Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: cantatedomino on June 03, 2014, 06:08:42 PM
-
For quite some time now I have been expressing, through a catchphrase, what I consider to be the fundamental fact upon which must turn absolutely everything every faithful Catholic thinks, says, and does: THEY AIN'T CATHOLIC.
Now it appears that Brother Peter Dimond, hereinafter BPD, in a very entertaining blitzkrieg on Robert Siscoe's recent attempt to argue his way around SV claims, has provided a series of thought provoking guidelines for further consideration on the matter. It seems to me that he is arguing - and proving - simply that: THEY AIN'T CATHOLIC.
First of all, here is the blitzkrieg, for your perusal:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vx4a0Szsawc#t=29[/youtube]
-
I have many questions for the menfolk here. Perhaps they would be so kind as to shed some light.
OBSERVATION: BPD's thesis in this presentation is not that "the Chair is vacant." Rather it is that Bergoglio and his immediate predecessors are not Catholic (They Ain't Catholic).
Quoting Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum (13) [minute 1:57] which states in relevant part that [St. Augustine] "denies that anyone who dissents from the Roman Faith can be a Catholic: You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held," BPD makes the following observation:
"Francis does not teach that the Faith of Rome, the Catholic Faith, is to be held. He teaches the opposite. He has explicitly rejected converting atheists, Jєωs, schismatics, and others many times . . . He therefore teaches that non-Catholics do not need to hold the Faith of Rome. "According to Catholic teaching he is not to be considered a Catholic. It's that simple." [minute 2:05 et. seq.]
Now I cannot agree with BPD more; it really is that simple: They Ain't Catholic.
-
OBSERVATION: BPD states that "Siscoe and the Remnant tell you that he is to be considered a Catholic, despite his teaching that the Faith of Rome is not to be held." [minute 2:30 et. seq.] He also qualifies their acts as those of those who "obstinately teach that Francis is to be considered a member of the Catholic Church," and who, by doing so "deny . . . Catholic teaching." [minute 2:30 et. seq.]
QUESTION 1: Does R&R uniformly hold, as part of its positive platform of affirmed premises, that the Vatican II popes are Catholics and members of the Catholic Church?
NOTE: I am specifically NOT asking if R&R affirms these men are popes. I already know that it does so affirm. My question is exclusively whether R&R affirms they are Catholics. [/b]
-
OBSERVATION: BPD's presentation is narrowly focused on "examining the Catholic Church's teaching on professing the true Faith." [minute 1:24 et. seq.]
BPD affirms that "the Catholic Church teaches that only those who are baptized and profess the true Faith can be considered members of the Catholic Church." [1:28 et. seq.] He cites Mystici Corporis (22) as his authority for this affirmation:
MYSTICI CORPORIS (22): Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those [who] are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
-
My sense of the thing is that R&R has, for decades, been dancing around this unfortunate fact: They Ain't Catholic.
R&R simply cannot affirm this.
But that is terribly, patently, and culpably dishonest.
When has R&R ever told the truth?
R&R, because of its essential falsity, breeds dishonesty and all manner of other hidden agendas.
R&R, in order to operate, requires that heretics be Catholics.
R&R violates the First Principle of Reason: Identity-Contradiction.
R&R is: 2=5
-
QUESTION 2: Siscoe is employing a distinction in his article: soul of the Church versus body of the Church. Is this a valid distinction? And if it is a valid distinction, has it traditionally been employed to differentiate between particular effects or consequences of heresy in individuals?
-
OBSERVATION: Siscoe argues that one is only severed from the body of the Church by a "declared heresy," a formal heresy in the external forum. This declared heresy is either an actual declaration of heresy by a Church authority, or a self-declaration of heresy by an individual. [5:18 et. seq.]
I think it is important to distinguish here between two questions: Is he pope? Is he Catholic?
Siscoe is attempting to answer the first question in the affirmative by answering the second question in the affirmative.
Siscoe's line of argumentation is geared towards "saving the Catholic appearance."
He is attacking the first, and true, premise of SV: They Aint Catholic.
Interestingly the second question, "Is he Catholic?" is the one that is easy to answer - that is, easy simply but difficult politically.
-
BPD well sums up the R&R position as follows: If you claim to be a Catholic, and thus have not declared yourself a heretic by openly leaving the Church, and if you have not been declared a heretic by a Church authority, you cannot be considered a heretic who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, no matter what you say, do, or believe. [screen shot minute 7:32]
OBSERVATION: Common sense enlightened by faith confirms with absolute certitude that They Ain't Catholic. Yet R&R men argue until they bore the world to tears that there are millions of ways to "save the Catholic appearance."
QUESTION: Does R&R blow so hard on this point because they believe that if they concede it, they will have to concede the entire SV conclusion?
Indeed the first premise of the SV is the true amphitheater.
As times goes by; and as the heresy becomes more and more public, malignant, and flagrant; and as more and more R&R men surrender to modernism and go down in flame and shame; the position becomes more and more patently absurd, more and more unreal, more and more dissimulous, more and more dishonorable.
The refusal to admit the truth of the First Premise is more effectively dividing Tradition than any other factor.
Yet I have recently heard some good priests calling spades, spades; and I love them for it.
-
Is Dimond relaying Siscoe's argument that an internal heretic is not expelled from the Body of the Church, and then arguing that it does?
I'm asking, because that's what I got out of the first fifteen minutes or so.
BPD has an interesting simplification of Siscoe's article, but my preferred simplification is: "Even if these men are not Catholic and not popes, you have to keep it to yourself."
In other words, even if it's true, you can't talk about it.
From there, he hopes to imply that it's false since there's something "wrong" about believing it, but he doesn't actually touch on whether or not these men are Catholic (or popes). He just says that we can't have the opinion that they aren't.
-
The sedevacantist position is schismatic. It has been said that schism is a sin against charity. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Dimond "brothers" have no charity.
-
Observation: R&R does not allow for the pope to be a heretic, thus you have the circular arguments as to why when he is heretical, he really isn't.
-
QUESTION 2: Siscoe is employing a distinction in his article: soul of the Church versus body of the Church. Is this a valid distinction? And if it is a valid distinction, has it traditionally been employed to differentiate between particular effects or consequences of heresy in individuals?
I think the main way this distinction has been used is as regards BOD, and that catechumens who die before baptism belong to the soul of the Church (but not the body). The exemplary Mgr. Fenton has shown the problems in referring to it this way http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/BodyandSoul.pdf . I am not sure if there is a proper and orthodox understanding of the Soul/Body distinction as concerns membership, but it's all a moot point for our consideration since what matters for the government of the Church is that a man be a member of the Church in the strict sense, which means that he be baptized and profess the true faith outwardly. He could be the most wicked man to ever live, soliciting young boys and cannibalizing cardinals he didn't get along with and still be pope, because he would still be a member in the strict sense so long as he outwardly professed the faith. But when he ceases to outwardly profess the faith (who could deny this is the case from Paul VI onwards?) he is no longer a member of the Church.
-
The sedevacantist position is schismatic. It has been said that schism is a sin against charity. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Dimond "brothers" have no charity.
I find it easier to believe that R&R is schismatic than sedevacantism.
The principle, found in Tradition and canon law, is quite clear: "The First See is judged by no one." This is interpreted to be understand that one cannot judge a Roman Pontiff.
Now sedes do not believe the individual who they judge is the Roman Pontiff. In fact, in their personal judgment he is not the Roman Pontiff. So subjectively, in their minds, sedes are not judging the Roman Pontiff.
In contrast, R&R adherents recognize the Roman Pontiff as such. Even when they engage in doctrine sifting. Essentially they judge when the Roman Pontiff is in conformity with Apostolic Tradition and when he is not. This judgment even extends to areas where traditionally the Roman Pontiff is understood to be acting infallibly, such as with the recent papal canonizations of Sts John XXIII and John Paul II. To me this seems a lot closer to a schismatic position than judging someone that one does not believe to be pope.
-
The sedevacantist position is schismatic. It has been said that schism is a sin against charity. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Dimond "brothers" have no charity.
I find it easier to believe that R&R is schismatic than sedevacantism.
