those errors. There are numerous sedes on this forum who are happy and friendly and would love to explain what we believe to anyone who wants to ask. Try that first!
I can't see that sedes have a problem in telling us what they believe. Not by a longshot. There are many years' worth of threads on this forum where sedes tell us what they believe (and often, they tell us what they think WE should or have to believe too).
You've only been a forum member for less than two months. Some of us have been debating with the sedes and sedewhatevers for years here.
-
LT, you may just want to watch out for whenever Lad quotes Fr. Fenton's wrong teachings, like this one he likes to quote from Fr. Fenton: "God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense..."
What Fr. Fenton's idea does, under the pretext of a more profound understanding of course, is it abandons the meaning of the sacred dogma of papal infallibility "which has once been declared by Holy Mother the Church".
So you may just want to beware of that. Hard to tell how many people over the last +60 years believed Fr. Fenton's teaching and on that account, went the way of the NO. The great Lad himself has in the past said that if he could be convinced that the pope was the pope, that he'd also go the way of the NO. If that's what a firm belief in that idea can do to him, then it can do it to you too, so just beware my friend.
I've said many times that if we had to wait almost 2000 years for Fr. Fenton, for us to learn what EENS really means, then there is something wrong. I personally would never quote Fr. Fenton for anything. I do not see that Ladislaus is depending solely on Fr. Fenton. Fr. Fenton went along with the Vatican II church 100%.
-
I've said many times that if we had to wait almost 2000 years for Fr. Fenton, for us to learn what EENS really means, then there is something wrong. I personally would never quote Fr. Fenton for anything. I do not see that Ladislaus is depending solely on Fr. Fenton. Fr. Fenton went along with the Vatican II church 100%.
No, of course I don't agree with Msgr. Fenton on everything. He actually claimed that Vatican II ecclesiology represented an "improvement" in the area, a mistaken notion he arrived at due to his defective understanding of EENS. But Msgr. Fenton just happened to articulate this particular point very well ... citing previous Catholic theologians. I use his quote because it's a well-articulated statement of the case for infallible safety.
-
Stubborn, you just keep failing when it comes to basic logic, which is what causes us to be so terribly frustrated with you. Just because Vatican I defined two different modes in which the Church's infallibility can be exercised, these definitions do not positively rule out other ways in which the Holy Ghost guides the Church and preserves her from error. So, for instance, theologians nearly-unanimously hold that the Church's Universal Discipline is infallible ... as well as canonization.
Basic logic is all I'm talking because the whole thing really is pretty basic, once you reject the ideas of the Fr. Fenton's of the world and simply accept the whole dogma of papal infallibility as it is declared.
Yes, the faithful have always believed that canonizations are infallible, but this is because it is tradition within the Church, not because a pope says so, the pope is merely finalizing with the Church's highest blessings, all those decades, or even centuries worth of investigations as he canonizes someone a saint, but canonizations, per V1, do not meet the criteria that V1 defined for papal infallibility.
This is also why the conciliar canonizations, lacking proper investigations and procedures are just another conciliar mockery and have nothing whatsoever to do with papal infallibility - but with the Fr. Fentons of the world improving upon and expanding the pope's infallibility as he does, and with you constantly trumpeting it all over the forums, many are fooled into the same confusion that you have.
The ones that care don't know what the heck to think, or they think that one of our requirements for salvation which is absolutely necessary for everyone, has been effectively, falsely nullified due to either accepting a confusion that's impossible understand, or the requirement is nullified due to an empty chair. This is the result of his teaching.
I've been a trad all my life and the Church and the Church's Universal Discipline are just as spotless now as it was since Pentecost and ever shall be, not sure what that even has to do with anything.
As an influential Catholic priest, Fr. Fenton has no right to ever utter the words: "God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense..." because he uses those words to explain how popes, by virtue of this different kind of infallibility, cannot possibly do what the conciliar popes have actually done.
This false idea of his has proven to be a complete disaster, a giant scandal - on top of the already giant scandal within the Church, and please do note, scandal is the only fruit his idea has ever bore.
I find it somewhat incredible that you cannot see 2 things, 1) that this is his own teaching, in light of V1 it is blatantly wrong, and 2) belief in this teaching was/is instrumental in getting the herd to abandon the true faith for the new faith - of their own free will.
-
I've said many times that if we had to wait almost 2000 years for Fr. Fenton, for us to learn what EENS really means, then there is something wrong. I personally would never quote Fr. Fenton for anything. I do not see that Ladislaus is depending solely on Fr. Fenton. Fr. Fenton went along with the Vatican II church 100%.
I agree with you, yet Lad has posted this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/catholic-hermits-excommunicated-on-christmas-day/msg680815/#msg680815) to show his belief that popes have an additional, different infallibility, an infallibility that is distinct from the dogma - which is at least error, if not outright heresy for any priest to even say.
It starts out "... God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility" and ends up basically explaining that due to this different infallibility that Fr. Fenton awarded to popes, they are always infallibly safe to follow - which explains why multitudes did, do and will follow him no matter what he says or does.
It has proven to be very easy for multitudes to believe this error is a teaching of the Church, even Lad believes it, in spite of the clear dogma defined infallibly at V1.
-
... his belief that popes have an additional, different infallibility, an infallibility that is distinct from the dogma - which is at least error, if not outright heresy for any priest to even say.
:facepalm:
-
Yes, the faithful have always believed that canonizations are infallible, but this is because it is tradition within the Church, not because a pope says so
I thought this quote from St. Alphonsus might be relevant here:
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gottti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing the saints.
Here is a link to the page on Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/TheCompleteAsceticalWorksOfSt.Alphonsusvolume3/page/n39
-
I thought this quote from St. Alphonsus might be relevant here:
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gottti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing the saints.
Here is a link to the page on Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/TheCompleteAsceticalWorksOfSt.Alphonsusvolume3/page/n39
Well, here (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm) is the dogma of infallibility of the pope, would you mind to please quote all of the articles or teachings within it where it says anything at all about the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost?
-
"Let us open with the statement of Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), who wrote:
"If anyone dared to assert that the pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church's authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties." [1] http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/605-argument-infallible-canonizations.html (http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/605-argument-infallible-canonizations.html)
From: https://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/are-canonizations-based-on-papal-infallibility (https://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/are-canonizations-based-on-papal-infallibility)
" Between the late 1300s and the 1600s, there are only four thinkers who dissented from the teaching. After Pope Benedict XIV’s (r. 1740-1758) definitive 7-volume work on canonization, there was total unanimity ... If infallible acts admitted of exceptions, then how would the Christian faithful know if any dogmatic declaration were true? We know that Francis and Dominic are in heaven, because this fact is dogmatically asserted by the Church in the infallible act of canonization. Thomas again provides the reasoning: (Quod 9, q. 16, contra 1) “In the church there is not able to be a damnable error. But it would be a damnable error if she would venerate a saint who was a sinner, because anyone knowing their sin, might believe the church to be false; and if this were to happen, they might be led into error. Therefore the church is not able to err in such things.” By the year 1300 it was clear to everyone that to deny the sanctity of a canonized saint in the Church was a heresy. While it is true that opposition to this or that saint is possible and open to debate before a formal canonization, after such an act, doubt is precluded and must be received with religious submission of intellect and will.
Since the early 1300s the Popes themselves have understood their act of canonization as infallible. Some, such as Sixtus IV, Sixtus V, and Clement VIII have explicitly cited this infallibility in the contexts of their own acts of canonization. One cannot dismiss this theological consensus simply because procedures develop and emphases shift.
On April 27, in a liturgical formula fixed since the canonizations of John XXII in the early 1300s (and very probably before, those are our first records) three petitions will be made. The first will beseech the aid of Mary and the saints in the “solemn act we undertake.” The second will invoke the Holy Spirit “that he might not permit the Church to err in a matter of such importance. Then the Veni Creator will be sung (as before any solemn definition, papal or conciliar). The third will beg the Pope to enroll the saints, in the name of the Spirit “who in every age preserves the supreme magisterium from every error.” The pope will then utter the ancient words of canonization, the prototype for all dogmatic definitions:
To the honor of the Holy Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith, and for the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and Our own, after due deliberation and having implored the Divine Assistance by prayer, and by the counsel of many of our brothers, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II to be saints, and we enroll them in the catalog of the saints, commanding that they be held among the saints by the universal Church, and to be invoked as such by pious devotion. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
This is not unclear language; in act and in intention the Popes define these things to be held by all the faithful. We cannot simply discount nearly a 1000 years of theological development in this case, particularly to suit one’s own discomfiture with certain recent happenings. For to be Catholic is to stubbornly maintain, as St. Thomas did, that in the Church there can never be a “damnable error.”
-
Xavier, comparing post-V2 (ie JPII’s changes) canonizations to those of prior centuries is like comparing grape soda to wine. Getting rid of the devil’s advocate, the miracle investigators and all other changes give MUCH doubt to modern canonizations. It is not wrong to question these acts nowadays. This is all the Vatican's fault; no ones else’s. They bring doubt on their own processes. They mock the communion of the saints with the lack of solemnity and due care which a canonization is SUPPOSED to represent, but its legitimacy is now tarnished.
