Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on May 28, 2015, 06:56:37 AM
-
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/spanish-original-heresy.htm
Spanish Original shows Francis admitted his Teaching is “perhaps a Heresy, I don’t know”
francis-admits-words-heretical.jpg
Heresy in a “Pontifical” Message? Who cares? Certainly not Francis!
The times we live in are so absurd, they make the television show Twilight Zone look like reality TV by comparison. Two days ago we reported on “Pope” Francis’ video message to the ecuмenical John 17 Movement in the United States, which he released on May 23, 2015. As the full video had not yet been released at the time of our posting, nor a full transcript in the original Spanish, we relied on the English translation provided by Vatican Radio. If you have not yet seen our post, you can read it here:
Francis in Message to Ecuмenical Event: “I feel like saying something that may sound … heretical”
Now that the Vatican web site has released full transcripts of the video message in the original Spanish and the video itself has appeared online in its entirety, we can have a fuller look at Francis’ words. First, a link to the Vatican’s transcript of the original text in Spanish:
Spanish Original Transcript: Videomensaje del Santo Padre Francisco con ocasion de la Jornada de Unidad Cristiana (Vatican.va)
The full video, in Spanish, can be viewed below. But be careful — the English subtitles provided are not a verbatim translation:
The original Spanish text that is the subject of all the controversy is the following sentence (in the video above beginning at the 4:11 mark): “Y me viene a la mente decir algo que puede ser una insensatez, o quizás una herejía, no sé.” The Vatican’s official translation renders this incorrectly as follows: “I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps.” In our post from two days ago, we took this translation at face value (and if he had said this, it would have been bad enough!), but the actual words literally translated are even worse. The following is an accurate translation from the Spanish (which can be verified by anyone competent in the language):
“And it comes to my mind to say something that may be foolish or perhaps a heresy, I don't know.”
This is what Francis said. Note that, in contrast to the Vatican’s English translation, Francis did not say that it may perhaps “sound” like a heresy, but that it may perhaps “be” a heresy! The candidness of this admission is beyond stunning. Not even we at Novus Ordo Watch would have ever imagined that a Vatican II Antipope would ever be so bold and preface a heresy with the declaration, “This is perhaps a heresy”!
Really, the Francis “pontificate” is Sedevacantism for Dummies. He’s now telling his adherents to their face that he is a heretic! No, not simply a heretic “perhaps” but for sure, not only because what he said after this prefatory remark was indeed frightening heresy (his “ecuмenism of blood” and “Protestants and Catholics are one” heresies — see our original post), but also because he expressed very clearly that he is absolutely willing to adhere to and teach heresy, even though — thus he claimed — he “does not know” whether this particular idea is heretical or not. Even if he doesn’t know, the fact that he is willing to teach and adhere to it regardless shows his heretical depravity. An analogy will help: A deer hunter who sees a creature move in the forest but cannot tell whether it is a deer or a human being but shoots nonetheless is morally (though not legally) guilty of murder, because sin exists in the will, and he is clearly showing himself to be willing to shoot a human being if that’s what it should turn out to be. Similarly, here in Francis we have someone who, claiming ignorance, is perfectly willing to preach heresy to the world, because by his own admission what he is saying may very well be a heresy and this does not deter him.
As we explained in our original post, Francis claims to hold the office of the papacy, and therefore he has no excuse whatsoever for his words. Assuming for a minute for the sake of argument that Francis were a true and valid Pope, we can say that it is his duty — his more than anyone else’s in the entire world — to know whether what he teaches to others is heresy or not. The fact that he so casually quips, “I don’t know”, only underscores the perverse will of this man, who does not care whether he teaches heresy in place of the Gospel. Sorry, but a nonchalant “I don’t know” doesn’t cut it if you’re the “Pope”. Why does he not know? It is his job to know, if he’s the Pope! And if he truly doesn’t know, why doesn’t he go find out before he contradicts revealed truth for which the Apostles and so many martyrs over the centuries gave their lives (not to mention our Blessed Lord Himself)?
He does not care. Whether his teaching is heretical or not, he will hold it either way and he wants you to embrace it — this is the message he is sending. If he is truly ignorant on the matter, then his ignorance is 100% culpable. A man who is entirely capable of discovering the truth and whose strict obligation is to know the truth on a given point of doctrine, but nevertheless chooses not to educate himself on the matter and yet presumes to teach others, is so gravely culpable for his ignorance that morally and legally (i.e. in terms of both sin and Church law) he is clearly pertinacious in his heresy (cf. Canon 2229). All this jibes entirely with everything we’ve been saying about the man from day one. Just remember, you heard it here first.
Meanwhile… We predicted in our original post that the Novus Ordo Sect’s apologists would now rush to Francis’ defense to “explain” to us what he “really” said or meant. And sure enough, it did not take long for Jimmy Akin, Francis’ de facto staff verbal acrobat, to chime in and post “9 Things to Know and Share” in his umpteenth “Did Pope Francis really…?” post.
akin-francis-heretical.jpg
Unfortunately, Akin’s post is mostly focused on a particular flawed story on this published by the Novus Ordo Zenit news agency (see here). Akin spends most of his time explaining — quite correctly — that the Zenit story is wrong in asserting that Francis said Jesus Christ does not care what kind of Christian you are. Even though Francis no doubt holds this heresy too, this is not what he said in his “Pontifical Message” to the John 17 Movement we have been discussing, so on this score Akin is correct.
However, as part of his 9-point post, Akin the Acrobat does at some point address the sentence in which Francis admits he is perhaps uttering heresy. Pay close attention especially to the words we have colored blue:
5) Why does the pope describe his remark as something “that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps”?
Presumably because it’s an unfamiliar thought for many.
The idea that the devil stirs up persecution of Christians without respect to their particular affiliation, precisely because he knows that they are all Christians, is not something that one commonly hears—particularly in an age when many people aren’t even comfortable talking about the devil.