The principle, found in Tradition and canon law, is quite clear: "The First See is judged by no one." This is interpreted to be understand that one cannot judge a Roman Pontiff.
Now sedes do not believe the individual who they judge is the Roman Pontiff. In fact, in their personal judgment he is not the Roman Pontiff. So subjectively, in their minds, sedes are not judging the Roman Pontiff.
In contrast, R&R adherents recognize the Roman Pontiff as such. Even when they engage in doctrine sifting. Essentially they judge when the Roman Pontiff is in conformity with Apostolic Tradition and when he is not. This judgment even extends to areas where traditionally the Roman Pontiff is understood to be acting infallibly, such as with the recent papal canonizations of Sts John XXIII and John Paul II. To me this seems a lot closer to a schismatic position than judging someone that one does not believe to be pope.
You are proof that liberals and sedevacantists really are allies, something that many honorable leaders of the traditional movement have already pointed out.
-
Is Dimond relaying Siscoe's argument that an internal heretic is not expelled from the Body of the Church, and then arguing that it does?
The video uses incredibly sloppy language.
I listened to the a few minutes of the video and it seems that it is saying that Siscoe claims that a person who publicly proclaims heresy cannot be considered a heretic because, until he's been judged by a competent authority, the heresy is, by definition, internal.
But it also seems that the Dimonds are arguing that an internal heretic is expelled from the Body of the Church rather than arguing that when a person who publicly expresses his heresy it is no longer internal since it is, obviously, public.
Their language in this video is not precise and, quite frankly, makes their arguments against Siscoe weak. There are other written refutations of Siscoe's thesis that are precise and strong that one should not resort to these people for their arguments.
-
Is Dimond relaying Siscoe's argument that an internal heretic is not expelled from the Body of the Church, and then arguing that it does?
The video uses incredibly sloppy language.
I listened to the a few minutes of the video and it seems that it is saying that Siscoe claims that a person who publicly proclaims heresy cannot be considered a heretic because, until he's been judged by a competent authority, the heresy is, by definition, internal.
But it also seems that the Dimonds are arguing that an internal heretic is expelled from the Body of the Church rather than arguing that when a person who publicly expresses his heresy it is no longer internal since it is, obviously, public.
Their language in this video is not precise and, quite frankly, makes their arguments against Siscoe weak. There are other written refutations of Siscoe's thesis that are precise and strong that one should not resort to these people for their arguments.
This is what I took away from the first fifteen minutes or so. They quote Siscoe talking about internal heresy "only expelling one from the soul of the Church" and go right into talking about how heresy unqualified, which usually refers to public heresy, expels one from the Church (citing MCC no. 23) but since it comes in immediate rebuttal to Siscoe's qualification of "internal heretic" the context suggests that they're also referring to internal heresy (and arguing it expels one from the Body of the Church, i.e., it causes one to lose membership which it definitely doesn't). This is an essential distinction which this particular argument against these conciliar claimants rests, and to gloss over it is a serious blunder.
I think all Siscoe was doing by saying that internal heretics are expelled from the soul of the Church (I'm not sure if this is the best expression) is to narrow the focus of his article down to public heretics. I mean, it's the height of ridiculousness to contend that any of these men are secret heretics, and I don't think Siscoe is that inept. He's surely not trying to argue that these men are Catholic because their heresy is secret, it's anything but secret. And I think in Peter Dimond's zeal to "demolish Siscoe's heretical arguments" he wanted to basically disprove everything that Siscoe said. I think there's an old axiom along the lines of "he who proves too much doesn't prove anything at all" which might apply here.
I was also displeased with Peter Dimond's disdain for the theologians. He says that Siscoe does not engage the papal magisterium because he can't. True enough, but Dimond seems to have set himself up as a theologian and deems himself capable and competent to deal only in primary texts to the exclusion of theologians whom he calls "fallible men" in the video. That's beside the point. The theologians explain and expound upon the primary texts and are indispensable in understanding most of these issues, so that Siscoe used them is not a problem. Of course, the way in which he uses them is offensive because he really does copy and paste a ton of irrelevant and unrelated quotes to make his argument. This has been dealt with in great detail on this thread: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1606
Siscoe's argument seems to be a perfect summation of the anti-sedevacantist thesis at this point (after what, fifty years?). He has completely left alone the question of whether or not these men are Catholics (which their papacy is directly dependent upon) and instead chooses to argue that even if they aren't we can't say they're not popes. He uses a paralyzing legal formula to "prove" nothing except that we can't say these men aren't popes.
Cantate Domino is right to draw attention to the question "are they Catholic?" And if that's not specific enough, are they members of the Church? Are they baptized and do they profess the true faith in submission to lawful authorities? All who do so are, in the strict sense, Catholics and members of the Catholic Church. It's telling that no one wants to answer that question.
-
Here's a distinction that many (including the Dimonds) are not making. Yes, I'd have to agree that someone who goes around saying something like, "I know that the Church teaches that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, but I don't believe it." has left the Church ipso facto ... to their examples of people like Nancy Peℓσѕι et al.
But the issue is with someone going around saying, "Yes, I know that the Church teaches EENS. So of course I believe in it. But this is how I interpret it." That's NOT the same thing.
That's where the Dimonds' argument completely falls flat on its face -- though I agree that they dismantled Siscoe's arguments as self-contradictory and nonsensical.
-
deleted
-
CantateDomino,
it really is that simple: They Ain't Catholic
I think they will move from this point to say, "but they think they are Catholic" and they can't be heretics because, " they don't know that they are heretics."
Everyone these days is saved in one manner or another, by their "ignorance"
And, how could they be real heretics when their church is not real, but only a "tendency".
R&R has so many escape hatches for the Conciliar popes that it must have been conceived under an exit ramp.
-
Is Dimond relaying Siscoe's argument that an internal heretic is not expelled from the Body of the Church, and then arguing that it does?
I'm asking, because that's what I got out of the first fifteen minutes or so.
Yes, this is correct.
-
BPD has an interesting simplification of Siscoe's article, but my preferred simplification is: "Even if these men are not Catholic and not popes, you have to keep it to yourself."
In other words, even if it's true, you can't talk about it.
Your simplification indeed encapsulates the inherent duplicity of R&R.
R&R is a great example to give to demonstrate the meaning of the colloquialism: The Elephant in the Room.
I've been thinking a lot about whether there is a position or program of Catholic counter-revolution that avoids the pitfalls of both SV and R&R: Those pitfalls being division; internecine warfare; cafeteria defense of pet errors; failure to recognize, comprehend, defend, and teach the entire Deposit of Faith; growing ignorance among clergy and layfolk; stagnation of Catholic action; contraction - both numerical and doctrinal.
The working title for the new position is: PROPAGATE AND DENOUNCE
PROPAGATE: BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY - NUMERICALLY AND DOCTRINALLY
DENOUNCE: HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED, HE SHALL BE SAVED: BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE CONDEMNED
-
[Dimond] doesn't actually touch on whether or not these men are Catholic (or popes).
That is correct, and that is why I find his presentation useful.
I think I know what Siscoe is trying to do. He is going after the First (and true) Premise of SV: They Ain't Catholic.
Like the SV's he tries to rebut, he is looking for logical closure. He possibly thinks that he cannot reach logical closure (except SV) if he admits the truth of the First Premise. Wherefore he seeks to falsify it in order to avoid having to arrive at the SV conclusion.
Dimond is sticking in this presentation to the defense of the truth of the First Premise, and I'm very happy he is doing that, because the truth of the First Premise of SV is what is hotly (and erroneously) denied by R&R. Their denial of this truth is what produces all of their bad fruits.
NOTE: This denial is sometimes explicit, and quite often implicit.
I am not promoting Dimond's presentation as the answer to any ultimate question. As I said, he is providing quite a lot of food for thought. I want to hear all arguments for the truth of the First Premise.
Siscoe is trying to come up with a reasoned analysis that falsifies the Premise. He has put forth more effort than many R&R proponents, who do more sidestepping. I commend him for trying, but he is not even remotely convincing. I agree with Dimond that he is blowing a lot of hot air. I also suspect that Dimond is right in calling out his argument as one that is novel and not backed up by Magisterial teaching authority.