-
Excellent post XavierSem. Of course we disagree on the status of the post V2 papal claimants but if you are correct and Francis is a true pope then JP2 is certainly a saint. On the other hand, I completely agree with the R&R people that JP2 did not live a saintly life in any way, shape or form. JP2’s scandalous behavior is very well docuмented at Novus Ordo Watch. So either JP2 is a saint despite an unholy life on earth or Francis is not a true pope. There is no other option. The vast majority of the r&r has resigned themselves to the former. Only some who are associated or formerly associated with the SSPX are hanging on to the idea that a true pope could fail in his exercise of the extraordinary magisterium. If you think you have a little bit of wiggle room on V2 because it’s status was ambiguously explained by the Conciliar hierarchy, you have none when it comes to canonizations. The form is a very clear exercise of the pope’s infallibility.
-
Another thing to keep in mind is that if Siscoe and Salsa are correct and Francis doesn’t lose the papacy until after he is declared a heretic by the Church, JP2 is still a saint despite living an unholy life.
-
Another thing to keep in mind is that if Siscoe and Salsa are correct and Francis doesn’t lose the papacy until after he is declared a heretic by the Church, JP2 is still a saint despite living an unholy life.
How about “Saint” Paul VI?
-
Xavier, comparing post-V2 (ie JPII’s changes) canonizations to those of prior centuries is like comparing grape soda to wine. Getting rid of the devil’s advocate, the miracle investigators and all other changes give MUCH doubt to modern canonizations. It is not wrong to question these acts nowadays. This is all the Vatican's fault; no ones else’s. They bring doubt on their own processes. They mock the communion of the saints with the lack of solemnity and due care which a canonization is SUPPOSED to represent, but its legitimacy is now tarnished.
None of the reasons given for the Church's infallibility on canonisations had anything to do with the rigorous or thorough nature of the process. None of the theologians argued that canonisations are infallible because of the process used to investigate potential saints, but rather than they are infallible because the Church cannot make that grave an error - a principle which still applies to canonisations under the new process.
-
None of the reasons given for the Church's infallibility on canonisations had anything to do with the rigorous or thorough nature of the process. None of the theologians argued that canonisations are infallible because of the process used to investigate potential saints, but rather than they are infallible because the Church cannot make that grave an error - a principle which still applies to canonisations under the new process.
THIS^^^
That response is yet another act of desperation from the R&R crowd. For them, ANYTHING is better than the suggestion that the V2 papal claimants may have been imposters bent on destroying the Church. So let's throw the infallibility of canonizations under the bus at the feet of Bergoglio also.
-
"Let us open with the statement of Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), who wrote:...
XavierSem, I actually know of those quotes and a few others I can't remember at the moment, yet they only serve to prove that "true" popes can indeed teach things that are erroneous to the whole world. V1 defined when the pope is infallible in 1868, this is the way we know that the divine protection from error is not present for canonizations, is because this infallibility is not present in the dogma of papal infallibility as decreed at V1. So if you want to quote from popes and the fathers to support the idea that canonizations enjoy the divine protection, please be sure the sources you use, taught such a thing after V1, not before.
Since V1, if for whatever reason you presume to add this additional infallibility, please note that since V1, it is not taught by the Church in your posting.
-
THIS^^^
That response is yet another act of desperation from the R&R crowd. For them, ANYTHING is better than the suggestion that the V2 papal claimants may have been imposters bent on destroying the Church. So let's throw the infallibility of canonizations under the bus at the feet of Bergoglio also.
:facepalm:
-
None of the reasons given for the Church's infallibility on canonisations had anything to do with the rigorous or thorough nature of the process. None of the theologians argued that canonisations are infallible because of the process used to investigate potential saints, but rather than they are infallible because the Church cannot make that grave an error - a principle which still applies to canonisations under the new process.
Excellent! Have you Father Faber book on canonizations?
http://www.lulu.com/shop/rev-fw-faber/beatification-and-canonization/paperback/product-4672075.html (http://www.lulu.com/shop/rev-fw-faber/beatification-and-canonization/paperback/product-4672075.html)
-
:facepalm:
If the infallibility isn't part of the universal ordinary magisterium, then frankly nothing is.
-
If the infallibility isn't part of the universal ordinary magisterium, then frankly nothing is.
If anyone looks at the formula used by Bergoglio in his canonizations of Roncalli and Wojtyla, if this isn't infallible, then nothing is ...
For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and own own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII, John Paul II, be saints, and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
In the bolded words above we have ALL the notes required for an infallible definition.
Just before this formula, the "Cardinal Prefect" reads the following oration:
Most Holy Father, Holy Church, trusting in the Lord’s promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the supreme Magisterium immune from error, most earnestly beseeches Your Holiness to enroll these, her elect, among the Saints.
This Cardinal is invoking the "supreme Magisterium immune from error" to be applied to this "enrollment".
This is about as explicit an invocation of the infallibility of the Church as you can find.
You R&R make a laughingstock of infallibility and of the Church's solemn rituals by claiming that these canonizations are not infallible.
-
If anyone looks at the formula used by Bergoglio in his canonizations of Roncalli and Wojtyla, if this isn't infallible, then nothing is ...
In the bolded words above we have ALL the notes required for an infallible definition.
Just before this formula, the "Cardinal Prefect" reads the following oration:
This Cardinal is invoking the "supreme Magisterium immune from error" to be applied to this "enrollment".
This is about as explicit an invocation of the infallibility of the Church as you can find.
You R&R make a laughingstock of infallibility and of the Church's solemn rituals by claiming that these canonizations are not infallible.
👍👍👍
-
This is about as explicit an invocation of the infallibility of the Church as you can find.
Which Church would that be? The conciliar church, or the Catholic Church?
-
Which Church would that be? The conciliar church, or the Catholic Church?
Ah here we go again with the whole "Francis is actually the head of two churches, and I decide which one he's speaking for at any given moment".
-
Ah here we go again with the whole "Francis is actually the head of two churches, and I decide which one he's speaking for at any given moment".
Sad isn’t it?
-
Sad isn’t it?
Pathetic really.
-
If anyone looks at the formula used by Bergoglio in his canonizations of Roncalli and Wojtyla, if this isn't infallible, then nothing is ...
Lad, we debated canonizations before and they are not infallible but only theologically certain (which admits there could be error...and also ALLOWS a critique, if grave reasons exist). There is absolutely no theological consensus that they are infallible and must be accepted with a certainty of faith, nor under pain of sin, nor requirement to gain heaven. If anyone wants to call a non-certain, non-binding, non-salvific papal statement "infallible", then go right ahead, but you are butchering the meaning of the word and thus its true meaning is bastardized.
-
R&R Catholics don't accept sede-vacantism because R&R Catholics intuitively know and their sensus Catholicus rightly informs them that 61-year SVism is heretical; they may not always put forward a theological proof for this, but they know it and they are right. I don't agree with them entirely, but they're right on 99% of things.
The Mother of God has revealed the solution out there, if anyone wants to make the effort to find it. Neither R&R nor SVism. Rather, the Pope was coerced and pressured into doing some things against his will by evil Cardinals like Villot and Benelli. Just like Saintly Sr. Catherine Emmerich saw her vision earlier on, about 2 Popes, a false church of darkness, false ecuмenism without any intention to convert separated Christians back to our Catholic Faith etc, modern mystics were given a vision of what happened in the Vatican in the 70s; they saw the Holy Father grieving and weeping, and being forced and threatened by his Cardinals to sign letters; then put whatever content they liked in it later on; and so on. If only more Catholics believed and knew this, our judgment of things may be different. And we would support and hold to both the Papacy and to Tradition. The worst attack on our Tradition in 2000 years of history coincided with the worst attack on the Vicar of Christ.
Our Lady of Quito already foretold it to us to the letter some 400 years ago: From One Peter Five; "The Sacrament of Holy Orders will be ridiculed, oppressed, and despised, for in this Sacrament, the Church of God and even God Himself is scorned and despised since He is represented in His priests. The Devil will try to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every possible way; he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation and will corrupt many of them. These depraved priests, who will scandalise the Christian people, will make the hatred of bad Catholics and the enemies of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church fall upon all priests.
This apparent triumph of Satan will bring enormous suffering to the good Pastors of the Church, the many good priests, and the Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ on earth, who, a prisoner in the Vatican, will shed secret and bitter tears in the presence of his God and Lord, beseeching light, sanctity and perfection for all the clergy of the world, of whom he is King and Father. Further, in these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury which will ensnare the rest into sin and conquer innumerable frivolous souls who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women.
In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent!” https://onepeterfive.com/400-years-ago-our-lady-sent-us-a-message-from-ecuador/ (https://onepeterfive.com/400-years-ago-our-lady-sent-us-a-message-from-ecuador/) I won't insist on the point, because I know some sedes mean well, as Our Lady also said; and fell into this error because they could not understand what was going on in the Vatican and how it had come about. But Our Lady already planted the clue to that mystery and the key to its final solution in Quito, Ecuador 400 years ago. I'm not going to debate this topic with brother and sister traditional Catholics, who are trying to remain Faithful in confusing times; and I apologize if I hurt anyone.
Let us pray togeter for the speedy fulfillment of how Our Lady solemnly promised us the foretold 20th century crisis would end, "In order to free men from bondage to these heresies, those whom the merciful love of My Most Holy Son will destine for that restoration will need great strength of will, constancy, valor and confidence in God. To test this faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions in which everything will seem to be lost and paralyzed. This will be, then, the happy beginning of the complete restoration ...