I can imagine any number of modernist theologians taking exception to this thought. That, of itself, could result in it sounding controversial.
6) Why did he say it might sound “even heretical, perhaps”?
The most likely explanation is that this is a touch of hyperbole, or exaggeration to make a point.
The pope is speaking informally, and his words have to be understood accordingly.
In Catholic theology, the term “heresy” has a precise, technical meaning: The obstinate post-baptismal doubt or denial of a truth that must be believed with divine faith (i.e., God has revealed it) and with Catholic faith (i.e., because the Church has infallibly defined it as such).
Since he is speaking to an ecuмenical group that consists largely or principally of non-Catholics, he cannot expect them to interpret the word “heretical” in the technical, Catholic sense.
This is further confirmed by the fact that there would be no grounds on which to criticize his main proposition–that the devil stirs up persecution against Christians because they are Christians–as heretical in the technical sense. God has not revealed that the devil does not persecute Christians of all stripes because they are Christians, and the Church has not infallibly defined that God has revealed this.
As a result, the pope isn’t using the term “heretical” in its technical sense. He’s speaking informally and hyperbolically.
Properly speaking, his proposal not only isn’t heretical, it doesn’t even sound heretical.
In rhetorical terms, the function of including the statement is to draw a line under what he is about to say, to call attention to it and invite people to think about it rather than passing over it quickly.
(“Did Pope Francis say it doesn’t matter what kind of Christian you are? 9 things to know and share”, JimmyAkin.com, May 26, 2015; bold and italics in original; blue font added for emphasis.)
For this impressive hermeneutical stunt alone, Jimmy Akin deserves to be the Novus Ogre of the year and to have his salary raised to 30 pieces of silver a day. This is what we call spin, as opposed to interpretation. But then again, what can you expect from a man who argued that when Francis called Christ’s Miracle of the Multiplication of the Loaves a “parable”, he didn’t mean “parable”, and that when Francis told Eugenio Scalfari that he does not want to convert him, he really meant that he does want to convert him?
Let’s examine what Akin says.
His first assertion that Francis used the term “heretical” (as well as “controversial”) to refer to his own claptrap “presumably because it’s an unfamiliar thought to many” is beyond laughable. Whether something is unfamiliar or not has nothing to do with it being truth or heresy. Besides, Francis did not use the term “controversial” at all, but rather “foolishness” or “senselessness” (insensatez), something that doesn’t help Akin’s case. Neither did Francis use the phrase “sound controversial/heretical” but “be controversial/heretical”.
Which brings us to an important point: Somehow in this post, Jimmy Akin did not bother to look at the original Spanish text as read by Francis and published on the Vatican web site. This is something Akin habitually does for other posts, and you’d think he would do it for sure when a word as serious as “heretical” is being used. But not in this case. Gee, we wonder why! True, at first the text was not available in the original Spanish, but why did Akin not delay his post or at least state, “It will be necessary to examine closely the original Spanish first once it is released”? Novus Ordo apologists are usually the first to point to alleged faulty translations when someone accuses Francis of having said something erroneous. Why not here?
head-against-wall.jpg
What Akin thinks of his audience’s intelligence is revealed in what he says next, where he has the boldness to assert that when Francis calls his own teaching “maybe a heresy”, he is merely using “hyperbole” in order “to make a point” and “underscore” what he is saying! Just how much dumber can it get? Does Akin think his readers are all a bunch of nitwits?! Could you imagine a true Pope addressing a group of Protestants, teaching them the Faith (which a real Pope would do), and then saying, “This could be a heresy, I don’t know” — in order to emphasize his point?! Hello? Is anybody home??
Calling your own thoughts “possibly heretical” doesn’t emphasize them, it negates them, it renders them, at best, weak, unimportant, and deserving of scorn. It means you yourself are not certain that what you’re saying is valid and correct or diametrically opposed to divine truth. Hardly the way for a “Pope” to “make a point” so that people “think about” it and not simply “pass over” it. Sorry, Jimmy, you scored an own-goal here.
Oh, but then Akin the Acrobat assures us that Francis wasn’t using the label “heretical” in its “technical sense”! That saves the day, right?! He was only speaking “informally”!
Actually, no, he wasn’t. His message was not an informal, off-the-top-of-your-head thing, it was a formal “Pontifical Message” (according to the Vatican web site), scripted and pre-recorded on video (i.e. not broadcast live), read by the “Pope” himself. There was no element of surprise, and the whole thing could have been edited, should Francis have seen the need after the fact. No, blaming the mess he made on “informality” isn’t going to help either.
We will gloss over Akin’s convenient claim that what Francis said “not only isn’t heretical, it doesn’t even sound heretical” because we have proved in our original post that his “ecuмenism of blood” is heresy indeed, contradicting the infallible definition of the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century that no one can be saved who dies outside the Catholic Church, even if he spill his blood for Christ.
twilight-zone.jpg
So, let’s summarize. In Francis we have someone who, for decades, has preached and practiced heresy and other doctrinal error ad nauseam, who even as “Pope” has made clear that he is not concerned about orthodoxy in the Church, that he does not care if “cardinals” complain that his favorite theologian (Walter Kasper) is a heretic, that he does not believe in a Catholic God, that he believes the Blessed Virgin Mary might have blasphemed at Calvary, that the souls in hell do not suffer eternal punishment but are instead annihilated, that he does not care if a child is raised Catholic or any other religion, that the Jews have their own valid covenant with God, that Muslims can find hope and solace in the Koran and in their “Faith”, that the observance of the Muslim Ramadan can bring “abundant spiritual fruit”, that Faith without charity is not a true Faith, that all who profess belief in Christ are united in a common martyrdom that renders them “one”, etc.; and now this bold heretic even himself admits that his teaching is “possibly heretical” — and the Novus Ordo response is, essentially, “He’s just kidding”? “He didn’t mean it”? “He’s merely exaggerating”? “He’s just trying to underscore an entirely orthodox point”?!!
Wow!