Food for thought is what Tradition sorely needs, because Tradition has bogged itself down into two unsatisfactory positions that seem, at this late hour, to exist, not for the propagation and defense of the Faith, but solely to contradict one another.
Tradition has stopped multiplying. It is now in a terrible state of division, corruption, disrepair, and contraction. I hold that the sorry state of the Catholic counter-revolution is due entirely to endless artificial and sophistical posturing, at the expense of the propagation and defense of the integral Catholic Faith.
Neither SV nor R&R has been able to pull the Church out of Her tailspin. By their fruits we see that God is not happy with our current modes of operation.
I'm going to continue going through Dimond's presentation because I think he frames some excellent questions.
Thanks for your responses, Mith!
-
Is Dimond relaying Siscoe's argument that an internal heretic is not expelled from the Body of the Church, and then arguing that it does?
I'm asking, because that's what I got out of the first fifteen minutes or so.
Yes, this is correct.
That's unfortunate.
BPD should be more eager to learn the faith from those deputed to explain it, rather than try to grapple with all the primary sources himself, as if he had the proper authority and or training to explain it. As it stands, he is explaining things quite differently than the theologians, especially the theologians who wrote after Mystici Corporis Christi was written, which he ironically (and erroneously) bases his opinion on.
Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church
It's a stupid argument to even focus on. In the first place, I believe Siscoe's bringing up the point that internal (by which I imagine he means occult/secret) heretics don't lose membership (aren't severed from the Body) was just in the interest of completeness and maybe in trying to get some credibility from his readers early on; because in the second place it's simply ridiculous (and I think even Siscoe realizes how ridiculous this would be) to argue that the conciliar claimants are merely occult heretics and therefore still members. Besides, he goes on to frame his main "argument" around the fact they are public heretics, but there is a legal stumbling block which keeps them from being non-popes (or, more accurately, "keeps" us from being able to say they are) so it's pretty obvious that Siscoe is not actually making an argument by claiming that secret heretics don't lose membership, he's merely pointing it out for some reason or another.
And he's right! That was a waste of fifteen minutes to try to disprove him on this point. A better route would have been to leave the issue alone (since it's not instrumental to Siscoe's main argument in the first place) OR if BPD actually thought that Siscoe's inclusion of the effect of secret heresy was an argument in itself, to point out that the conciliar claimant's heresy is resoundingly public-- and public heretics DO lose membership. And non-members can't be pope.
I think they will move from this point to say, "but they think they are Catholic" and they can't be heretics because, " they don't know that they are heretics."
Everyone these days is saved in one manner or another, by their "ignorance"
And, how could they be real heretics when their church is not real, but only a "tendency".
R&R has so many escape hatches for the Conciliar popes that it must have been conceived under an exit ramp.
Well, it's ridiculous to argue that men who were raised in pre-conciliar Catholicism are ignorant of the most basic tenets of the Catholic faith-- the first commandment, which they have all publicly broken in deed (an act of public heresy by worshipping with false religions) and often in word as well by (e.g.) acknowledging the current legitimacy of the Jєωιѕн religion.
But because it will lead to confusion later on, it should be kept in mind that whether or not a man can be saved and whether or not a man can be pope are two separate questions. Membership (and maleness) are requisites to being pope-- I know non and anti sedevacantists typically argue that these are just "bad" popes and we've had "bad" popes before-- essentially they end up accusing sedevacantists of being Donatists. Thing is, a man could be true pope and be the worst human being alive. He could pad the Vatican bank with sex-trafficking, solicit married women (or men), commit clandestine murders (or even public ones) and be a cannibal and still be a member of the Church. What he can't do is cease to profess the Catholic faith publicly. That's literally the one thing he can't do. And these men have done it. What does that tell you?
-
Is Dimond relaying Siscoe's argument that an internal heretic is not expelled from the Body of the Church, and then arguing that it does?
I'm asking, because that's what I got out of the first fifteen minutes or so.
Yes, this is correct.
That's unfortunate.
BPD should be more eager to learn the faith from those deputed to explain it, rather than try to grapple with all the primary sources himself, as if he had the proper authority and or training to explain it. As it stands, he is explaining things quite differently than the theologians, especially the theologians who wrote after Mystici Corporis Christi was written, which he ironically (and erroneously) bases his opinion on.
Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church
It's a stupid argument to even focus on. In the first place, I believe Siscoe's bringing up the point that internal (by which I imagine he means occult/secret) heretics don't lose membership (aren't severed from the Body) was just in the interest of completeness and maybe in trying to get some credibility from his readers early on; because in the second place it's simply ridiculous (and I think even Siscoe realizes how ridiculous this would be) to argue that the conciliar claimants are merely occult heretics and therefore still members. Besides, he goes on to frame his main "argument" around the fact they are public heretics, but there is a legal stumbling block which keeps them from being non-popes (or, more accurately, "keeps" us from being able to say they are) so it's pretty obvious that Siscoe is not actually making an argument by claiming that secret heretics don't lose membership, he's merely pointing it out for some reason or another.
And he's right! That was a waste of fifteen minutes to try to disprove him on this point. A better route would have been to leave the issue alone (since it's not instrumental to Siscoe's main argument in the first place) OR if BPD actually thought that Siscoe's inclusion of the effect of secret heresy was an argument in itself, to point out that the conciliar claimant's heresy is resoundingly public-- and public heretics DO lose membership. And non-members can't be pope.
I think they will move from this point to say, "but they think they are Catholic" and they can't be heretics because, " they don't know that they are heretics."
Everyone these days is saved in one manner or another, by their "ignorance"
And, how could they be real heretics when their church is not real, but only a "tendency".
R&R has so many escape hatches for the Conciliar popes that it must have been conceived under an exit ramp.
Well, it's ridiculous to argue that men who were raised in pre-conciliar Catholicism are ignorant of the most basic tenets of the Catholic faith-- the first commandment, which they have all publicly broken in deed (an act of public heresy by worshipping with false religions) and often in word as well by (e.g.) acknowledging the current legitimacy of the Jєωιѕн religion.
But because it will lead to confusion later on, it should be kept in mind that whether or not a man can be saved and whether or not a man can be pope are two separate questions. Membership (and maleness) are requisites to being pope-- I know non and anti sedevacantists typically argue that these are just "bad" popes and we've had "bad" popes before-- essentially they end up accusing sedevacantists of being Donatists. Thing is, a man could be true pope and be the worst human being alive. He could pad the Vatican bank with sex-trafficking, solicit married women (or men), commit clandestine murders (or even public ones) and be a cannibal and still be a member of the Church. What he can't do is cease to profess the Catholic faith publicly. That's literally the one thing he can't do. And these men have done it. What does that tell you?
I appreciate your responses here. They pack a lot of information.
I'm still working my way through the preceding pages.
From a quick scan of what you have written here, I will have some questions for you.
Give me a little time to plow through and think.
-
QUESTION 2: Siscoe is employing a distinction in his article: soul of the Church versus body of the Church. Is this a valid distinction? And if it is a valid distinction, has it traditionally been employed to differentiate between particular effects or consequences of heresy in individuals?
I think the main way this distinction has been used is as regards BOD, and that catechumens who die before baptism belong to the soul of the Church (but not the body). The exemplary Mgr. Fenton has shown the problems in referring to it this way http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/BodyandSoul.pdf . I am not sure if there is a proper and orthodox understanding of the Soul/Body distinction as concerns membership, but it's all a moot point for our consideration since what matters for the government of the Church is that a man be a member of the Church in the strict sense, which means that he be baptized and profess the true faith outwardly. He could be the most wicked man to ever live, soliciting young boys and cannibalizing cardinals he didn't get along with and still be pope, because he would still be a member in the strict sense so long as he outwardly professed the faith. But when he ceases to outwardly profess the faith (who could deny this is the case from Paul VI onwards?) he is no longer a member of the Church.
Again, I am going to have to do some reading, so bear with me.
Your posts are very helpful.
Thanks!