Pray insistently without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the secrecy of your heart, imploring our Celestial Father that, for love of the Eucharistic Heart of my Most Holy Son and His Precious Blood shed with such generosity and by the profound bitterness and sufferings of His cruel Passion and Death, He might take pity on His Ministers and quickly bring to an end those ominous times, sending to this Church the Prelate that will restore the spirit of its Priests." God has promised to send us a prophesied Holy Pope, and we know He will.
-
Lad, we debated canonizations before and they are not infallible but only theologically certain (which admits there could be error...and also ALLOWS a critique, if grave reasons exist). There is absolutely no theological consensus that they are infallible and must be accepted with a certainty of faith, nor under pain of sin, nor requirement to gain heaven. If anyone wants to call a non-certain, non-binding, non-salvific papal statement "infallible", then go right ahead, but you are butchering the meaning of the word and thus its true meaning is bastardized.
Another believer in the church of the superfluous pope. Canonizations are not infallible because if they are, which they are, your house of cards collapses.
-
"Is it really practicing love with regard to God, to celebrate Mass facing the people, as if it were being addressed to the people and not to God? The priests must say their Masses in such a way that they are recognizing that it is uniquely the service of God and the honor of God that are being sought through this Sacrifice. All the rest is only complementary or supplementary; the priests preach far too much about the things of everyday life and about love of neighbor, in general or in particular, forgetting that it is the love of God that leads to the true love of neighbor and the true practice of charity. This manner of action and behavior would, through the practice of self-denial and penance, bring about the salvation of thousands and thousands of souls if people truly set about it. So many souls are falling like snowflakes into Hell, as the privileged souls have so often reminded you.
If the bishops and priests persist in maintaining this disastrous situation, thousands and thousands of churches will no longer be The Church, which situation has begun to happen even now. For thousands and thousands of the faithful, the present-day sermons in the churches are justifications for remaining perfunctory in the service of the Lord; consequently they are instruments of death, since they do not lead directly to Heaven and do not make people think about it.
All this happened because the priest himself has got into careless ways, and no longer lives the first commandment of love for God. Such a one is like an apple with a worm inside it, and he is no longer the guide in the way he ought to be. If the bishops, priests and abbots had lived following the laws determined by the Lord, you would not have this catastrophe that you now see in Rome.
IF IT HAD BEEN LIKE THAT, THE LORD WOULD NOT HAVE TOLERATED THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN POPE PAUL VI COULD PRETEND TO REIGN IN HIS NAME ...
“All would be completely destroyed - in the Vatican - if it were not for the presence of the true Pope. Yes! If the Pope were not praying, on his knees, day and night, and sending his pleas up to the Lord, by now the Church would have been wrecked - the whole Church would have reached the bottom. But this Holy Father, with his great sanctity, has been installed and predestined so that the Church does not sink.
Your Church would not be The Church any more if Pope Paul VI had not existed. But Pope Paul VI has been predestined for all eternity in the Plan of God, for this age: so that that Church would not be submerged and that one man, the Pope, would know how to carry it. Because his sufferings and his crosses allow him to carry it still. Every day he is living a martyrdom, a great martyrdom. The Pope bears immense sorrows, which no one else among those who are in the Vatican, would be capable of bearing.
And foul mouths have the temerity to attack this very Holy Father! For it is not the Pope who has set the Church in the wrong direction, but the double and his helpers. These wretches do not realize that the sufferings which they have been responsible for in the soul of the Pope, have been the means by which they have donned the boots which are leading them to Hell and condemning them.
It is we (demons - by order of the Most Holy Trinity) who are making known what the Gospel has already repeated several times ... that Hell is a terrible thing. Neither the Gospel, nor all the descriptions which could be given to you, would be able to convey to you the appalling thing which is Hell. And we are the ones who are suggesting to everybody, priests or lay people, that Hell does not exist.”
From: https://www.tldm.org/news4/warningsfrombeyond.3of3.htm (https://www.tldm.org/news4/warningsfrombeyond.3of3.htm) And ... The Lord always addresses Himself to the freedom of each individual. Besides, the Bible is there, the Gospel in particular; and also all THE MESSAGES WHICH CONSTANTLY RECALL THE DIRECTIVES WHICH HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY THE LORD. If people refuse to listen to them, Heaven can do nothing about it, especially if people are amusing themselves by adapting the Gospel to their own taste.
If all these mercies are thrown to the wind, what can Heaven do about it? How will grace be able to act if holy books are no longer read, or books about the Saints, for example the life of Catherine Emmerich, or that of the Cure of Ars, or even that of Padre Pio who has given a great example to our times. Each of these Saints feels the same love for the same sacrifice, in the same self-denials, through love of others. The penance of these Saints has been acceptable to the Most High.
He would be just as prepared to accept still more reparations, still more sacrifices, made for the conversion of souls. The Good God would often love people to be capable of saying to Him: “I accept the sufferings You will send me. Give me the grace to bear them for the conversion of this one or that one.” But on the whole, it must be said that when the Lord sends Sufferings, very often the Christians reject them with horror and with all their strength. Man too often does his best to avoid suffering. It should be up to the priests to live according to this way of seeing things and to preach it to the faithful.
All those who reject suffering and seek only to eliminate it are not living in conformity with the first commandment of God. The best way to conform to the Will of God is to say: “Not my will, but Thine be done!”[37] (https://www.tldm.org/news4/warningsfrombeyond.3of3.htm#_ftn37) This uniting oneself to the Agony of Christ would be the best way of honoring the love of God. If suffering was united with acceptance of the Will of God, it would take on a very great value.[38] (https://www.tldm.org/news4/warningsfrombeyond.3of3.htm#_ftn38)
Excruciating as certain sufferings may be, by uniting them with those of Christ, they would be the means both of sanctification and of reparation for the sins of others. I am thinking of all the sufferings which are sometimes inherent in the state of marriage and how they are rejected in the hope that one day, perhaps, one will be able to separate from one's partner, and yet, if they are borne, these sufferings would accomplish great reparations. Thousands and thousands of people would be able to suffer thinking of others and these sufferings offered up would not be in vain.
All that is completely forgotten in your Catholic Church of today. Very rarely is it mentioned from the pulpit, and that applies everywhere. The imitation of Jesus Christ and the solicitude for the salvation of one's neighbor are the things that are important. The rest is secondary"
-
If the infallibility isn't part of the universal ordinary magisterium, then frankly nothing is.
I agree with you, yet canonizations are not mentioned in the decree of V1, I mean all that Pope Pius IX had to do was to add a few words to include canonizations in his decree on the infallibility of the pope. And what about the altogether defective procedures involved in the NO canonization process?
Per V1, the pope's infallibility strictly relates to a belief, i.e. a doctrine on faith or morals, one that always has been believed and always will be true - personally, I do not see how the canonization of saints, who are not beliefs, nor truths, nor have they always been and will be, fit this criteria, particularly when all the pope had to do was not exclude it from the decree of V1.
For me, in light of the NO canonizations, it boils down to either V1 infallibly defined the dogma of the pope's infallibility completely, or we have our first incomplete dogma.
Which is it?
-
Lad, we debated canonizations before and they are not infallible but only theologically certain (which admits there could be error...and also ALLOWS a critique, if grave reasons exist). There is absolutely no theological consensus that they are infallible and must be accepted with a certainty of faith, nor under pain of sin, nor requirement to gain heaven. If anyone wants to call a non-certain, non-binding, non-salvific papal statement "infallible", then go right ahead, but you are butchering the meaning of the word and thus its true meaning is bastardized.
This. Well said Pax.
If anyone looks at the formula used by Bergoglio in his canonizations of Roncalli and Wojtyla, if this isn't infallible, then nothing is ...
Quote
For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and own own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII, John Paul II, be saints, and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
And what of the text in Red? Certainly you know this is not performed for the honor of the Blessed Trinity or the exaltation of the Catholic faith, certainly not for an increase in the Christian life.
You cannot deny that there was no due deliberation without the Devil's Advocate and without contrary witness testimony, and if not corrupt, what kind of council would the bishops have given to approve of this mess?
You completely ignore the fact that the criteria set forth in the formula itself have, like all things NO, effectively nullified the formula itself.
-
Stubborn,
What do you make of this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia?
It would seem to me that canonizations are a matter of faith.
I believe the CE, and yes, I too think that they are a matter of faith with no reason whatsoever to question any pre-V2 canonization - but being certain that the conciliar church's canonizations are as big a tragedy as every other thing NO, there is only reason to doubt them, even ignore them, because as St. Thomas says, "the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith." Many of us have been against all things NO our whole life and do not profess the conciliar faith, which is why we do not honor conciliar saints as saints. We profess the Catholic faith, not the conciliar faith.
Using the NO procedures in the cause for saints is wrong and will always be wrong and cannot be made right by speaking the traditional formula in canonizing anyone, let alone public sinners.
-
their sensus Catholicus rightly informs them that 61-year SVism is heretical
You're almost worse than the dogmatic sedevacantists in slinging around the word "heretical". Heresy is a high bar, and the opinions of some theologians (where others disagree) fall far short of having the note dogma. You have demonstrated your schismatic mentality in other ways, and this is just another indication that you are a schismatic.
-
You're a bad willed liar, Liarslaus. And you're not only a dogmatic "doubtist" schismatic, but also a faithless Gallican and Ecclesia-Vacantist heretic who denies the dogma on Perpetual Successors to St. Peter. You also stubbornly denied the dogma at Vatican I that there will be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. Bad will. Malice. Lies. False accusations. All to defend schismatic sedevacantism. Schism, by the way, is defined by tradtional authorities as withdrawing from communion with the Pope, and the Bishops and members of the Church subject to him. The both of which you do, beside your many other schismatic practices and behaviors.