Who would have ever thought that these people can stoop this low to defend a public apostate? Have they no shame? No fear of God? No respect for their readers? As we said at the beginning, this is the Twilight Zone!
But then again, what could we expect? Did anyone really think Jimmy Akin would say, “This is an outrageous thing to say for a Pope. It is clearly heretical, and he even concedes that it might be”? Obviously, this wasn’t going to happen, no matter what the evidence.
This is a crucial point: For these people, who are happily drawing large salaries keeping people trapped inside the Vatican II Sect, evidence is not the deciding factor. If Francis weren’t now “Pope” but still “Cardinal” Bergoglio, they would have long blasted him as they have done with Roger Mahony, Rembert Weakland, Richard McBrien, Thomas Gumbleton and others. In his post defending Francis, Akin acts as though what Francis said shouldn’t even trouble us, as though it were the most normal thing in the world for a (supposed) Pope to preface his remarks by pointing out that they might contain heresy, quipping that he “does not know.” At the very least, Akin could have conceded that these remarks are the epitome of disgrace and recklessness for a man who is (putatively) charged with overseeing the purity of the Catholic Faith and defending it against all enemies, and who has ultimate care over a billion souls around the globe and will one day have to render an account for all he has said and done (see Mt 12:36; cf. Heb 13:17). Akin did not even concede this much, and this tells you all you need to know. He is not concerned about defending the truth — his job is merely to defend Jorge Bergoglio.
Looking at the actual argument Francis makes about Satan and martyrdom, his reasoning is not very bright. If the devil doesn’t care what type of Christian you are, then why does he, as Francis asserts, cause division among Christians? If they’re all going to Heaven by their “one blood”, and the differences are ultimately of no genuine concern, then the division would be pointless.
But if, as our Lord taught, the truth will make us free (see Jn 8:32), what does that say about heresy, the very opposite of truth? “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn 9).
In our day and age, people no longer realize how serious and how vile a crime heresy is, and how hateful it is to God. Heresy essentially calls God a liar, and has the potential to send countless souls to hell. This is why it was often punished with death in Catholic nations. The death of the body is not nearly as serious as the death of the soul in hell, which is where heresy leads: “Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him” (Lk 12:4-5).
Decades ago the Novus Ordo Church’s apologists bent over backwards to convince us that none of their false popes ever uttered a heresy. At this point, we are so far along in the apostasy that even the Vicar of Judas himself is telling us that his teaching is heretical, or at least could be — he doesn’t care. What do his blind, brain-dead lemmings do? They go to Jimmy Akin’s blog to be reassured that all is well. You can’t parody this anymore.
reassuring-lie.jpg
Starring Jimmy Akin?
Other than Jimmy Akin’s ridiculous post, there haven’t been too many contributions by the usual suspects as far as we’ve seen up until this point. Pat Archbold basically just said, “Whatever”; Michael Voris, of course, ignored the story (that’s why we call his show The Ignortex); Mundabor used the occasion to reassert his opposition to Sedevacantism (which, we know, is the first premise in all of his arguments); “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf is presumably too busy posting dinner photos on his blog; and Louie Verrecchio quickly put up a link to Robert Siscoe’s attempt to debunk Sedevacantism, which we have not yet had a chance to answer at length but which we have briefly addressed here (we recommend people read St. Robert Bellarmine and the First Vatican Council rather than Robert Siscoe on the question of a heretical Pope).
Two posts by non-sedevacantists that deal with the subject matter seriously and also reject Jimmy Akin’s ridiculous spin are the following:
“On the aiding and abetting of schism and theological bafflegab…” by Elliot Bougis
“Piarum Aurium Haeresi Proxima?” by The Radical Catholic
Are we hoping for mass conversions now to Sedevacantism? Among “regular folk”, yes, certainly — our “Now What?” page can help you get started. Among the “rich and famous” semi-traditionalists, however, we are not holding our breath. Instead, we suspect there will be two main reactions: (1) a gradual defection into Resignationism, the idea that Benedict XVI is in fact the true Pope “still” because of an invalid resignation (which will allow one to have the delightful benefit of getting rid of Francis and yet also avoiding Sedevacantism); (2) a rise in the popularity of the heresy (!) that cardinals can judge the Pope or subject him to a trial and, if necessary, depose him (this would be the heresy of Gallicanism, essentially).
It’s rather humorous that Francis’ self-confessed heretical message is published on the Vatican web site under the solemn rubric of “Pontifical Messages”. Sounding at first all dignified and authoritative, what the reader then gets is a cavalier, “Maybe this is a heresy — heck, I don’t know!” kind of a message. It’s Francis at his best, simply saying what he thinks.
We call him “Chaos Frank” for a reason.
-
I agree that not caring whether something is heretical clearly suggests formal heresy.
-
Bergoglio's made the situation quite clear.
-
I agree that not caring whether something is heretical clearly suggests formal heresy.
And what do you do with this agreement?
-
I agree that not caring whether something is heretical clearly suggests formal heresy.
And what do you do with this agreement?
That's the problem. Nothing. There's nothing to do but to wait for God to resolve this crisis. Unless you're a conclavist; in that cast the problem has already been solved by the election of Bawden.
Someone in authority has to rebuke him and get the wheels turning on an Imperfect Council, but that won't happen because most of the hierarchy is as doctrinally corrupt as Francis. Thus the conundrum.
-
I agree that not caring whether something is heretical clearly suggests formal heresy.
And what do you do with this agreement?
That's the problem. Nothing. There's nothing to do but to wait for God to resolve this crisis. Unless you're a conclavist; in that cast the problem has already been solved by the election of Bawden.
Someone in authority has to rebuke him and get the wheels turning on an Imperfect Council, but that won't happen because most of the hierarchy is as doctrinally corrupt as Francis. Thus the conundrum.
An imperfect council cannot depose any Pope. No one can judge the Pope. Have you forgotten this?