-
Is Dimond relaying Siscoe's argument that an internal heretic is not expelled from the Body of the Church, and then arguing that it does?
The video uses incredibly sloppy language.
I listened to the a few minutes of the video and it seems that it is saying that Siscoe claims that a person who publicly proclaims heresy cannot be considered a heretic because, until he's been judged by a competent authority, the heresy is, by definition, internal.
But it also seems that the Dimonds are arguing that an internal heretic is expelled from the Body of the Church rather than arguing that when a person who publicly expresses his heresy it is no longer internal since it is, obviously, public.
Their language in this video is not precise and, quite frankly, makes their arguments against Siscoe weak. There are other written refutations of Siscoe's thesis that are precise and strong that one should not resort to these people for their arguments.
I'd love to read them.
Can you provide links?
Thanks.
-
[Siscoe is] surely not trying to argue that these men are Catholic because their heresy is secret, it's anything but secret.
Just curious - did you read Siscoe's article? I have not.
R&R is a true no man's land, in that it' duplicity prevents it from answering unequivocally the question: Are They Catholic?
Do you think it is possible that Siscoe's article amounts to an absolute failure either to say They Ain't Catholic or They Is Catholic?
Does he comes out clearly for one or the other of these propositions?
Because surely, surely, surely to goodness, no one should take up the sword in this arena without a firm conviction one way or the other.
No?
-
Siscoe's argument seems to be a perfect summation of the anti-sedevacantist thesis at this point (after what, fifty years?). He has completely left alone the question of whether or not these men are Catholics . . .
Okay! That's what I get for not reading your whole post first!!!!!
Son of a gun!!!!
Siscoe dodged the bullet!!
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Be back later. Gotta go ride the bicycle!
-
[Siscoe is] surely not trying to argue that these men are Catholic because their heresy is secret, it's anything but secret.
Just curious - did you read Siscoe's article? I have not.
R&R is a true no man's land, in that it' duplicity prevents it from answering unequivocally the question: Are They Catholic?
Do you think it is possible that Siscoe's article amounts to an absolute failure either to say They Ain't Catholic or They Is Catholic?
Does he comes out clearly for one or the other of these propositions?
Because surely, surely, surely to goodness, no one should take up the sword in this arena without a firm conviction one way or the other.
No?
The question that you ask will not find an answer in R&R, it is a deadly third rail which no adherent will touch. But all of their arguments imply that they must, by some mechanism, be Catholic.
An R&R disciple never casts his gaze beyond the fence.
-
CD,
Forgive the physical length of this post, but I'm not saying a whole lot, just compiling all of your replies into one reply.
BPD has an interesting simplification of Siscoe's article, but my preferred simplification is: "Even if these men are not Catholic and not popes, you have to keep it to yourself."
In other words, even if it's true, you can't talk about it.
Your simplification indeed encapsulates the inherent duplicity of R&R.
R&R is a great example to give to demonstrate the meaning of the colloquialism: The Elephant in the Room.
I've been thinking a lot about whether there is a position or program of Catholic counter-revolution that avoids the pitfalls of both SV and R&R: Those pitfalls being division; internecine warfare; cafeteria defense of pet errors; failure to recognize, comprehend, defend, and teach the entire Deposit of Faith; growing ignorance among clergy and layfolk; stagnation of Catholic action; contraction - both numerical and doctrinal.
The working title for the new position is: PROPAGATE AND DENOUNCE
PROPAGATE: BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY - NUMERICALLY AND DOCTRINALLY
DENOUNCE: HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED, HE SHALL BE SAVED: BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE CONDEMNED
If I may, the "pitfalls" you describe are really just symptomatic of not having a pope. As the scriptures say, "when the shepherd is struck, the sheep will scatter." And scatter they have. The pet errors and other prideful clinging to political positions would, in normal times, receive rebukes from lawful authorities and the offenders would either shape up or face punishment-- and, most offenders presumably (hopefully!) being good Catholics, they would shape up. I don't anticipate an improvement in these pitfalls until the restoration occurs, if that is God's will (I like to think that it is).
[Dimond] doesn't actually touch on whether or not these men are Catholic (or popes).
That is correct, and that is why I find his presentation useful.
I think I know what Siscoe is trying to do. He is going after the First (and true) Premise of SV: They Ain't Catholic.
Like the SV's he tries to rebut, he is looking for logical closure. He possibly thinks that he cannot reach logical closure (except SV) if he admits the truth of the First Premise. Wherefore he seeks to falsify it in order to avoid having to arrive at the SV conclusion.
Dimond is sticking in this presentation to the defense of the truth of the First Premise, and I'm very happy he is doing that, because the truth of the First Premise of SV is what is hotly (and erroneously) denied by R&R. Their denial of this truth is what produces all of their bad fruits.
NOTE: This denial is sometimes explicit, and quite often implicit.
I am not promoting Dimond's presentation as the answer to any ultimate question. As I said, he is providing quite a lot of food for thought. I want to hear all arguments for the truth of the First Premise.
Siscoe is trying to come up with a reasoned analysis that falsifies the Premise. He has put forth more effort than many R&R proponents, who do more sidestepping. I commend him for trying, but he is not even remotely convincing. I agree with Dimond that he is blowing a lot of hot air. I also suspect that Dimond is right in calling out his argument as one that is novel and not backed up by Magisterial teaching authority.
Food for thought is what Tradition sorely needs, because Tradition has bogged itself down into two unsatisfactory positions that seem, at this late hour, to exist, not for the propagation and defense of the Faith, but solely to contradict one another.
Tradition has stopped multiplying. It is now in a terrible state of division, corruption, disrepair, and contraction. I hold that the sorry state of the Catholic counter-revolution is due entirely to endless artificial and sophistical posturing, at the expense of the propagation and defense of the integral Catholic Faith.
Neither SV nor R&R has been able to pull the Church out of Her tailspin. By their fruits we see that God is not happy with our current modes of operation.
I'm going to continue going through Dimond's presentation because I think he frames some excellent questions.
Thanks for your responses, Mith!
As you seem to remark later, the comment you quoted of mine was actually referring to Siscoe, not BPD.
I don't think that Siscoe is touching on the first premise of sedevacantism, and I would also say that I think one can argue for the sedevacantist case in more than one way, but there are two major ones: the one we are dealing with now, which is that these "popes" themselves are not Catholic and either fell from office due to public heresy, or, much more likely the case, never possessed it to begin with (especially in the cases of Ratzinger, Bergoglio and Wojtyla). Then another argument is that the doctrines of VII, and especially the True Mass cannot be products of the Catholic Church, therefore the men who issued and approved them cannot possibly be popes (because a true pope would be prevented from doing such a thing).
I honestly think that the second way is probably, overall, a more effective way of arguing. That isn't to say that the first is not effective, I just think the second is more effective.
As far as Siscoe not using magisterial docuмents, that doesn't really bother me. He used theologians, which he should. If he has some encyclical or council that supports him, then he can cite that but the truth of the matter is that this is a very specialized and localized issue, and there aren't any encyclicals or papal docuмents that deal in great depth with these issues. Not from his side, that is! But the fact that he relies on theologians is not a problem. That he quotes them very selectively and out of context to make them appear to agree with him, that's another matter entirely. But the Dimond's did the same thing with Pius XII in that video, to try to make him appear to teach that private heretics lose membership. This is why the theologians exist. They (especially in the plural) can be used to properly understand primary docuмents like encyclicals when there is a point of dispute.
Not to spin off too much, but I'm not sure that the fact that neither SV or R&R has been able to stop the "tailspin" of the Church is a good argument against either. I honestly do not know what will cause the restoration, but if it is God's will I have a difficult time thinking anything other than a major catastrophic event will. Nuclear war eliminating most of the world's population, leaving alive mainly faithful Catholics and the true successors to the apostles to rebuild the Church, some other man-made disaster such as a war resulting in the death/and or dethroning of the Vatican usurpers, some natural disaster which has the same effect or even a massive and worldwide (or darn near) apparition of sorts. The Church's credibility is shot, as it were. No one will take her seriously if the heretics in Rome just "convert" on a dime, and repudiate everything that happened over the last fifty years. At least, in my opinion. A massive and worldwide catastrophe from which the Church emerges triumphant, on the other hand, would definitely have that effect; even moreso were it accompanied by some blatant sign of the supernatural (e.g. an apparition). Point being, the last thing on most trads minds is actually taking action to solve the problem. And I can't say I blame them: what can one do? Honest question. I think we're all waiting for a miracle.