Not your ridiculous "sede-doubtist" subjectivist schismatic definitions. You think you can deny objective reality because of your subjective "doubts". :facepalm:
-
You're a bad willed liar, Liarslaus. And you're not only a dogmatic "doubtist" schismatic, but also a faithless Gallican and Ecclesia-Vacantist heretic who denies the dogma on Perpetual Successors to St. Peter. You also stubbornly denied the dogma at Vatican I that there will be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. Bad will. Malice. Lies. False accusations. All to defend schismatic sedevacantism. Schism, by the way, is defined by tradtional authorities as withdrawing from communion with the Pope, and the Bishops and members of the Church subject to him. The both of which you do, beside your many other schismatic practices and behaviors.
Not your ridiculous "sede-doubtist" subjectivist schismatic definitions. You think you can deny objective reality because of your subjective "doubts". :facepalm:
You are at once an ignoramus and a slanderer. I am in no sense a Gallican. Nor am I Ecclesia-Vacantist (since I hold a form of privationism that doesn't labor under such difficulties). Except that the SVs have thoroughly refuted your pathetic ecclesia-vacantist syllogisms. You distort the "Perpetual Successors" teaching of Vatican I without making any adequate distinction between the length of vacancy and what the criteria are for the rupture. You elevate the opinion of some theologians to the point of falsely declaring contrary positions to be "heretical" (which is a schismatic tendency). You make these slanderous accusations against me based on an assumption that your reasoning is irrefutable ... but your syllogisms are pathetic and have been shredded to pieces by the sedevacantists.
You are just bad-willed schismatic who adheres to the SSPX without sufficient justification. This response of yours is evidence of the fact that you are fighting against this realization by your conscience.
Plus, the term "doubtism" does not refer to a subjective state of things but the objective reality of the V2 papal claimants adhering to and promoting heresy ... with the doubt referring merely to the disposition of the office they claim to hold, based on the objective disagreement of theologians regarding what happens to a heretical pope.
-
Ah here we go again with the whole "Francis is actually the head of two churches, and I decide which one he's speaking for at any given moment".
It was an honest question. You may not believe that the Catholic Church is occupied by a Modernist sect, but some of do believe that it is. For sedes, all that seems to matter is whether or not the Pope is a heretic. Nothing else matters. The details of the Crisis evade the sedes, and only serve get in the way of their (your) agenda.
-
R&R Catholics don't accept sede-vacantism because R&R Catholics intuitively know and their sensus Catholicus rightly informs them that 61-year SVism is heretical; they may not always put forward a theological proof for this, but they know it and they are right. I don't agree with them entirely, but they're right on 99% of things.
Where do you get the idea that R&R Catholics intuitively know that SVism is heretical? Whom do you include in your assessment of R&R? Sedes have the tendency to be rude, obnoxious, sometimes a bit ruthless in their attempt to push sedeism on everyone else, but most R&R don't consider Sedes to be heretical (I'll probably regret saying this, though).
The Bishops and priests of the Resistance, for example, don't view sedes as being heretical, though of course there is a danger that they will fall into schism if they are not careful. But the idea of SVism being heretical is not actually the position of R&R.
-
For sedes, all that seems to matter is whether or not the Pope is a heretic. Nothing else matters. The details of the Crisis evade the sedes, ...
False, Meg; no one really cares about the person of Jorge Bergoglio. What's at issue is the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
-
False, Meg; no one really cares about the person of Jorge Bergoglio. What's at issue is the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
And yet you do not differentiate between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church.
-
And yet you do not differentiate between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church.
Not sure what you mean. Sedevacantists differentiate more between the two than R&R do, saying that they're completely separate (unrelated) entitles. Sedeprivationists say that they are formally distinct even if materially overlapping. And that might actually be a better way to state the clumsy R&R two churches within a church nonsense.
-
It was an honest question. You may not believe that the Catholic Church is occupied by a Modernist sect, but some of do believe that it is. For sedes, all that seems to matter is whether or not the Pope is a heretic. Nothing else matters. The details of the Crisis evade the sedes, and only serve get in the way of their (your) agenda.
So Francis is the leader of a Modernist sect and the Church at the same time, alright then. So... why does her highness, Meg get to decide when Francis is acting as head of the Church or when he's acting as head of the sect? Who gave you that authority - that you should decide when Francis is canonising a saint of the Church and when he's actually only canonising a saint of the "sect"(despite saying otherwise himself)?
-
So Francis is the leader of a Modernist sect and the Church at the same time, alright then. So... why does her highness, Meg get to decide when Francis is acting as head of the Church or when he's acting as head of the sect? Who gave you that authority - that you should decide when Francis is canonising a saint of the Church and when he's actually only canonising a saint of the "sect"(despite saying otherwise himself)?
It's not me who decided anything. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais once wrote a study based on the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, in which he put forth the view that the Pope is the head of two churches. Being a sedevacantist, you may not have ever heard of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, but I assume that you've at least heard of Archbishop Lefebvre, though you probably know little about his work, as is the case with most sedes. Though this is now a sede forum, I hope that I am still allowed to post a link to the study of Bp. tissier de Mallerais, for those very few who might take the time to read it:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
-
The sedevacantists remind me of something from Tolkien's LoTR.
The Sedes are like the Ringwraiths, or Nazgul, who persecute the innocent hobbits (the Resistance), because they desire power above all.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=LoTR%2c+ringwriaths&view=detail&mid=CA6D317D9A8E7104A824CA6D317D9A8E7104A824&FORM=VIRE
-
The sedevacantists remind me of something from Tolkien's LoTR.
The Sedes are like the Ringwraiths, or Nazgul, who persecute the innocent hobbits (the Resistance), because they desire power above all.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=LoTR%2c+ringwriaths&view=detail&mid=CA6D317D9A8E7104A824CA6D317D9A8E7104A824&FORM=VIRE
Your strongest theological argument yet.
:facepalm:
Guys, I think that Meg has officially cracked.
-
Your strongest theological argument yet.
:facepalm:
At least it was in a thread where it was on topic this time. ::)
Guys, I think that Meg has officially cracked.
Has she gotten worse or am I just noticing it more lately? I've been wondering.
-
Your strongest theological argument yet.
:facepalm:
Guys, I think that Meg has officially cracked.
😂
-
At least it was in a thread where it was on topic this time. ::)
Has she gotten worse or am I just noticing it more lately? I've been wondering.
Yeah, I'm afraid it's gotten to the point that she's completely neurotic about sedevacantism, sees an evil sedevacantist behind every bush. I'm not actually a sedevacantist myself, but she lumps us all in as sede-whatever-ists. She thinks that I am trying to convert people to sedevacantism, whereas this is not the case. Someone PMed me about whether he should go to non-una-cuм Masses if he believed that Francis is the legitimate Pope. I told him that I didn't think that the "una cuм" thing meant as much as some people claimed; when he responded that he didn't feel that he should, I replied that this would not be "inconsistent with [his] position." I told this person that I am in no position to form his conscience, but that he has to work it out himself. I'm not trying to "convert" anyone to any particular Catholic position. I just call out my disagreements when I see them. I'm actually much more tolerant regarding a diversity of opinion in this Crisis than many would believe ... because of how strongly/forcefully I voice my opinions. I have no issues attending an Eastern Rite Catholic Liturgy, or, on the other end of the spectrum, a non-una-cuм Mass offered by a Thuc-line priest. Even though I have my beliefs on some of these matters (including the EENS issue), if I were a priest, I would not deny any Catholic the Sacraments based on this disagreement of opinion. I am very much opposed to the "excommunicators" among Traditional Catholics, feeling that this can engender schismatic attitudes.
-
The sedeprivationists are just as bad, or worse, than the sedes, because the sedeprivationists are excellent at portraying themselves as at least sympathetic to tradition to work of +ABL, and yet they are not.
His Excellency Bishop Faure (whom most on the forum could care less about, since it's a sede forum), once said that the Resistance is attacked on two fronts or sides. On one side are the liberals who support the ralliement with Rome, and the other side who attack the Resistance are the sedevacantists, who are more conservative.
Both want to see an end to the Resistance. Both are dangerous, and yet the sedes and their supporters are allowed to prevail here.
Here's another little video about the Ringwraiths, who are like the vicious sedes who attack the Resistance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTthEbYCYN8
It matters very little to me if the sedes and their loyal supporters attack me for standing up for the Resistance. I know that I am in the right.
-
It is rather silly to see traditional Catholics, sede or any position, as comparable to completely evil monsters. I actually think the R and R position is more correct, but that does not make the people who disagree with it evil. Nor does people expressing their opinions in a discussion forum equate to deadly attacks on innocent hobbits. I am not a "sede supporter". I just like people to say things that make sense.
If you really want a popular culture reference, it's more like Marvel's cινιℓ ωαr. They are all good guys and both sides have good reasons for taking the positions that they do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfVY9wLKltA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfVY9wLKltA)
-
It is rather silly to see traditional Catholics, sede or any position, as comparable to completely evil monsters.