How can you do "nothing" when it comes to the Pope issue, but with all the rest you can? Why don't you keep going to the Novus Ordo until someone in authority does something about it?
-
Will it rain tomorrow?
Perhaps it will, I don't know.
See there, you just admitted that it will rain tomorrow! :judge:
What logic!
-
I agree that not caring whether something is heretical clearly suggests formal heresy.
And what do you do with this agreement?
That's the problem. Nothing. There's nothing to do but to wait for God to resolve this crisis. Unless you're a conclavist; in that cast the problem has already been solved by the election of Bawden.
Someone in authority has to rebuke him and get the wheels turning on an Imperfect Council, but that won't happen because most of the hierarchy is as doctrinally corrupt as Francis. Thus the conundrum.
An imperfect council cannot depose any Pope. No one can judge the Pope. Have you forgotten this?
But you on the other hand CAN depose a pope? It's been clearly proven that nothing less than an Imperfect Council would be in a position to authoritatively discern the vacancy of the Holy See, not armchair theologian grandmothers in sedevacantist chapels. It's not a question of deposition but of the Church discerning that deposition has taken place. It cannot be left up to the private judgment of haughty windbags. At least Sedeprivationism acknowledges this, that only the Church can materially appoint Popes and this discernment would be equally necessary for the material vacancy to happen.
-
I agree that not caring whether something is heretical clearly suggests formal heresy.
And what do you do with this agreement?
That's the problem. Nothing. There's nothing to do but to wait for God to resolve this crisis. Unless you're a conclavist; in that cast the problem has already been solved by the election of Bawden.
Someone in authority has to rebuke him and get the wheels turning on an Imperfect Council, but that won't happen because most of the hierarchy is as doctrinally corrupt as Francis. Thus the conundrum.
An imperfect council cannot depose any Pope. No one can judge the Pope. Have you forgotten this?
But you on the other hand CAN depose a pope? It's been clearly proven that nothing less than an Imperfect Council would be in a position to authoritatively discern the vacancy of the Holy See, not armchair theologian grandmothers in sedevacantist chapels. It's not a question of deposition but of the Church discerning that deposition has taken place. It cannot be left up to the private judgment of haughty windbags. At least Sedeprivationism acknowledges this, that only the Church can materially appoint Popes and this discernment would be equally necessary for the material vacancy to happen.
You know well that no sedevacantist ever says that we personally depose Popes, we just recognize that they have deposed themselves according to what the Church teaches. You know this well so why do you keep repeating it?
This is why I ask you, what living authority has told you to reject Vatican 2 and the entire new religion? What authority told you to stay aloof from the Novus Ordo parishes/churches/etc.?
According to what you say, we would all have to sit tight until an authority comes along and vindicates us and abandon traditionalism.
It's an honest question, I'm not seeking to win debates anymore and to engage in insults etc.
-
And why would you need an imperfect council just for the pope issue? What about all the rest?
-
You know well that no sedevacantist ever says that we personally depose Popes, we just recognize that they have deposed themselves according to what the Church teaches. You know this well so why do you keep repeating it?
And you clearly miss the point. Just as you claim that SVs don't depose popes, similarly the Imperfect Council doesn't depose either. What I'm saying is that your "recognition" means absolutely nothing. And less than nothing. We cannot in principle tolerate the notion that private individuals can, whenever they feel like it, de-RECOGNIZE a pope. So, for instance, Catholic theologians writing at the time of Pius XII wrote that it would be HERESY for a Catholic to reject the legitimacy of Pius XII. But why? What if someone detected heresy in the writings of Pius XII? And, in point of fact, not a few SVs have accused Pius XII of heresy. So not only does your recognition or de-recognition not mean anything, it's absolutely untenable from the standpoint of Catholic theology. It undermines the Magisterium no less than R&R because whenever you personally deem any teaching of the Magisterium "heretical" you simply depose the pope and therefore you have no a priori guarantee of infallibility but are simply subjecting the Magisterium to a perpetual convalidation feedback loop. It doesn't work, my friend.
This is why I ask you, what living authority has told you to reject Vatican 2 and the entire new religion? What authority told you to stay aloof from the Novus Ordo parishes/churches/etc.?
It's an honest question, I'm not seeking to win debates anymore and to engage in insults etc.
Good question. Answer is none. Yes, we are in a position where we have used private judgment to remain aloof from the Conciliar establishment. But any recognition by the Church that a certain papal claimant has "left the building" as it were must begin with private judgment. But until that private judgment would be validated by the Church, it remains nothing other than private judgment and private opinion. In the case of widespread positive doubts regarding the legitimacy of a pope, the pope would cease to formally exercise any authority ... but the final recognition of material deposition can only be made by the Church. That's the SedeDoubtist position which I hold.
What exactly is wrong with adopting the stance of humility which acknowledges that private individual Catholics simply cannot go around de-recognizing popes? What exactly do you accomplish anyway? Unless you're a conclavist, there's nothing that can be done about this anyway until God ends this crisis and the Church's authority clear up the mess.
-
You know well that no sedevacantist ever says that we personally depose Popes, we just recognize that they have deposed themselves according to what the Church teaches. You know this well so why do you keep repeating it?
And you clearly miss the point. Just as you claim that SVs don't depose popes, similarly the Imperfect Council doesn't depose either. What I'm saying is that your "recognition" means absolutely nothing. And less than nothing. We cannot in principle tolerate the notion that private individuals can, whenever they feel like it, de-RECOGNIZE a pope. So, for instance, Catholic theologians writing at the time of Pius XII wrote that it would be HERESY for a Catholic to reject the legitimacy of Pius XII. But why? What if someone detected heresy in the writings of Pius XII? And, in point of fact, not a few SVs have accused Pius XII of heresy. So not only does your recognition or de-recognition not mean anything, it's absolutely untenable from the standpoint of Catholic theology. It undermines the Magisterium no less than R&R because whenever you personally deem any teaching of the Magisterium "heretical" you simply depose the pope and therefore you have no a priori guarantee of infallibility but are simply subjecting the Magisterium to a perpetual convalidation feedback loop. It doesn't work, my friend.