Is Dimond relaying Siscoe's argument that an internal heretic is not expelled from the Body of the Church, and then arguing that it does?
The video uses incredibly sloppy language.
I listened to the a few minutes of the video and it seems that it is saying that Siscoe claims that a person who publicly proclaims heresy cannot be considered a heretic because, until he's been judged by a competent authority, the heresy is, by definition, internal.
But it also seems that the Dimonds are arguing that an internal heretic is expelled from the Body of the Church rather than arguing that when a person who publicly expresses his heresy it is no longer internal since it is, obviously, public.
Their language in this video is not precise and, quite frankly, makes their arguments against Siscoe weak. There are other written refutations of Siscoe's thesis that are precise and strong that one should not resort to these people for their arguments.
I'd love to read them.
Can you provide links?
Thanks.
Pretty sure TKGS is referring to the bright boys on Bellarmine Forums work:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1606&sid=e4fc601b200c606fef917b4483fa89d4
Siscoe himself got involved in the thread (RJS). He, shall we say, revealed his character? The man has no business writing Catholic articles.
[Siscoe is] surely not trying to argue that these men are Catholic because their heresy is secret, it's anything but secret.
Just curious - did you read Siscoe's article? I have not.
R&R is a true no man's land, in that it' duplicity prevents it from answering unequivocally the question: Are They Catholic?
Do you think it is possible that Siscoe's article amounts to an absolute failure either to say They Ain't Catholic or They Is Catholic?
Does he comes out clearly for one or the other of these propositions?
Because surely, surely, surely to goodness, no one should take up the sword in this arena without a firm conviction one way or the other.
No?
Yes, I have read it. I read it first when Sean Johnson posted it as the most recent "Death Knell" to sedevacantism, among several other death knells it received in quite a short amount of time. I have not read it for probably two weeks so it isn't that fresh in my mind.
Essentially, Siscoe is content to argue a paralyzing legal technicality. He doesn't quite admit that they are public heretics (though he might as well have) but insists that even if they are, we can't regard them as such (and therefore can't regard them as antipopes) until the proper authorities admonish him (give him two warnings). And even then, I think he confuses the theological dispute over how such a man is "removed" from the office he "holds" (he isn't really holding it, of course) with actually judging a pope (not a "pope") as a heretic-- something which cannot be done, since the pope has no judge on earth. It's really a mess, to be honest.
As far as the warnings theory goes (to be a public heretic one must be warned twice by the proper authorities), his own source argues against him. Siscoe claims the admonishments have to come from some sort of ecclesiastical authority when the theologian he quotes on the issue actually says anyone can give the warning-- but of course, Siscoe doesn't quote his source saying that. This is all dealt with on the Bellarmine thread, as well. But even if that were true, what was Archbishop Lefebvre, de Castro Meyer and the conservative fathers at Vatican II doing if not admonishing these men?
It's really a joke. And what he's left with, as a conclusion, is having not dealt at all with whether or not these men are Catholic (or the second argument I alluded to earlier, which is whether or not the laws and liturgies and doctrines they've issued could have come from a Catholic pope) but has instead decided to rest his case on the idea that even if they were(anti-popes), we can't say that they are. It's a blatant disregard for the truth, which can never detract from God's glory.
So, I suppose I didn't answer your question as to whether or not he actually affirms or denies the statement "these men are Catholic." That's because he sidesteps the entire issue. He seems to admit that they aren't, tacitly, in the fact that he has written an article that takes as a premise that these men are public heretics, we just can't regard them as such. I mean, none of this would even be relevant if they hadn't committed such offenses, would it?
Siscoe's argument seems to be a perfect summation of the anti-sedevacantist thesis at this point (after what, fifty years?). He has completely left alone the question of whether or not these men are Catholics . . .
Okay! That's what I get for not reading your whole post first!!!!!
Son of a gun!!!!
Siscoe dodged the bullet!!
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Be back later. Gotta go ride the bicycle!
Well, that bullet has caught up to him with anyone who isn't content to take his word for it.
Have a fun ride!
-
Also of note, and not of little importance:
Siscoe treats the idea of a "heretic pope" (I.e. A pope who loses his office due to heresy) but this really isn't the route he should be taking, since with Ratzinger and Bergoglio ( and probably JPII as well) the argument isn't really that they lost the office but that they were never even validly elected to begin with. Understanding this undermines his entire argument, which is steeped in misconstrued legalisms surrounding the removal of such a man who was pope but is no longer. If the man was never pope to begin with, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, as they say.
-
Also of note, and not of little importance:
Siscoe treats the idea of a "heretic pope" (I.e. A pope who loses his office due to heresy) but this really isn't the route he should be taking, since with Ratzinger and Bergoglio ( and probably JPII as well) the argument isn't really that they lost the office but that they were never even validly elected to begin with. Understanding this undermines his entire argument, which is steeped in misconstrued legalisms surrounding the removal of such a man who was pope but is no longer. If the man was never pope to begin with, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, as they say.
Listening to Jim Condit Jr's interview we would have to include Roncalli and Montini as well.
That may be the case, but I tend to be excessively lenient in this regard. Maybe after I look more into the Siri thesis that will change, but for the time being I don't think that viewing John XXIII as a legitimate pope poses any serious difficulties, unlike (e.g.) viewing Paul VI as legitimate at least by December 1965 (possibly sooner).
-
I've been thinking a lot about whether there is a position or program of Catholic counter-revolution that avoids the pitfalls of both SV and R&R: Those pitfalls being division; internecine warfare; cafeteria defense of pet errors; failure to recognize, comprehend, defend, and teach the entire Deposit of Faith; growing ignorance among clergy and layfolk; stagnation of Catholic action; contraction - both numerical and doctrinal.
CD
For the supernatural love of yourself; realize that if the 'Trad Movement' is dead, that you are really 'required' to follow the obligations to save your soul. If anything, it will be more meritorious to fight for the glory of God during these times. Add too a merciful consideration at your personal judgment during your life's review before God -- that is, if you persevere till the end.
Yes, the 'Trad Movement' practically is dead. It is our own fault. It lacks sufficient love. We've ignored the principle of God "Who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." Tim 2:4. -- This passage as explained by St. Thomas (Commentary on I Timothy): "The answer is that willing refers sometimes to the will of His good pleasure and sometimes to the signified will. By His signified will He wills to save all, because He offers to all the precepts, counsels, and remedies required for salvation." pg. 264
We (Catholics) no longer put into practice being conduits of God's grace to the unbeliever. We are too insular, to judgmental of different people without a framework of supernatural loving to try to be force to stop them from going to hell forever. The Trad movement, to an unfortunate degree is fruitless, sterile, and is more about 'religiosity' than learning how to get over our insecurities, introversion to at least improve (even if it's a little bit) in how we can be the salt of the earth by our actions to those who don't believe.
You can know all the Theology in the world, be right on all of the positions, yet go straight to Hell, because you lacked charity -- ie "He who has My commandments, and keeps them; he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me, will be loved by my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him." John 14:21. This passage as explained by St. Thomas (Commentary on the Gospel of John): "Note that true love is love which appears and proves itself by actions: for love is revealed by actions. Since to love someone is to will that person something good and to desire what this person wants, one does not seem to truly love a person if he does not accomplish the will of the beloved or do what he knows this person wants. And so one who does not do the Will of God does not seem to truly love Him. Thus He says, he who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me, that is, with a true love for Me." Which ties in to...