Some people on both sides, and often the most vocal ones, see the opposition as non-Catholics, and if one believes in EENS, sees them as outside of the Church and going to hell, so the promoters of the opposite position are actively recruiting soldiers for the army of satan and for hell. They pick up those who are aware of problems and are willing to fight for the truth, and recruit them to the wrong army, the army of satan. So in this view since they corrupt and damn the souls of those most likely to be saved, the ones who are awake and looking for the truth, in this view they are among the most evil people alive, comparable to the nazgul. If one accepts this view, then the other side of the traditionalist coin are not allies, they are enemies as bad as the ѕуηαgσgυє of satan, and in fact, the ѕуηαgσgυє's foot soldiers at worst or useless idiots at best.
-
The sedeprivationists are just as bad, or worse, than the sedes, because the sedeprivationists are excellent at portraying themselves as at least sympathetic to tradition to work of +ABL, and yet they are not.
I've known very few sedevacantists or sedeplenists who were not at least sympathetic to +Lefebvre and who did not have respect and admiration for him. So this is no feigned sympathy. This does not mean that everyone has to agree with everything +Lefebvre did or said. He was a great man, but he's not God. And, of course, you completely misrepresent +Lefebvre. Unlike yourself, he was quite tolerant of and not unsympathetic with the sedevacantist position.
-
Where do you get the idea that R&R Catholics intuitively know that SVism is heretical? Whom do you include in your assessment of R&R? Sedes have the tendency to be rude, obnoxious, sometimes a bit ruthless in their attempt to push sedeism on everyone else, but most R&R don't consider Sedes to be heretical (I'll probably regret saying this, though).
The Bishops and priests of the Resistance, for example, don't view sedes as being heretical, though of course there is a danger that they will fall into schism if they are not careful. But the idea of SVism being heretical is not actually the position of R&R.
Ha, ha, ha.
Just try to get married, your child baptized, confirmed or what ever in a SSPX, FSSP or ICKSP church/chapel after you announce you are sedeplenist/sedevacantist.
FSSP will not even allow the godfather/godmother to be members of SSPX or to be members of a sedevacantist church.
-
Ha, ha, ha.
Just try to get married, your child baptized, confirmed or what ever in a SSPX, FSSP or ICKSP church/chapel after you announce you are sedeplenist/sedevacantist.
FSSP will not even allow the godfather/godmother to be members of SSPX or to be members of a sedevacantist church.
SSPX bans sedevacantists from receiving the Sacraments?
FSSP won't allow SSPX godparents? But ... but ... XavierSem claims that the SSPX is in full communion with Rome.
-
Is Rome in full Communion with Christ? The people have been abandoned! For the first time in the History of the Church, we have no sacraments! No Holy Orders, therefore no sacraments, but maybe Baptism, Marriage. We did not abandon Rome or the system That Christ commanded. But those who claim to be with Christ are not. We are abandoned! We have no Catholic Ruler besides no sacraments.
-
modern mystics were given a vision of what happened in the Vatican in the 70s; they saw the Holy Father grieving and weeping, and being forced and threatened by his Cardinals to sign letters; then put whatever content they liked in it later on; and so on. If only more Catholics believed and knew this, our judgment of things may be different.
Why would anyone believe something so preposterous? You're saying Paul VI was secretly a traditional Catholic who believed just like all of us on this forum, but he was "forced" (how??) to sign docuмents that had things added to them later on? And he never came out publicly and corrected the docuмents that had been falsified? Paul VI gave speeches at the United Nations saying the UN was the only hope of mankind. What happened there? Did he write his own notes giving maybe a resounding appeal for the acceptance of the Kingdom of Christ in all nations, and when he got up to the podium he realized his notes had been replaced with an apostatic speech excluding Christ from the public discourse, and just shrugged his shoulders and said, "Oh well, I'll just read what these notes say here. It's just as good as my sermon."
.
Our Lady of Quito's prophecy about the pope being a prisoner in the Vatican doesn't refer to Paul VI. Far from being a prisoner of any kind, Paul VI traveled freely all over the world in his own jet aircraft. Rather, the prophecy was fulfilled in Pius IX, who became a prisoner in the Vatican City when the freemasons stole the papal states. Pius IX could not walk on Italian soil after that without that action being legally considered a recognition of the masonic government, so since the Vatican City is surrounded by Italian soil like an island in the ocean, and airplanes didn't exist yet, it wasn't physically possible for him to leave the Vatican without giving recognition to the masonic theft of the papal lands, making him a prisoner in his own house serving a life sentence. Pope Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Benedict XV, and Pius XI were in a similar situation. For half a century, being elected pope was a life prison sentence in the Vatican City. The situation only ended in the 1920's when Pius XI signed a concordat with Mussolini.
.
EDIT: slight wording modifications
-
To me the prisoner or exiled pope sounds a lot like the Siri Theory.
Here's a prophecy from Rudolfo Gilthier, a monk from the 1700s:
Rome will lose its Sceptre through following False Prophets. The Pope will be taken Prisoner by his attendants. The Church will be held hostage, and after a short time there will be no more Pope.
Rome will lose its scepter, its authority, through the following of false prophets (false teachers)? Siri was cast aside, kicked, out, and reportedly kept under close watch by some of his personal attendants. Sine the death of this hostage pope, there have been no more popes.
Then there's the prophecy from St. Nicholas of Fluh that things would get so bad that the Apostolic Succession would appear to have ceased.
-
Why would anyone believe something so preposterous? You're saying he was secretly a traditional Catholic like those of us on this website, but he was "forced" (how??) to sign docuмents that had things added to them later on? And he never came out publicly and corrected the docuмents that had been falsified?
Not that I believe it, but I do not think it is preposterous at all. It makes perfect sense. To think that nefarious people gained control of the Vatican and forced the Pope to do things according to their designs. Do you think it would be preposterous for world leaders (Jews such as Soros, who is the Jew everyone names as a meddler in world affairs for some reason, or the Rothschild family who supposedly own nearly all of the world's central banks [I am not an expert on world affairs by any means]) to threaten the Pope to go along with their dictates or else . . . they would kill a lot of people, perhaps with nuclear weapons? I would expect that is what the world leaders would do instead of allowing the Pope to try to oppose their agenda. Some claim the threat was to reveal Paul VI's alleged personal sins, but this would not explain the other Novus Ordo popes as a continual threat of war and persecution over various papacies would.
But the captive popes makes perfect sense. If you were a rich satanist Jew who wanted to rule the world and usher in the reign of the antichrist, wouldn't the papacy be a prime target?
-
Is it possible that Montini was being blackmailed? I think so. It doesn't seem likely, but's possible. Perhaps they were blackmailing him over his sodomite activities. In which case, his actions would not have been free and therefore invalid.
I'm not averse to such an explanation. I don't think it entirely likely given his background, etc., but I can't rule it out.
What I AM opposed to is the attempt by R&R to attribute the evils of the Conciliar Magisterium and the New Mass to the legitimate papal authority.
-
Is it possible that Montini was being blackmailed? I think so. It doesn't seem likely, but's possible.
I don't know why you would say it is not likely, when you have affirmed belief or at least sympathy towards the Siri thesis, that he was elected pope but stepped down because he was blackmailed by threats of war or persecution, basically the same thing. If they did that to Siri, wouldn't they do the same to any pope if they had not lost the power?
Kind of like how there is the idea that whenever a president is elected, the "deep state" shows him footage of the Kennedy Assassination and tells the new president that that would happen to him if he tried to do anything good like oppose the federal reserve as Kennedy did. I would expect that the Vatican has its own "deep state".
-
. . . that would happen to him if he tried to do anything good like oppose the federal reserve as Kennedy did.
To explain, of all the reasons I have heard as to why Kennedy was αssαssιnαtҽd, the one that made the most sense to me was that he had the US Treasury issue money independent of the federal reserve and wanted to print more and this is one of the reasons why he was killed. They say the bankers killed him and as soon as he died they confiscated all the non-federal reserve currency and stopped printing it. Like everything I have learned, I have no idea what is true and what were lies, so I would not be surprised if I was wrong.
-
I don't know why you would say it is not likely, when you have affirmed belief or at least sympathy towards the Siri thesis, ...
Only because Montini had a Modernist past that makes it seem like he need not have been blackmailed.
-
To me the prisoner or exiled pope sounds a lot like the Siri Theory.
Here's a prophecy from Rudolfo Gilthier, a monk from the 1700s:
Rome will lose its scepter, its authority, through the following of false prophets (false teachers)? Siri was cast aside, kicked, out, and reportedly kept under close watch by some of his personal attendants. Sine the death of this hostage pope, there have been no more popes.
Then there's the prophecy from St. Nicholas of Fluh that things would get so bad that the Apostolic Succession would appear to have ceased.
.
But you do agree that the idea of the pope being a prisoner in the Vatican was definitely and clearly personified by Pius IX and his successors through Pius XI, right?
.
What I find preposterous is not so much that a pope would be threatened by masons. In fact, I'm sure popes have been threatened by masons for centuries now. But that's not what is being suggested here. What's being suggested is that Paul VI was secretly a traditional Catholic just like everyone on this forum, and yet for 13 years preached heresy and systematically destroyed the Church in every possible way because he was under some form of duress, without ever attempting to escape that duress, signal for help, or simply go against it and preach the Faith anyway. Assuming a true pope could knowingly preach heresy out of fear in the first place (something I think is contrary to Catholic theology), he would have been in visible discomfort during his public appearances, especially during his speeches in which he spoke against the Faith. Knowing he was burying himself in the deepest part of hell by his apostasy would have slowly taken its toll on him, and he would probably have cracked under the strain and the fear of whatever he was being threatened with, too, and maybe had a nervous breakdown or something similar. Not to mention, as I said, he would have made some attempt to get out of the power of his enemies.