I have thought about this exact same thing many times before, and i don't like it for the same reasons you list here. I get it.
This is why I ask you, what living authority has told you to reject Vatican 2 and the entire new religion? What authority told you to stay aloof from the Novus Ordo parishes/churches/etc.?
It's an honest question, I'm not seeking to win debates anymore and to engage in insults etc.
Good question. Answer is none. Yes, we are in a position where we have used private judgment to remain aloof from the Conciliar establishment. But any recognition by the Church that a certain papal claimant has "left the building" as it were must begin with private judgment. But until that private judgment would be validated by the Church, it remains nothing other than private judgment and private opinion. In the case of widespread positive doubts regarding the legitimacy of a pope, the pope would cease to formally exercise any authority ... but the final recognition of material deposition can only be made by the Church. That's the SedeDoubtist position which I hold.
Odious situation we're living in isn't it? We have no authority, but we all have to make a decision.
It makes me wonder how then can you say anything to a Novus Ordinarian who follows the Conciliar establishment, how can you fault him? What right do you have of trying to convert anyone, or of saying anything at all in public, if this is all private judgment and mere opinion?
What exactly is wrong with adopting the stance of humility which acknowledges that private individual Catholics simply cannot go around de-recognizing popes? What exactly do you accomplish anyway? Unless you're a conclavist, there's nothing that can be done about this anyway until God ends this crisis and the Church's authority clear up the mess.
It's not like we're contesting the papacies of any random Pope for no reason. There's simply a clear and manifest break between Pius XII and John 23, that cannot be denied by anyone. It's a new religion. These last 6 "popes" are not comparable in any way at all to any Pope from the past. All previous Popes held the Faith, even Alexander VI.
These ones are a different animal altogether. They have done what no Pope has ever done before.
What do you accomplish? Well, you can get people out of the Novus Ordo who otherwise would never leave. You defend the Faith as well against the attacks of Her enemies by taking them out of the equation, but fail if you leave them in.
-
Humility. I have an aunt who's whole life revolves around what she thinks is the Church. I told her once about all that's going on. She says she just doesn't know and that she will follow what she thinks is the Church and Her authorities.
She's stuck in the Novus Ordo and in all kinds of moral and doctrinal abominations, because she's following the ones she thinks are her authorities, who sanction all of it.
Isn't her position more humble than yours? How can you fault her if you say our private judgment about all this is worthless?
This is the heart of the matter i believe.
How are we justified, how is traditionalism justified, if it is all mere private opinion and judgment?
How could you fault me even, if i decided to go back to the Novus Ordo because "i just don't know and could be wrong and want to be on the safe side"?
-
I have thought about this exact same thing many times before, and i don't like it for the same reasons you list here. I get it.
Yup. Look, I truly understand where the SVs are coming from. In fact, I started out as R&R; but when I began studying Catholic ecclesiology, I simply couldn't square R&R with ANY of their principles. I became an SV myself, and about as hard core dogmatic SV as one could get. But then I came across the writing of (I believe it was) Cardinal Zubizaretta. He was writing during the reign of Pius XII and said that for any Catholic to consider Pius XII illegitimate would be HERETICAL. That gave me pause to think. Why? That's because papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and it must be known a priori to the exercise of their Magisterium. Why? Because if you can't know with the certainty of faith that he's legitimate, then you can't know with the certainty of faith any dogmatic teaching of his either. There's a direct quote from another Catholic theologian along those lines. So, for instance, if I'm living during the reign of Pius IX and he declares the dogma of papal infallibility, and I think that infallibility is heretical, all I need to do is to say, "Aha! Pius IX is a heretic." in order to reject the dogma of papal infallibility. And so forth. That is a real problem that cannot be understated.
OK, so how do we know a legitimate pope with the certainty of faith? Legitimate election + universal acceptance = a legitimate pope known to be legitimate with the certainty of faith. On the legitimate election front, one could posit the Siri Thesis (which I consider quite credible). Nishant here has long argued the universal acceptance angle. But does anyone really feel "universal acceptance" here? I'm sorry, but I don't. And that's why you say there's a major difference between Pius XII and John XXIII (although some SVs are on the fence about J23). I've dug into universal acceptance. This isn't some abstract reference to the legitimacy of an election. This refers to the notion that the Church cannot adhere to a false rule of faith. Who actually adheres to the V2 papal claimants as rules of faith? Certainly not the "Universal Church". You have the entire Traditional Catholic world who effectively (for all intents and purposes) reject them as rules of faith (even if they pay lip service to their material legitimacy) and then you have 80% of all so-called nominal Catholics who by their own polls REJECT one dogmatic teaching or another of the Church; they too clearly do not accept these papal claimants as a rule of faith. So where's this "Universal Acceptance"? I'm not feeling it.
I also ran into an SV who rejected Pius XII ... and Pius IX. I met another who rejected Pius XI and Benedict XV and even St. Pius X (because he "altered" the breviary). So I recognized this as utter insanity and began investigating why this is wrong. I knew it was wrong but had to get to the bottom of WHY it was wrong.
So, at the end of the day, I am content to say that I have serious positive doubts about their legitimacy, which would justify my Traditional stance in such a way as not to involve schism, but I defer to the Church's authority to make the final determination. What's wrong with that? Even if I were to become a straight-forward SV, what in the world can I do about it? Nothing.
Odious situation we're living in isn't it? We have no authority, but we all have to make a decision.
It makes me wonder how then can you say anything to a Novus Ordinarian who follows the Conciliar establishment, how can you fault him? What right do you have of trying to convert anyone, or of saying anything at all in public, if this is all private judgment and mere opinion?