"By this will all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love one for another." John 13:35. Again, using St. Thomas' explanation: "Then when He says, by this will all men know that you are My disciples, He gives the reason for following this command: Here we should note that one who is in the army of a King should wear this emblem. The emblem of Christ is the emblem of charity. So anyone who wants to be in the army of Christ should be stamped with the emblem of charity. This is what He is saying here: by this will all men know that you are my disciples..." pg. 220. which goes into
To be ready to explain to anyone who asks, that Christ founded a Church to continue His saving mission. In this respect, supernatural love of neighbor, is going to will what is best for their eternal destiny. In this, we are all called to contribute in this saving mission of Christ. To each person, their calling is different. For some it might be at home or Church praying for the conversion of sinners and offering your Crosses, ...for another, it might be planting a seed to a pagan and by your actions, showing them the reason for our hope in Christ and then being ready for discourse. At some level, familarity with Bible passages since that is the common ground between us an Protestants. Here, I will say that the Dimond's "The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church" is extremely useful (don't worry, doesn't go into the Sede issues/ or BOD stuff; it's purely the biblical basis for the Catholic teachings on like the Papacy, Confession, Purgatory; etc.).
On the SV issue and the BOD issue; both take precious time away from each individual in the Trad movement into taking their practice of the Faith to the next level... or into never stop making improvements in how they love God and proving it by their actions (by not sinning and by keeping the Commandments and the great precepts to love God and our Neighbor as our self).
-
Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church
Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this. Can you give the title of the work? Is is purchasable today or out of print?
-
Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church
Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this. Can you give the title of the work? Is is purchasable today or out of print?
Magna,
Pleased that you found it helpful! I scanned it because I think it is the best summary of the doctrine I've come across. The book is "Dogmatic Theology Volume 2: Christ's Church" by Mgr. G. Van Noort. It is the second in a three volume series. The book is out of print, though second-hand copies can be found easily enough on Amazon, Abe Books or Ebay. Typically they seem to go for around twenty USD per volume, and the third volume is often closer to forty USD. However, I found some book sellers on Amazon who apparently didn't know what they had and was able to get each copy for around 10 USD (shipping included) so I ended up with a set for at least half of what one would normally pay. Point being, if you can afford it at the steeper prices go for it; if you can't, patience will reward you and you might find someone selling them pretty cheap.
Some other sections of the book are online, though not as scans. If you go back to the scribd link, I've also scanned a few pages from the same author on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that you can find by clicking on my screen name on the scribd site (I believe I titled it "Van Noort on the OUM"). Otherwise, strobertbellarmine.net has uploaded the chapters on infallibility and a few marks of the Church in text format. Here is a link: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/doctrine.html (in this link there is also the entire of Wilhelm and Scannel's two volume work, transcribed in full, and other useful resources).
ETA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM <-- Link to the aforementioned section on the OUM. It's only three pages, since when I scanned it the point of contention was the nature of the teaching authority of the bishops together with the pope-- hence why I stopped scanning at "ecuмenical councils."
-
Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church
Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this. Can you give the title of the work? Is is purchasable today or out of print?
Magna,
Pleased that you found it helpful! I scanned it because I think it is the best summary of the doctrine I've come across. The book is "Dogmatic Theology Volume 2: Christ's Church" by Mgr. G. Van Noort. It is the second in a three volume series. The book is out of print, though second-hand copies can be found easily enough on Amazon, Abe Books or Ebay. Typically they seem to go for around twenty USD per volume, and the third volume is often closer to forty USD. However, I found some book sellers on Amazon who apparently didn't know what they had and was able to get each copy for around 10 USD (shipping included) so I ended up with a set for at least half of what one would normally pay. Point being, if you can afford it at the steeper prices go for it; if you can't, patience will reward you and you might find someone selling them pretty cheap.
Some other sections of the book are online, though not as scans. If you go back to the scribd link, I've also scanned a few pages from the same author on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that you can find by clicking on my screen name on the scribd site (I believe I titled it "Van Noort on the OUM"). Otherwise, strobertbellarmine.net has uploaded the chapters on infallibility and a few marks of the Church in text format. Here is a link: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/doctrine.html (in this link there is also the entire of Wilhelm and Scannel's two volume work, transcribed in full, and other useful resources).
ETA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM <-- Link to the aforementioned section on the OUM. It's only three pages, since when I scanned it the point of contention was the nature of the teaching authority of the bishops together with the pope-- hence why I stopped scanning at "ecuмenical councils."
Very helpful, again - thank you!
I've been following your arguments on two forums and appreciate the simplicity and understandability with which you present them. If you don't mind, I would present two points that seem to militate against the sedevacantist position, in case you can give a similarly simple (and thus easy for you) answer.
1. Our Lady says there will be a pope who will do the consecration of Russia. Is the apparition of Fatima to be dismissed, or do we assume a divine intervention which results in the appointment of a true pope who then does the consecration?
2. Wouldn't it be fair to expect more obvious fruits in the sedevacantist camp, at least relative to the SSPX, if they hold the true position? Sedevacantists are often represented (by their opponents) as infighters casting anathemas against each other.
-
Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church
Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this. Can you give the title of the work? Is is purchasable today or out of print?
Magna,
Pleased that you found it helpful! I scanned it because I think it is the best summary of the doctrine I've come across. The book is "Dogmatic Theology Volume 2: Christ's Church" by Mgr. G. Van Noort. It is the second in a three volume series. The book is out of print, though second-hand copies can be found easily enough on Amazon, Abe Books or Ebay. Typically they seem to go for around twenty USD per volume, and the third volume is often closer to forty USD. However, I found some book sellers on Amazon who apparently didn't know what they had and was able to get each copy for around 10 USD (shipping included) so I ended up with a set for at least half of what one would normally pay. Point being, if you can afford it at the steeper prices go for it; if you can't, patience will reward you and you might find someone selling them pretty cheap.
Some other sections of the book are online, though not as scans. If you go back to the scribd link, I've also scanned a few pages from the same author on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that you can find by clicking on my screen name on the scribd site (I believe I titled it "Van Noort on the OUM"). Otherwise, strobertbellarmine.net has uploaded the chapters on infallibility and a few marks of the Church in text format. Here is a link: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/doctrine.html (in this link there is also the entire of Wilhelm and Scannel's two volume work, transcribed in full, and other useful resources).
ETA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM <-- Link to the aforementioned section on the OUM. It's only three pages, since when I scanned it the point of contention was the nature of the teaching authority of the bishops together with the pope-- hence why I stopped scanning at "ecuмenical councils."
Very helpful, again - thank you!
I've been following your arguments on two forums and appreciate the simplicity and understandability with which you present them. If you don't mind, I would present two points that seem to militate against the sedevacantist position, in case you can give a similarly simple (and thus easy for you) answer.
1. Our Lady says there will be a pope who will do the consecration of Russia. Is the apparition of Fatima to be dismissed, or do we assume a divine intervention which results in the appointment of a true pope who then does the consecration?
2. Wouldn't it be fair to expect more obvious fruits in the sedevacantist camp, at least relative to the SSPX, if they hold the true position? Sedevacantists are often represented (by their opponents) as infighters casting anathemas against each other.
1) I see no reason to dismiss Fatima. Are you aware that what is probably the largest sedevacantist priestly group is actually more or less "based" on Our Lady of Fatima and holds "Fatima Conferences?" That would be the CMRI. That there is not a pope now does not mean there will not be one in the future. Sedevacantism simply understood (that there has not been a pope for about fifty years, or if you prefer, that the conciliar claimants aren't popes without making a claim to whether or not there is a pope somewhere else) does not pose a difficulty to Our Lady of Fatima.
I would add, though, that if a given Catholic wants to delve into the intricacies of the crisis and try to "figure out" what happened by applying Catholic principles to the series of events over the last century (esp. the last fifty years) that the last thing that should come into consideration is private revelation. And by last I don't mean that it doesn't factor in, I literally mean that chronologically we should not factor them in until we've already factored in the deposit of faith, right reason and the method(s) of the theologians in arriving at conclusions and then, having come to (or close to) a conclusion by understanding these events with a mind of the Church as handed down by her reliable teaching authority (and authorities) see how the events relate to private revelation. This is of course my opinion, and I really do mean this only as concerns an order of operations; I certainly don't mean to imply in any way at all that private revelation (esp. Fatima and La Salette) don't have a "part to play" in these events, as it were.