.
That's why I find the whole scenario preposterous. To say that someone could live a life so radically against what he believed for so long, without the slightest show of cracking or dropping hints or asking for help, especially when there isn't a shred of evidence to indicate any of it, really involves rejecting the most fundamental concepts of reality and common sense. It's almost like saying we are living in a Truman Show-like world, or a matrix simulation. Can I definitively prove that those ideas are false? Probably not, but they really can't be entertained as possible without rejecting the most basic human ideas about reality. I think the notion of Paul VI as "trad prisoner pope" is about on the same level.
-
Siri was cast aside, kicked, out, and reportedly kept under close watch by some of his personal attendants.
.
I've heard this claim so many times, but I've never seen a shred of evidence for it. Have you?
.
It's not Siri was living in some bunker after the election of Roncalli. He was seen in public, operated his diocese. He could easily, at any time, have picked up his phone and called the police and told them he was being threatened by his assistants, or that they wouldn't let him leave his house. He could have simply walked out his front door, hailed a cab, and gotten the hell out of town. He could have done any number of things very easily if he were the true pope and knew it. The fact that he didn't is hard to reconcile with the idea that he was pope.
.
So many popes have been put to death, put in dungeons, tortured both physically and mentally in every possible way. If Siri were pope, why would he have behaved so radically differently? Wouldn't he have the graces of state of all his predecessors?
.
If he were the true pope, allowing John XXIII to present himself to the world as the true pope, and allowing the world to be deceived by that, would be an act of schism if he knew that he himself were the true pope. Maybe he was okay with burning in hell forever to avoid persecution in this world; he wouldn't be the first. But it just seems hard to believe.
.
The only theory I have ever heard for why Siri would sell his soul in such an awful manner is that his family was threatened with murder if he announced himself as pope. But that would be martyrdom if it were carried out. Couldn't he call his family up, tell them to prepare their souls for a glorious crown, and then give a press conference telling the world how he was elected in the 1958 conclave?
.
While I do agree that the 1958 conclave is extremely suspicious and anomalous, I just don't think the idea of "Pope Siri" living out his days as a secret pope is a very adequate answer, and seems to create greater problems than it is intended to solve.
-
To backup what Yeti is saying here, take a look at Dom Guerenger’s meditation on St Thomas Becket (Dec 29). The choice that the martyrs had was either die for the faith and go to heaven or deny the faith and go to hell. There is no other option. We can’t make a mental reservation while giving the appearance of denying the faith. We can’t blame our denial on external pressures or fear of death. Why would we fear death if we truly held the faith which tells us that there is no greater love than to lay down ones life for a friend. Would Our Lord refuse the hoped-for reward to such friends? And according to Dom G, this requirement to remain steadfast in the face of death threats is greater for prelates. Not only must they uphold the doctrine of the Church but they must also assert the rights of the Church, specifically the Church’s liberty. This is why St Thomas Becket is considered a martyr because he asserted the Church’s liberty over the demands of the king.
-
It's not me who decided anything. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais once wrote a study based on the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, in which he put forth the view that the Pope is the head of two churches. Being a sedevacantist, you may not have ever heard of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, but I assume that you've at least heard of Archbishop Lefebvre, though you probably know little about his work, as is the case with most sedes. Though this is now a sede forum, I hope that I am still allowed to post a link to the study of Bp. tissier de Mallerais, for those very few who might take the time to read it:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
And how do you reckon Francis only made JP2 a saint of the "conciliar church"?
-
.
I've heard this claim so many times, but I've never seen a shred of evidence for it. Have you?
.
It's not Siri was living in some bunker after the election of Roncalli. He was seen in public, operated his diocese. He could easily, at any time, have picked up his phone and called the police and told them he was being threatened by his assistants, or that they wouldn't let him leave his house. He could have simply walked out his front door, hailed a cab, and gotten the hell out of town. He could have done any number of things very easily if he were the true pope and knew it. The fact that he didn't is hard to reconcile with the idea that he was pope.
.
So many popes have been put to death, put in dungeons, tortured both physically and mentally in every possible way. If Siri were pope, why would he have behaved so radically differently? Wouldn't he have the graces of state of all his predecessors?
.
If he were the true pope, allowing John XXIII to present himself to the world as the true pope, and allowing the world to be deceived by that, would be an act of schism if he knew that he himself were the true pope. Maybe he was okay with burning in hell forever to avoid persecution in this world; he wouldn't be the first. But it just seems hard to believe.
.
The only theory I have ever heard for why Siri would sell his soul in such an awful manner is that his family was threatened with murder if he announced himself as pope. But that would be martyrdom if it were carried out. Couldn't he call his family up, tell them to prepare their souls for a glorious crown, and then give a press conference telling the world how he was elected in the 1958 conclave?
.
While I do agree that the 1958 conclave is extremely suspicious and anomalous, I just don't think the idea of "Pope Siri" living out his days as a secret pope is a very adequate answer, and seems to create greater problems than it is intended to solve.
We leave it up to God to determine the degree of sin Siri may or may not have had in backing away from the papacy. I could also see some ambivalence in the mind of Siri. He may have perceived that he had resigned, even if it was under duress. But the duress would have canonically invalidated the resignation. So I don't believe that Siri was necessarily convinced that he was actually the reigning Pope. But it would have canonically impeded the election of Roncalli et al. nonetheless. There's that prophecy of St. Francis that there would be an "uncanonically-elected pope" who would wreak havoc on the Church and would be a "destroyer".
-
We might have to start a new thread for this topic, but your answer does seem a little more reasonable than the idea that Siri had sniper rifles trained on him at every moment for the next 30 years of his life, which is the image I get when I read the explanations of Gary Giuffre and his buddies.
.
But let's suppose he didn't accept the office because he thought he had resigned, even though his resignation hadn't been valid because of duress. Would that mean he would be pope without knowing it for the next 30 years? I really have to question that. If he doesn't assume the office and begin to exercise it within a reasonable amount of time, and has no intention of doing so, then I think that would be tantamount to resignation in itself. In canon law it even says that failure to assume a new office within a reasonable amount of time leads to tacit resignation. Whether this would apply to the pope too is debatable, but the idea is not just a matter of legal technicality. It's more a matter of common sense (I don't like that term because it's often used to insult people, but I can't think of an expression that says what I'm getting at any better than that, so please don't think I'm accusing you of not having common sense.) In other words, the papacy isn't like a library card that you can get and then stick in your wallet and forget about it for the next 20-30 years, even while it remains valid. So the idea that his election would have impeded the election of Paul VI later, as well as maybe JP1 and JP2 (I forget when Siri died) seems problematic at best. In any case, there were certainly other considerations that impeded the elections of Paul VI and those since him, but that's a story for another day. :laugh1:
.
I am certainly fascinated by Cardinal Siri, because of the incontrovertible proof that something ... let us say ... not according to plan happened in the 1958 election, and I think knowing what exactly that was would help a lot in discerning our path today, but again, I see a lot of problems with the idea that Siri remained pope until his death.
-
I am certainly fascinated by Cardinal Siri, because of the incontrovertible proof that something ... let us say ... not according to plan happened in the 1958 election, and I think knowing what exactly that was would help a lot in discerning our path today, but again, I see a lot of problems with the idea that Siri remained pope until his death.
Sure, we know that something nefarious definitely happened during those conclaves. Siri himself admitted in an interview that very grave things took place, but that he could not speak of them due to the vow of secrecy. Roncalli had been told beforehand that he would be elected, and he tipped his hand on his way to the conclave that he knew he would be elected. I think there's little doubt but that Roncalli was a Masonic/Communist plant in the papacy. Whether they threatened Siri to get him in there or made other nefarious arrangements, at this point probably God only knows. Roncalli also convened a secret meeting in the conclave on the night after his election, a very unusual step, and he made everyone swear to the secrecy of what had transpired there.
As for tacit resignation for failing to assume office, the report is that Siri did accept it and took the name Gregory XVII. [including from the purported FBI docuмent cited by Paul Williams]. So it's not quite the same as never assuming office. Now, once a Pope assumes office, there's no human means to legitimately remove him (except of course by killing him). We had a discussion about this on another thread. Certainly, it's possible for there to be morally-speaking "human acts" done under duress. But what may be a human act (at the end of the day Siri did will to step down) is not necessarily a canonically-free act. If someone holds a gun to my head and says, "resign," I do have a choice in my free will. I could refuse and accept the consequences. So in a sense my decision to resign is morally-free because I COULD have done otherwise, but that does not mean it was canonically free. Also, Siri said that he told some of the Cardinals during the first few ballots (where he was leading) that he did not want to be Pope. So between his initial personal unwillingness and his subsequent morally-free act to resign, Siri may have thought of himself as having resigned when in fact the resignation was not valid due to the duress. Now, this would make sense of the phrase "uncanonically elected pope" in the St. Francis prophecy ... although it could also have to do with other canonical irregularities (conspiracy to elect) or even to the Team Bergoglio problem with that election.
-
As for tacit resignation for failing to assume office, the report is that Siri did accept it and took the name Gregory XVII. [including from the purported FBI docuмent cited by Paul Williams]. So it's not quite the same as never assuming office. Now, once a Pope assumes office, there's no human means to legitimately remove him (except of course by killing him).