You're right, and I in fact have little to say to these. They say, "Here's the pope. He's teaching something. I will accept it." And this is actually a more essentially Catholic mindset than R&R. In the time leading up to the definition of papal infallibility, a LOT of Catholics didn't believe in it. Let's say I didn't believe in it back then. Once the Church defined it, the Catholic response must be, "Ooops. I guess I was wrong. I now believe it with the certainty of faith." Similarly, with V2, there are many in the Conciliar Church who just say, "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen." So they suspend their judgment.
But R&R clouds the issue by focusing with a very narrow perspective on infallibility. There's infallibility proper where one could argue about whether some obiter dictum in an encyclical might have been wrong. But when you're talking about an entire body of teaching on a grand scale presented authoritatively to the Universal Church, then if I believed with the certainty of faith that the V2 popes are legitimate, then I would say, "I accept all that the Church taught at Vatican II. Lord, if I have therefore embraced error, then it is You who have led me into error." R&R miss the forest for the trees when it comes to infallibility. We're not arguing minutiae. We're arguing about something that would be tantamount to the defection of the Magisterium, to say that Catholics RISK THEIR FAITH by adhering to the teaching of an Ecuмenical Council. That's basically blasphemous and rejects the indefectibility of the Magisterium. There just isn't any way around that.
As for your saying that with SVism we can get people out of the NO, I don't see that, honestly. Most people in the NO look at you like you have four heads when you bring it up.
-
Isn't her position more humble than yours? How can you fault her if you say our private judgment about all this is worthless?
I honestly can't fault her. Ordinary Catholics have never been required to be theologians and to discern whether the Holy See is vacant. God has allowed this as a punishment on the world. Yet I am sure that He will have mercy on those who were misled simply because they thought the V2 Popes are real popes. Recall that the litmus test for supernatural faith is having the formal motive of faith, of believing things proposed by the teaching authority of the faith precisely because they are proposed by the authority of the Church. In the case of those who embrace various errors simply because they mistakenly THOUGHT that they had been proposed by the authority of the Church, well, that's the very definition of purely material heresy. Yes, there are many in the NO who simply love and relish all the V2 novelties, but God will sort these out at their judgment. God knows who are sincerely mistaken in material error and who are indeed of bad will.
-
Isn't her position more humble than yours? How can you fault her if you say our private judgment about all this is worthless?
I honestly can't fault her. Ordinary Catholics have never been required to be theologians and to discern whether the Holy See is vacant. God has allowed this as a punishment on the world. Yet I am sure that He will have mercy on those who were misled simply because they thought the V2 Popes are real popes. Recall that the litmus test for supernatural faith is having the formal motive of faith, of believing things proposed by the teaching authority of the faith precisely because they are proposed by the authority of the Church. In the case of those who embrace various errors simply because they mistakenly THOUGHT that they had been proposed by the authority of the Church, well, that's the very definition of purely material heresy. Yes, there are many in the NO who simply love and relish all the V2 novelties, but God will sort these out at their judgment. God knows who are sincerely mistaken in material error and who are indeed of bad will.
Ah, rabid downthumber, I only hope for your sake that God has more mercy on you than you have for those in the Novus Ordo who might be of good will and only in material error ... just in case you yourself have fallen into material error. If not, and you are mistaken, you should be in fear of hellfire, since Our Lord tends to judge us "with the same measure" that we judge others. I know many people in the NO who I am convinced still have supernatural Catholic faith and who in many cases are more virtuous than I myself am.
-
Bergoglio knows he is untouchable, or certainly believes himself to be. Insouciance personified.
-
Ah, rabid downthumber, I only hope for your sake that God has more mercy on you than you have for those in the Novus Ordo who might be of good will and only in material error ... just in case you yourself have fallen into material error. If not, and you are mistaken, you should be in fear of hellfire, since Our Lord tends to judge us "with the same measure" that we judge others. I know many people in the NO who I am convinced still have supernatural Catholic faith and who in many cases are more virtuous than I myself am.
Was this directed at me? Because i haven't down thumbed any of your posts today.
I have thought about this exact same thing many times before, and i don't like it for the same reasons you list here. I get it.
Yup. Look, I truly understand where the SVs are coming from. In fact, I started out as R&R; but when I began studying Catholic ecclesiology, I simply couldn't square R&R with ANY of their principles. I became an SV myself, and about as hard core dogmatic SV as one could get. But then I came across the writing of (I believe it was) Cardinal Zubizaretta. He was writing during the reign of Pius XII and said that for any Catholic to consider Pius XII illegitimate would be HERETICAL.
Can you quote it? Or scan the pages where it appears.
That gave me pause to think. Why? That's because papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and it must be known a priori to the exercise of their Magisterium. Why? Because if you can't know with the certainty of faith that he's legitimate, then you can't know with the certainty of faith any dogmatic teaching of his either. There's a direct quote from another Catholic theologian along those lines.
What about the GWS, or any other time when there has been an antipope and a real pope at the same time? Where'e the certainty of faith there?
OK, so how do we know a legitimate pope with the certainty of faith? Legitimate election + universal acceptance = a legitimate pope known to be legitimate with the certainty of faith. On the legitimate election front, one could posit the Siri Thesis (which I consider quite credible). Nishant here has long argued the universal acceptance angle. But does anyone really feel "universal acceptance" here? I'm sorry, but I don't. And that's why you say there's a major difference between Pius XII and John XXIII (although some SVs are on the fence about J23). I've dug into universal acceptance. This isn't some abstract reference to the legitimacy of an election. This refers to the notion that the Church cannot adhere to a false rule of faith. Who actually adheres to the V2 papal claimants as rules of faith? Certainly not the "Universal Church". You have the entire Traditional Catholic world who effectively (for all intents and purposes) reject them as rules of faith (even if they pay lip service to their material legitimacy) and then you have 80% of all so-called nominal Catholics who by their own polls REJECT one dogmatic teaching or another of the Church; they too clearly do not accept these papal claimants as a rule of faith. So where's this "Universal Acceptance"? I'm not feeling it.
I agree with this.