2) No, I don't think so because when the shepherd is struck the sheep will scatter. What we are enduring as traditional Catholics (forget sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists for a moment) is all symptomatic of the Church without a proper visible head. The pope is the principle of unity for the Church, and the members of the Church are "wounded" in a sense without him. Divisions are to be expected, though I would object to saying these are unique to sedevacantists. I'd first point out that even with ALL the divisions throughout Tradition, these divisions pale in comparison to the divisions within the Novus Ordo, which is not unified except in how it rejects the Catholic faith, which is to say that it isn't unified at all. What is it, some seventy percent deny the real presence? Some twenty percent actually go to "mass?" Vast majorities approve of birth control, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and co-habitation. At least traditionalists are all Catholic. Controversy is nothing new, the difference is that in times past there was always an authority to appeal to and the authority would settle the conflict; we are without that authority so it is only "natural" that the state of affairs is as it is.
I would also point out that so far as I understand it, "fruits" are not "results" but doctrine. When Our Lord says that you will know them by their fruits, He doesn't mean that you will know them by the amount of people who follow them or the amount of Churches they set up (though this can be an indication, no doubt) but by what they express, i.e. the faith they profess. To help better understand this, you can consider any time in Christendom where a given diocese fell on hard times and lost property or faithful. The proper action for a Catholic in that diocese is not to avoid the local bishop and boycott the local parishes, quite the opposite. On the other hand, if the local bishop teaches a gospel other than has been handed down, as St. Paul says, "let him be anathema." The fruits are doctrines, not the temporal "success" or lackthereof. If one teaches a false gospel, he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and it is that fruit (the false gospel) which we know him by.
-
Thanks Mith, again, for your efforts to answer the questions of a newly-confused Catholic. Newly confused because prior to the obvious disintegration of the SSPX, this supporter did not spend much time considering the arguments of the sedevacantists.
I’m still thinking over your answer, and am not sure if it’s correct to categorize fruits as doctrine. I would have defined doctrine as the necessary qualification to be Catholic, and the question of whether the man holding the office of pope is really pope as an arguable point subject to reason and Catholic principles. The more I look at the arguments of and supporting material for the sedevacantist positon, the stronger its case looks.
At the same time, the fruits of the SSPX and its R&R position are not looking so good with the passage of time….
Can I run one more question by you? Isn’t it true that the three high priests during the time of the Macchabees were all essentially apostates, and yet they were never considered as other than valid high priests? Is there a perfect identity between the office of high priest and pope?
-
I forgot to mention that your point, taken from church history, that good works on the part of saints and ordinary Catholics were often-times brought to collapse or destruction, with no reflection on the movement or the person(s), is well taken.
-
Thanks Mith, again, for your efforts to answer the questions of a newly-confused Catholic. Newly confused because prior to the obvious disintegration of the SSPX, this supporter did not spend much time considering the arguments of the sedevacantists.
I’m still thinking over your answer, and am not sure if it’s correct to categorize fruits as doctrine. I would have defined doctrine as the necessary qualification to be Catholic, and the question of whether the man holding the office of pope is really pope as an arguable point subject to reason and Catholic principles. The more I look at the arguments of and supporting material for the sedevacantist positon, the stronger its case looks.
At the same time, the fruits of the SSPX and its R&R position are not looking so good with the passage of time….
Can I run one more question by you? Isn’t it true that the three high priests during the time of the Macchabees were all essentially apostates, and yet they were never considered as other than valid high priests? Is there a perfect identity between the office of high priest and pope?
As far as fruits, maybe you'd like to refer to Fr. Haydock's commentary on the passage in question:
Ver. 16. As the true Church is known by the four marks of its being one, holy, catholic, and apostolical, so heretics and false teachers are known by certain vices, and the pernicious effects of their novelties in religion. As the true Church is one, by its members submitting with humility to the authority established by Christ, (he that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as the heathen and the publican. Matthew xviii. 17.) so are false teachers known by their separation from the ancient Church, and their divisions among themselves, the necessary consequences of rebelling against the authority established by Christ, and alone capable of determining controversies. The same pride and other secret vices which make them despise government, (2 Peter ii. 10.) make them also not afraid to bring in sects of perdition, blaspheming, and this in civil government as well as ecclesiastical. Those that call themselves Reformers, in the beginning of the 16th century, of all others were remarkable in this. What bloody tumults and wars were there not produced in Germany, by the first Reformers in that country! Calvin overturned the government of Geneva; and his followers, under the name Hugonots, filled France for a great length of time with slaughter and cινιℓ ωαrs, frequently shaking the throne itself. In this country, the first cause of its separation from the universal Church, was the unbridled passion of a tyrant: the effects were adultery, and the murder of the successive queens that he had taken to his adulterous bed. In the reign of his successor, the insatiate avarice of a corrupt nobility, gratified with the sacrilegious plunder of the Church, established what is called the Reformation. The fear of being compelled to disgorge the fruits of their rapine, contributed much to the confirmation of that order of things in the reign of Elizabeth. She was inclined to it by the circuмstances of her birth, which could not be legitimate, if her father's marriage with Catharine of Arragon was valid, as the first authority in the Catholic Church had declared. The natural spirit of this heresy, though checked a while and kept under by the despotical government of this queen, appeared in its own colours soon after, and produced its natural fruits in the turbulence of the times that succeeded, and the multiplicity of sects that are continually springing up to this very day. --- As the true Church is holy, recommending various exercises of religion tending to purify human nature, and render men holy, as fasting, confession of sins, evangelical counsels, &c. so false teachers cast off all these, promising liberty, (2 Peter ii. 16.[19.?]) and giving full rein to the lustful passions, thus giving a liberty of living, as well as a liberty of believing. --- Another fruit of false teachers is, separation from what was the Universal Church before their time, and which continues to be still the far greater part, not being confined to one state or country. If some modern principles, of not allowing any communion of religion out of each state, were admitted, as many religions should have been established by heaven as men think proper to establish different states; nor could Christ have given one for all mankind, under whatever state or form of government they might live. --- Finally, false teachers are to known by their not being able to shew, that they have received their doctrine and mission from the apostles, in a regular succession from them. Some of our modern divines would spurn at the idea of holding their doctrine and orders from the Catholic Church, such as it existed at the time of the Reformation, which is precisely such as it exists at the present moment. --- In answer to this it has been retorted, that the fruits of the Catholic religion have been as bad, or worse; and the horrors of the French revolution are particularly mentioned, as a proof. ... That great crimes have been committed by those who professed themselves Catholics, is not denied; but that they were prompted to them by the nature of their religion, is certainly not admitted. The revolution of France in particular, was the effect of the people falling off from their religion. As well may the Puritans, that brought Charles to the block, be said to be Catholics, because they or their parents once had been such: as well may the present bench of Protestant bishops be said to be Catholics, because the bishops of their sees once were so; or that Robespierre, Marat, and the Jacobins that persecuted catholicity in France, and brought its too indulgent sovereigns to the guillotine, were Catholics, or directed in the least by Catholic principles. (Haydock)
Source: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id21.html
And likewise, the commentary of the erudite Cornelius Lapide:
By their fruits, &c. Do men gather? As grapes are not wont to be produced by or gathered off thorns, nor figs off thistles, so in like manner, no good or sweet fruit can be collected from heresy,or heretics, but only harsh and thorny fruit. This fruit is of two kinds—1. Of false doctrine; 2. Of bad morals and wickedness. Luther and Calvin have given examples in this age. For Luther teaches that vows are not binding upon the religious: that man does not possess free will, that he is the slave of necessity, that he must sin: that faith alone justifies: that good works have no merit before God. Calvin teaches that God is the author of evils: that Christ despaired on the Cross, that He felt the pains of hell, &c.; which things are downright blasphemy, and contrary to the natural law and to reason. Calvin also maintained that the Faith, by which he meant his own perversion of it, should be defended and propagated by force of arms, even by the slaughter of lawful princes and kings, of bishops, priests, and Catholics who opposed it. Whence we have heard of, and almost seen with our eyes in England, France, and Germany, so many murders, robberies, banishments of priests and Catholics, and a vast deluge of iniquity, and as it were a universal conflagration of goodness. We have seen the Blessed Sacraments profaned, the Holy Sacrifice abolished, vows broken, the saints contemned, churches burnt, the sacred canons set at nought, virgins violated, and all such like. For, as John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who, with Thomas More, was a glorious martyr in England under Henry VIII., truly says, “Lust is at once the mother and the child of heresy.”