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Cardinal Siri accepted the papacy that dark night, of October 26, 1958. He became Pope Gregory XVII. Then, according to our hypothesis, he was threatened with some dire catastrophe if he didn't resign. He resigned out of fear, which would be invalid, and remained pope during the election of Roncalli.
.
So far, so good. He's still pope.
.
My problem has to do with the next 30 years of his life, in which he just went back home to Genoa and conducted business as usual for the rest of his life. He never claimed to be pope or attempted to perform the duties of the papacy. This is a sign that he did not consider himself to be the pope, and Canon Law indicates this kind of behavior as a form of tacit renunciation of the office. If you read canon 188 of the code of Canon Law (1917 code), it tells us how someone may tacitly resign from office. It lists several scenarios that constitute tacit renunciation (among them is a public renunciation of the Catholic Faith, which Mr. Bergoglio should pay attention to, but I digress), and one of them (#2) is if the cleric does not assume the office within the time appointed by law, or if there is no law, the time appointed by the ordinary.
.
Now, we can argue that this law does not apply to the pope, but still, it's a reflection of a basic idea of reality, that being appointed to some office including the papacy is not like getting a library card that you can stick in your wallet and forget about for the next several decades, and just go home and live your life as if nothing happened, while still retaining that office. Once Cardinal Siri left Rome after the conclave and went back to Genoa and continued to live as a cardinal, he made it clear that he had no intention of claiming to be pope or performing the office of the papacy. To say that this would invalidate the elections of Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla is like saying they couldn't receive the papacy because Cardinal Siri had received the papacy many years earlier and had stuck it in his back pocket and forgotten it was there, so they couldn't receive it. It's an idea that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
-
This docuмent says nothing about Siri having been elected and taken the name Gregory XVII.
-
My problem has to do with the next 30 years of his life, in which he just went back home to Genoa and conducted business as usual for the rest of his life. He never claimed to be pope or attempted to perform the duties of the papacy. This is a sign that he did not consider himself to be the pope, and Canon Law indicates this kind of behavior as a form of tacit renunciation of the office. If you read canon 188 of the code of Canon Law (1917 code), it tells us how someone may tacitly resign from office. It lists several scenarios that constitute tacit renunciation (among them is a public renunciation of the Catholic Faith, which Mr. Bergoglio should pay attention to, but I digress), and one of them (#2) is if the cleric does not assume the office within the time appointed by law, or if there is no law, the time appointed by the ordinary.
I know. I saw this before, but this refers to "not assuming" the office in the first place. We had a number of Popes "check out" and spend most of their time hunting and with mistresses. Heck, if only Bergoglio had done the same, checked out and done nothing. We'd be better off.
-
This docuмent says nothing about Siri having been elected and taken the name Gregory XVII.
Yeah, sorry about that. That was something I saw a long time ago and I posted it here without reading through it again. It didn't actually say what I thought it said.
-
I know. I saw this before, but this refers to "not assuming" the office in the first place. We had a number of Popes "check out" and spend most of their time hunting and with mistresses. Heck, if only Bergoglio had done the same, checked out and done nothing. We'd be better off.
That depends on what you mean by "assuming" an office. I think it's more than saying you accept an office. It seems in the Code that it means "assuming the duties of the office", something Cardinal Siri never did with the papacy. Obviously, if someone says they accept an office and then never fulfill the duties of the office, that's a problem that the Code is dealing with in the canon I cited.
.
We had a number of Popes "check out" and spend most of their time hunting and with mistresses.
.
But they didn't tell people to call them "Your Eminence" instead of "Your Holiness", they didn't wear red instead of white, and they didn't call themselves "Cardinal X". They also didn't -- which is a far greater problem -- allow someone else to claim to be pope at the same time, unchallenged, and even accept the other person as pope. Also, they were accepted by the whole Church as pope during their reign, something not the case with Cardinal Siri.
.
In any case, if Cardinal Siri were really pope for all those years, accepting the subsequent Vatican 2 "popes" as popes would be an act of schism, severing him from the Church and voiding his office.
.
EDIT slight changes
-
Yeah, sorry about that. That was something I saw a long time ago and I posted it here without reading through it again. It didn't actually say what I thought it said.
People have actually tried to track the docuмent down, but it has mysteriously disappeared. Probably something that got accidentally declassified and then got wrapped up quickly once they realized the gravity of what had come out.
-
That depends on what you mean by "assuming" an office. I think it's more than saying you accept an office. It seems in the Code that it means "assuming the duties of the office", something Cardinal Siri never did with the papacy. Obviously, if someone says they accept an office and then never fulfill the duties of the office, that's a problem that the Code is dealing with in the canon I cited.
.
We had a number of Popes "check out" and spend most of their time hunting and with mistresses.
.
But they didn't tell people to call them "Your Eminence" instead of "Your Holiness", they didn't wear red instead of white, and they didn't call themselves "Cardinal X". They also didn't -- which is a far greater problem -- allow someone else to claim to be pope at the same time, unchallenged, and even accept the other person as pope. Also, they were accepted by the whole Church as pope during their reign, something not the case with Cardinal Siri.
.
In any case, if Cardinal Siri were really pope for all those years, accepting the subsequent Vatican 2 "popes" as popes would be an act of schism, severing him from the Church and voiding his office.
.
EDIT slight changes
Since your post refers to " a number" could you give a few examples of Popes who were reported to ..."check out" ........ & who exactly are you quoting here? :confused:
-
Just getting to this topic now, but I certainly agree with you, Matthew. Sedevacantism (and sedeprivationism, for that matter) are seriously problematic, but I've talked with so many adherents to those opinions who believe that they're not only certain, but that it's obvious that they are. Many people build their entire worldviews on it.
A lot of the citations about the ability of the Church to exit Rome used to defend sedevacantists are very, very poor. For instance, Cardinal Billot's quotes are usually used to defend an imperfect council to elect a new Pope, but Billot actually implies a need for the election to be done with Roman clergy, whereas, since there is no ordinary jurisdiction and no actual Roman clergy left with the sedevacantist ones (or SSPX ones for that matter), it doesn't seem possible to elect a Pope. Plus, the sedevacantists don't even agree as to whether or not most of their clergy are heretics concerning Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance, and many sedevacantists have flat out excommunicated one another. Their ecclesiology is probably even worse off than the Orthodox.
Then there is the matter of this quote from the Syllabus of Errors: "There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city." (This was condemned, not accepted.)
The only situation where something like this could happen is like with the Avignon Papacies, where the Bishop of Rome and his college of Cardinals actually went to a different location together. Hence, it was clear that the Church was alive and well at this time, regardless of who the Pope was (we now know it was Pope Martin V, but in the schism, no one knew for sure). If the Church isn't in Rome, it needs to be identified with the Bishop of Rome and the clergy appointed by him, but according to sedevacantists, there is no clergy presently appointed by a real Pope, nor an actual Pope to speak of. So, at the very best, there is a Church that's not visible, which is impossible.
I think this is why the sedevacantist clergy haven't elected a Pope: they can't. They can use sedeprivationism as an out, but I really don't think it's a strong out. If there's any need to restore the Papacy, as all sedeprivationists agree, then the Papacy has defected. But the Papacy is indefectible: it can never defect. This doesn't mean it's only impossible for the Papacy to whither out and be impossible to restore... it means that it can never defect in any way.
This is nothing against many sedevacantists who are honest in that it's simply a theological opinion, but MANY sedevacantists go way too far and start anathematizing people who disagree for honest reasons.
-
Just getting to this topic now, but I certainly agree with you, Matthew. Sedevacantism (and sedeprivationism, for that matter) are seriously problematic, but I've talked with so many adherents to those opinions who believe that they're not only certain, but that it's obvious that they are. Many people build their entire worldviews on it.
And ... how long have you been a Catholic?
-
There's that prophecy of St. Francis that there would be an "uncanonically-elected pope" who would wreak havoc on the Church and would be a "destroyer".
That doesn't add up.
1. The alleged Siri election was in 1958. We had a lot more than ONE pope since then.
2. The "destroyer", if you want to apply that to Pope Francis, wasn't until MANY popes later!
Cardinal Siri died May 2, 1989
So the Siri hypothesis solves NOTHING with regards to the Crisis in the Church and the Pope question.
-
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Cardinal Siri accepted the papacy that dark night, of October 26, 1958. He became Pope Gregory XVII. Then, according to our hypothesis, he was threatened with some dire catastrophe if he didn't resign. He resigned out of fear, which would be invalid, and remained pope during the election of Roncalli.
.
So far, so good. He's still pope.
.
My problem has to do with the next 30 years of his life, in which he just went back home to Genoa and conducted business as usual for the rest of his life. He never claimed to be pope or attempted to perform the duties of the papacy. This is a sign that he did not consider himself to be the pope, and Canon Law indicates this kind of behavior as a form of tacit renunciation of the office. If you read canon 188 of the code of Canon Law (1917 code), it tells us how someone may tacitly resign from office. It lists several scenarios that constitute tacit renunciation (among them is a public renunciation of the Catholic Faith, which Mr. Bergoglio should pay attention to, but I digress), and one of them (#2) is if the cleric does not assume the office within the time appointed by law, or if there is no law, the time appointed by the ordinary.
.