I also ran into an SV who rejected Pius XII ... and Pius IX. I met another who rejected Pius XI and Benedict XV and even St. Pius X (because he "altered" the breviary). So I recognized this as utter insanity and began investigating why this is wrong. I knew it was wrong but had to get to the bottom of WHY it was wrong.
Dave Landry, Franco Pagnanelli, Richard Ibranyi & co.? I bet that the one obssessesed with the St. Pius X breviary thing is someone who was or is a member in the Te Deum forum.
In fact they all got it from Ibranyi. But he's gone way beyond any of them. Last time i checked he said the last true Pope was in the 11th century.
So, at the end of the day, I am content to say that I have serious positive doubts about their legitimacy, which would justify my Traditional stance in such a way as not to involve schism, but I defer to the Church's authority to make the final determination. What's wrong with that? Even if I were to become a straight-forward SV, what in the world can I do about it? Nothing.
If all you can say when you see all the evidence is that you have "serious positive doubts about their legitimacy", and not that you think they're not even remotely Catholic, well then i don't know how you can, knowing all that you do.
You think there is remotely any chance at all that in the future it will be decreed that in the end they were all true Popes after all?
If St. Robert Bellarmine and others thought that Liberius was a heretic for merely appearing to favour heresy, and that for that sole thing the papacy could be rightfully taken from him, what in the world will be the verdict for these shenanigans who have instituted a new religion and destroyed everything?
Odious situation we're living in isn't it? We have no authority, but we all have to make a decision.
It makes me wonder how then can you say anything to a Novus Ordinarian who follows the Conciliar establishment, how can you fault him? What right do you have of trying to convert anyone, or of saying anything at all in public, if this is all private judgment and mere opinion?
You're right, and I in fact have little to say to these. They say, "Here's the pope. He's teaching something. I will accept it." And this is actually a more essentially Catholic mindset than R&R.
For all your rigour in the EENS issue, i don't understand how you can say this. I see this as being indifferent to their salvation. You know they're wrong and need to get out of their situation.
So, for instance, if I'm living during the reign of Pius IX and he declares the dogma of papal infallibility, and I think that infallibility is heretical, all I need to do is to say, "Aha! Pius IX is a heretic." in order to reject the dogma of papal infallibility. And so forth. That is a real problem that cannot be understated.
In the time leading up to the definition of papal infallibility, a LOT of Catholics didn't believe in it. Let's say I didn't believe in it back then. Once the Church defined it, the Catholic response must be, "Ooops. I guess I was wrong. I now believe it with the certainty of faith." Similarly, with V2, there are many in the Conciliar Church who just say, "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen." So they suspend their judgment.
I don't believe this is a valid comparison at all, because papal infallibility was never condemned, nor an error etc. It was undefined. But in fact it was evident all along anyways, because of the very nature of the papacy, and i don't understand how could anyone reject it or not believe in it even before it was defined.
What we're dealing with in V2 is not with undefined allowable opinions, but with things that were explicitly condemned and declared heretical, erroneous etc. all of a sudden turned around and declared orthodox. "Yesterday's heresy is today's orthodoxy" indeed.
There is no comparison here. None. Additionally, it is a matter of fact that all those diabologians who were silenced, suppressed, suspect, censured etc., were all of a sudden reinstated after Pius XII died and made the "periti" at V2, it's clear as daylight what happened. Congar, Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Ratzinger etc. they were all in the blacklist. The infiltrators got "one of theirs" apparently on the Throne of St. Peter to let it all loose, simple as that.
"The coup of the century," as Scar from the Lion King says in his anthem.
This cannot be emphasised enough. You can even compare things as simple as pre-V2 Catechisms, devotionaries FOR CHILDREN, writings of all the Saints, Popes etc. to see that what was clearly condemned was suddenly made true teaching. There is no contest. There are books that specifically condemn the idea that non-Catholics sects are means of salvation, specifically, with those very same words, but yet V2 says the total opposite.
Besides, these infiltrators have openly declared that they have made Luther's wishes true in regards to the Mass for instance. Ever read what "Cardinal" Willebrands said about this? They have admitted the same for all the rest too. What more can one ask?
Can you point to any such example in the history of the Church? Where things that were explicitly condemned, declared heretical etc., were suddenly overturned and declared orthodox? Where the ramblings of suspect, silenced, censured theologians suddenly were accepted and incorporated into an Ecuмenical Council? Is there but a single case of this happening before? I have always wondered.
But R&R clouds the issue by focusing with a very narrow perspective on infallibility. There's infallibility proper where one could argue about whether some obiter dictum in an encyclical might have been wrong. But when you're talking about an entire body of teaching on a grand scale presented authoritatively to the Universal Church, then if I believed with the certainty of faith that the V2 popes are legitimate, then I would say, "I accept all that the Church taught at Vatican II. Lord, if I have therefore embraced error, then it is You who have led me into error." R&R miss the forest for the trees when it comes to infallibility. We're not arguing minutiae. We're arguing about something that would be tantamount to the defection of the Magisterium, to say that Catholics RISK THEIR FAITH by adhering to the teaching of an Ecuмenical Council. That's basically blasphemous and rejects the indefectibility of the Magisterium. There just isn't any way around that.
You're right, they're totally wrong about this and have made it all up.
As for your saying that with SVism we can get people out of the NO, I don't see that, honestly. Most people in the NO look at you like you have four heads when you bring it up.
There have been thousands of converts to SV from the Novus Ordo, if not more. I was Novus Ordo and I can tell you that for me personally SV made sense to me more than anything else right from the start, as it did to you, and i was exposed to both r&r and SV from the beginning. It all made sense to think they were just imposters, usurpers, it explained it all. I never liked r&r and it never made sense to me to "recognise" authority but then do what thou wilt, it never clicked. I didn't see any way to reconcile infallibility, indefectibility etc. while holding to r&r either, and i still don't.
As an aside, what is your position on the Holy Week revisions?
-
Was this directed at me? Because i haven't down thumbed any of your posts today.