So every good tree, &c. “For a good tree is not distinguished from an evil one by its leaves or flowers,” says S. Bernard (Epist. 107), but by its fruit.
Observe, 1. By good tree in this place, we are not to understand a good will, or charity, and by a corrupt tree an evil will, as S. Augustine, Chrysostom, and others think, but a good or bad teacher, for about these the words immediately preceding are spoken.
Note, 2. By the fruit of the tree, i.e., of a doctor, must be understood his doctrine, which comes forth true from a true teacher, false from a false one.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, &c. “A thorn tree cannot produce grapes, nor thistles figs, but a thorn must produce thorns, and a thistle thistles, as I have said; and vice versa, a vine cannot produce thorns, but grapes; and although the grapes and the figs should not ripen, but remain sour, that does not arise from the fault of the vine, or the fig-tree, but from unseasonable weather, and deficiency of the sun’s heat. In like manner a prophet, that is, a true teacher, cannot teach false doctrine, nor can a false teacher teach the truth, or act altogether rightly and holily. You must take this in a composite and formal sense, so far, that is, as the teacher is good or bad; because in a concrete and material sense, the good doctor may fall away from his goodness, and teach or do wicked things. The Scribes taught right, but their deeds were evil. The converse also of this is sometimes true.
Many heretics have wrested this sentence of Christ, applying it falsely for establishing their own heresies. For first, the Manichæans endeavoured to prove from it that some men are by nature good and others evil; or that there are two natural Principles, one good, which makes some men good; the other evil, which makes some men bad. 2. Jovinian maintained from these words that a man who is born of God is not able to commit sin. (See S. Jerome, contra Jovinian.) 3. The Pelagians inferred from it that there is no original sin, because from a good marriage as from a good tree, such an evil fruit as sin cannot be produced. Teste S. Augustine (lib. de Nupt. et Concup. c. 26). 4. The Donatists gathered from it that wicked priests, as bad trees, cannot properly baptize. 5. The Calvinists argue from it that there is no free will in man to bring forth good works, or bad. The same infer from it that we are not justified by good works, but only declared righteous, since a tree is not made good by its good fruits, but is manifested by them to be good. But all these things are falsely inferred. They have none of them anything to do with the passage. For Christ properly applies this maxim only to prophets, that is to true or false teachers, as I have said.
Source: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/7matth.htm
Point made short: Indeed, "fruits" refers to doctrine more than anything else. :)
As far as your question re: Machabees, the office of the High Priesthood is not analogous with the papacy. They are extraordinarily different. But, if you think better by analogies, could a woman Zoroastrian be the High Priest? Why not?
-
Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church
Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this. Can you give the title of the work? Is is purchasable today or out of print?
Magna,
Pleased that you found it helpful! I scanned it because I think it is the best summary of the doctrine I've come across. The book is "Dogmatic Theology Volume 2: Christ's Church" by Mgr. G. Van Noort. It is the second in a three volume series. The book is out of print, though second-hand copies can be found easily enough on Amazon, Abe Books or Ebay. Typically they seem to go for around twenty USD per volume, and the third volume is often closer to forty USD. However, I found some book sellers on Amazon who apparently didn't know what they had and was able to get each copy for around 10 USD (shipping included) so I ended up with a set for at least half of what one would normally pay. Point being, if you can afford it at the steeper prices go for it; if you can't, patience will reward you and you might find someone selling them pretty cheap.
Some other sections of the book are online, though not as scans. If you go back to the scribd link, I've also scanned a few pages from the same author on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that you can find by clicking on my screen name on the scribd site (I believe I titled it "Van Noort on the OUM"). Otherwise, strobertbellarmine.net has uploaded the chapters on infallibility and a few marks of the Church in text format. Here is a link: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/doctrine.html (in this link there is also the entire of Wilhelm and Scannel's two volume work, transcribed in full, and other useful resources).
ETA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM <-- Link to the aforementioned section on the OUM. It's only three pages, since when I scanned it the point of contention was the nature of the teaching authority of the bishops together with the pope-- hence why I stopped scanning at "ecuмenical councils."
Prices have gone up! Is the 1961 edition as good as earlier editions?
-
Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church
Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this. Can you give the title of the work? Is is purchasable today or out of print?
Magna,
Pleased that you found it helpful! I scanned it because I think it is the best summary of the doctrine I've come across. The book is "Dogmatic Theology Volume 2: Christ's Church" by Mgr. G. Van Noort. It is the second in a three volume series. The book is out of print, though second-hand copies can be found easily enough on Amazon, Abe Books or Ebay. Typically they seem to go for around twenty USD per volume, and the third volume is often closer to forty USD. However, I found some book sellers on Amazon who apparently didn't know what they had and was able to get each copy for around 10 USD (shipping included) so I ended up with a set for at least half of what one would normally pay. Point being, if you can afford it at the steeper prices go for it; if you can't, patience will reward you and you might find someone selling them pretty cheap.
Some other sections of the book are online, though not as scans. If you go back to the scribd link, I've also scanned a few pages from the same author on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that you can find by clicking on my screen name on the scribd site (I believe I titled it "Van Noort on the OUM"). Otherwise, strobertbellarmine.net has uploaded the chapters on infallibility and a few marks of the Church in text format. Here is a link: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/doctrine.html (in this link there is also the entire of Wilhelm and Scannel's two volume work, transcribed in full, and other useful resources).
ETA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM <-- Link to the aforementioned section on the OUM. It's only three pages, since when I scanned it the point of contention was the nature of the teaching authority of the bishops together with the pope-- hence why I stopped scanning at "ecuмenical councils."
Prices have gone up! Is the 1961 edition as good as earlier editions?
Each of my volumes appears to have a different publication date-- vol. III being published in 1961. I don't see it as an issue.
-
Point made short: Indeed, "fruits" refers to doctrine more than anything else. :)
As far as your question re: Machabees, the office of the High Priesthood is not analogous with the papacy. They are extraordinarily different. But, if you think better by analogies, could a woman Zoroastrian be the High Priest? Why not?
Hello Mith. Finally I've been able to read carefully the source material you provided. Obviously you are correct. Of course it's also rather deflating to see how far afield an ordinary Catholic can go in understanding simple scriptural passages without a solid Catholic guide.
To further humble myself, I have to confess that your analogy re the relationship of high priest to pope (or rather the lack of thereof) is not enlightening me.
-
Each of my volumes appears to have a different publication date-- vol. III being published in 1961. I don't see it as an issue.
Thank you!
-
Point made short: Indeed, "fruits" refers to doctrine more than anything else. :)
As far as your question re: Machabees, the office of the High Priesthood is not analogous with the papacy. They are extraordinarily different. But, if you think better by analogies, could a woman Zoroastrian be the High Priest? Why not?
Hello Mith. Finally I've been able to read carefully the source material you provided. Obviously you are correct. Of course it's also rather deflating to see how far afield an ordinary Catholic can go in understanding simple scriptural passages without a solid Catholic guide.
To further humble myself, I have to confess that your analogy re the relationship of high priest to pope (or rather the lack of thereof) is not enlightening me.
The analogy between the papacy and the High-priesthood isn't really a good analogy because there are some pretty significant differences between the Old and New testament. But the question I asked you was meant to drive to the heart of the matter, which is that even under the Old Covenant there were pre-requisites to being part of the Covenant, and to belonging to the High Priesthood. A Pagan could not be the High Priest; a non-member of the Catholic Church can't be pope.
-
The sedevacantist position is schismatic. It has been said that schism is a sin against charity. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Dimond "brothers" have no charity.
People who murder innocent babies do evil. Oops. I sinned against charity. Facts cannot be stated unless they are positive otherwise we sin against charity. Some people don't have a clue. Oops. I mean everyone is right no matter how wrong.