Now, we can argue that this law does not apply to the pope, but still, it's a reflection of a basic idea of reality, that being appointed to some office including the papacy is not like getting a library card that you can stick in your wallet and forget about for the next several decades, and just go home and live your life as if nothing happened, while still retaining that office. Once Cardinal Siri left Rome after the conclave and went back to Genoa and continued to live as a cardinal, he made it clear that he had no intention of claiming to be pope or performing the office of the papacy. To say that this would invalidate the elections of Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla is like saying they couldn't receive the papacy because Cardinal Siri had received the papacy many years earlier and had stuck it in his back pocket and forgotten it was there, so they couldn't receive it. It's an idea that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
You just KILLED the Siri hypothesis. Well done! Awesome points. And this is why I think the Siri hypothesis is weak at best and stupid at worst.
And furthermore, what about Pope Benedict who was elected after the death of Siri? I thought Pope Francis was supposed to be the un-canonically elected "Destroyer" of the St. Francis prophecy? And Cardinal Siri was dead at BOTH of their elections -- how could a dead pope prevent another pope from being elected validly?
Was the whole College of Cardinals "tainted" (think: contagious cooties) by going with a false pope for so long, and so they couldn't ever elect a valid pope again?
It doesn't add up. The Siri hypothesis is stupid and solves nothing. It must have originated in the minds of 10 year olds. Not very bright 10 year olds, I might add.
-
the idea that Siri had sniper rifles trained on him at every moment for the next 30 years of his life, which is the image I get when I read the explanations of Gary Giuffre and his buddies.
.
But let's suppose he didn't accept the office because he thought he had resigned, even though his resignation hadn't been valid because of duress. Would that mean he would be pope without knowing it for the next 30 years? I really have to question that. If he doesn't assume the office and begin to exercise it within a reasonable amount of time, and has no intention of doing so, then I think that would be tantamount to resignation in itself. In canon law it even says that failure to assume a new office within a reasonable amount of time leads to tacit resignation.
This.
-
It doesn't add up. The Siri hypothesis is stupid and solves nothing. It must have originated in the minds of 10 year olds. Not very bright 10 year olds, I might add.
Well I think the Siri thesis makes more sense than regular sedevacantism or sedeprivationism. Especially if one is drawn to believe in ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic cօռspιʀαcιҽs (as I am and you are). So if the Siri thesis was made up by stupid 10-year olds, then sedevacantism and sedeprivationism must have come from the minds of stupid 7-year olds. Now if I say this one might come back and tell me that Guerard des Lauriers was the brightest mind among all traditionalists who ever lived . . . and Thuc knew seven languages . . .
-
And ... how long have you been a Catholic?
I've been looking into this question for much longer than that, for about eight months, while I was discerning the faith. When I was figuring out where to be baptized, I looked into sedevacantism a lot.
-
I've been looking into this question for much longer than that, for about eight months, while I was discerning the faith. When I was figuring out where to be baptized, I looked into sedevacantism a lot.
Related, but my baptism was great. :)
-
Since your post refers to " a number" could you give a few examples of Popes who were reported to ..."check out" ........ & who exactly are you quoting here? :confused:
The Forum awaits a reply to these questions... :sleep:
-
I've been looking into this question for much longer than that, for about eight months, while I was discerning the faith. When I was figuring out where to be baptized, I looked into sedevacantism a lot.
Well, for being a relatively-new Catholic, your tone is rather bold, denouncing something that's a relatively complicated issue when you may not even have all the basics of the faith solid. I mean, at one point, you were talking about the Eastern Orthodox as an option. You make quite a few errors in your post, including mischaracterizations of sedeprivationism/sedevacantism. Feel free to not accept these opinions, but to denounce them with such a haughty tone, as if you had any idea what you're talking about, that's a bit over the top. Most people don't know this, but scrupulosity is most closely tied to pride.
I'd like to address your post in detail, bu there are so many mistakes in it, that it would require 30 minutes of mine to address them all. You conflate sedevacantism and sedeprivationism, then attack sedevacantism, but most of your criticisms do not apply to sedeprivationism. Evidently you don't really understand the difference between the two. Then you blur about a half dozen concerns in a single paragraph which do not logically tie together. There are reasons, some more valid than others, that people adduce to reject sedevacantism, but your post contains none of these.
-
You just KILLED the Siri hypothesis. Well done! Awesome points. And this is why I think the Siri hypothesis is weak at best and stupid at worst.
And furthermore, what about Pope Benedict who was elected after the death of Siri? I thought Pope Francis was supposed to be the un-canonically elected "Destroyer" of the St. Francis prophecy? And Cardinal Siri was dead at BOTH of their elections -- how could a dead pope prevent another pope from being elected validly?
Was the whole College of Cardinals "tainted" (think: contagious cooties) by going with a false pope for so long, and so they couldn't ever elect a valid pope again?
It doesn't add up. The Siri hypothesis is stupid and solves nothing. It must have originated in the minds of 10 year olds. Not very bright 10 year olds, I might add.
No, it's not stupid at all. First of all, it's not just something that popped into someone's head while smoking weed. There's a lot of circuмstantial evidence for it.
Siri's election would have impeded Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, and Wojtyla. He was of course dead before Ratzinger and Bergoglio. At that point, it depends. If you're a straight sedevacantist, by that time there were no legit cardinals left to to have been able to elect Ratzinger or Bergoglio. If you're not a straight sedevacantist, say, a sedeprivationist, that still doesn't rule out other impediments to Ratzinger/Bergoglio holding office (such as heresy or the fact that both were consecrated ... and the latter even ordained ... in the New Rite).
You're coupling the "Destroyer Pope" prophecy way too tightly with the Siri hypothesis. It's obviously a matter of interpretation ... assuming that the prophecy is even genuine and accurate. But one way to read it is referring to Roncalli, the first one who would have been impeded by Siri's election. Roncalli was indeed the first in a long line of destroyers, and he set into motion everything that followed afterwards, including elevating Montini to Cardinal and greasing the skids for his election. Alternatively, the "Destroyer Pope" might refer to another pope yet to come. It's nothing more than speculation at this point.
-
A lot of the citations about the ability of the Church to exit Rome used to defend sedevacantists are very, very poor. For instance, Cardinal Billot's quotes are usually used to defend an imperfect council to elect a new Pope, but Billot actually implies a need for the election to be done with Roman clergy, whereas, since there is no ordinary jurisdiction and no actual Roman clergy left with the sedevacantist ones (or SSPX ones for that matter), it doesn't seem possible to elect a Pope. Plus, the sedevacantists don't even agree as to whether or not most of their clergy are heretics concerning Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance, and many sedevacantists have flat out excommunicated one another. Their ecclesiology is probably even worse off than the Orthodox.
I will take this paragraph as an example. Sedevacantism doesn't have anything to do with the Church "exiting" Rome.
There are several opinions about what would happen if all the cardinals died, none of which is fundamental to sedevacantism, nor does it refute it.
Ordinary jurisdiction isn't undisputedly necessary for a legitimate papal election. And this concern doesn't even apply to sedeprivationism.
As for there being "no actual Roman clergy," several theologians do hold that an Imperfect Council could elect a Pope in that case. And, once again, this does not apply to sedeprivationism.
Very few sedevacantists are divided on the "Baptism of Desire" question. 99% of sedevacantists are the ones most violently opposed to Feeneyism. You have only the Dimonds who combine sedevacantism and Feeneyism.
And, would you please stop dabbling with Eastern Orthodoxy lest you end up losing your faith and your soul. There's absolutely no way in which their ecclesiology is "worse off than the Orthodox." Orthodox are at once schismatics and heretics with nothing even approaching a Catholic ecclesiology?
Just this one paragraph is such a hot mess that you need to go back to the drawing board and study the basics of the Catholic faith (i.e. vs. Orthodoxy) before weighing in so confidently on a complex topic.
-
I will take this paragraph as an example. Sedevacantism doesn't have anything to do with the Church "exiting" Rome.
There are several opinions about what would happen if all the cardinals died, none of which is fundamental to sedevacantism, nor does it refute it.
Ordinary jurisdiction isn't undisputedly necessary for a legitimate papal election. And this concern doesn't even apply to sedeprivationism.
As for there being "no actual Roman clergy," several theologians do hold that an Imperfect Council could elect a Pope in that case. And, once again, this does not apply to sedeprivationism.
Very few sedevacantists are divided on the "Baptism of Desire" question. 99% of sedevacantists are the ones most violently opposed to Feeneyism. You have only the Dimonds who combine sedevacantism and Feeneyism.
And, would you please stop dabbling with Eastern Orthodoxy lest you end up losing your faith and your soul. There's absolutely no way in which their ecclesiology is "worse off than the Orthodox." Orthodox are at once schismatics and heretics with nothing even approaching a Catholic ecclesiology?
Just this one paragraph is such a hot mess that you need to go back to the drawing board and study the basics of the Catholic faith (i.e. vs. Orthodoxy) before weighing in so confidently on a complex topic.
I had a response written out, but I've decided to delete it. I don't want to get caught in the weeds with a discussion on something so complex when I should be focusing on the basics, as you've said.
I do disagree with you, and I don't think you represented me well here, but you're ultimately right that I shouldn't be on a forum the day after being baptized.
-
The Forum awaits a reply to these questions... :sleep:
I think he's talking about Pope John XII, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII#Character_and_reputation
-
:laugh1: :laugh2:
-
... the day after being baptized.
.
Wow, is this true? Congratulations!!! You just joined the coolest club in the whole world. The mystical body of Christ. There's always room for more, especially nowadays! ;)