It was directed at the anonymous hit-and-run downthumber. You obviously would have just engaged what I wrote since we were going back and forth.
-
Similarly, with V2, there are many in the Conciliar Church who just say, "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen." So they suspend their judgment.
Your regular Novus Ordoite will not even know or believe such a thing, that is, that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself. They don't even teach this.
Anyways, I cannot emphasize enough how this is no comparison nor similar at all to your infallibility example.
Did Catholics ask themselves this when Vatican I happened? Did they ask themselves "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen."?
-
If this can somehow remain civil it's a fantastic discussion regarding issues that both sides of the traditionalist coin frequently overlook either inadvertently or simply because they undermine the usual talking points.
-
Similarly, with V2, there are many in the Conciliar Church who just say, "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen." So they suspend their judgment.
Your regular Novus Ordoite will not even know or believe such a thing, that is, that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself. They don't even teach this.
Define "regular" Novus Ordite. As I mentioned, indeed upwards of 80% of Novus Ordites are formal heretics who don't care about what the Magisterium teaches. I was referring specifically to those who do care and who are therefore by definition simply material heretics. Of the remaining 20%, many of them are content to accept what they think the Magisterium is teaching and are satisfied that it can't be in contradiction with past Magisterium ... and don't dig any deeper.
-
Similarly, with V2, there are many in the Conciliar Church who just say, "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen." So they suspend their judgment.
Your regular Novus Ordoite will not even know or believe such a thing, that is, that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself. They don't even teach this.
Define "regular" Novus Ordite. As I mentioned, indeed upwards of 80% of Novus Ordites are formal heretics who don't care about what the Magisterium teaches. I was referring specifically to those who do care and who are therefore by definition simply material heretics. Of the remaining 20%, many of them are content to accept what they think the Magisterium is teaching and are satisfied that it can't be in contradiction with past Magisterium ... and don't dig any deeper.
How about you address the rest of my post and questions instead of ignoring most of it and cherry picking what to address?
-
Similarly, with V2, there are many in the Conciliar Church who just say, "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen." So they suspend their judgment.
Your regular Novus Ordoite will not even know or believe such a thing, that is, that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself. They don't even teach this.
Define "regular" Novus Ordite. As I mentioned, indeed upwards of 80% of Novus Ordites are formal heretics who don't care about what the Magisterium teaches. I was referring specifically to those who do care and who are therefore by definition simply material heretics. Of the remaining 20%, many of them are content to accept what they think the Magisterium is teaching and are satisfied that it can't be in contradiction with past Magisterium ... and don't dig any deeper.
How about you address the rest of my post and questions instead of ignoring most of it and cherry picking what to address?
I am getting to it as I have time, Disputaciones. I also don't like the extremely long posts and try to break them down point by point.
-
Similarly, with V2, there are many in the Conciliar Church who just say, "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen." So they suspend their judgment.
Your regular Novus Ordoite will not even know or believe such a thing, that is, that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself. They don't even teach this.
Define "regular" Novus Ordite. As I mentioned, indeed upwards of 80% of Novus Ordites are formal heretics who don't care about what the Magisterium teaches. I was referring specifically to those who do care and who are therefore by definition simply material heretics. Of the remaining 20%, many of them are content to accept what they think the Magisterium is teaching and are satisfied that it can't be in contradiction with past Magisterium ... and don't dig any deeper.
How about you address the rest of my post and questions instead of ignoring most of it and cherry picking what to address?
I am getting to it as I have time, Disputaciones. I also don't like the extremely long posts and try to break them down point by point.
Alright, just checking.
Well regular Novus Ordite to me is the vast majority of people in there who all they know is Novus Ordo teaching, all those who aren't traditional, all the ones who don't know anything is going on and go to the new mass etc.
I would classify all the 200+ people in my family as "regular Novus Ordo", because none of them think anything is going on and they have all imbibed all the modern errors. I am the only one in my entire family who is traditional, it scares me.
In fact they all think the Church is "made up of men" and that it can and has screwed up in the past and erred etc. They all think the Church has to apologize for many things of the past and are glad it "caught up to the times".
There are only a couple of uncles in my family who question certain things and who have even stumbled upon traditionalist material, to no avail, because not even they hold that the Magisterium cannot err and are just like the rest in the family. To be honest they don't even submit to all that what they think is the Church teaches. They just pick and choose what they like.
So you see the majority or "regulars" in the Novus Ordo are taught that the Church is "human" and can and has been mistaken. There's no notion of infallibility. I grew up in there and this is what I thought because I wasn't taught otherwise.
-
"And whosoever shall not receive you (Traditional Catholics), nor hear your words (Traditional Catholic Dogma): going forth out of that house (THE VATICAN II CHURH) or city shake off the dust from your feet."
IT IS NOW TIME for REAL Catholics to shake off the dust from OUR feet and GO FORTH. Bergoglio has ADMITTED he speaks heresy. If this isn't enough PROOF that the CHAIR IS VACANT then I don't know what is. ANY CATHOLIC who doesn't see the CHAIR as VACANT NOW, is the blind leading the blind.
I am now awaiting a VERBAL and DOCTRINAL PROCLAMATION by the (sedevacantist) Hierarchy of the Catholic Church and accordingly,
IMMEDIATE ACTION by them.
Conclavism is now the only way out of this,
BUT CONCLAVISM IS NOT:
"Pope" Michael,
"Pope" Linus,
"Pope" Pius XIII
"Pope" Leo XIV
We, as faithful, Catholic laity are BEGGING the current Catholic (sedevacantist) Bishops to do something, NOW!
WE NEED A CATHOLIC POPE! PLEASE, your Excellencies,
HELP US!
-
Well Ladislaus? Are you preparing some mega-reply?
-
Well Ladislaus? Are you preparing some mega-reply?
I've been busy lately. What's your hurry?
-
Well Ladislaus? Are you preparing some mega-reply?
I've been busy lately. What's your hurry?
No hurry, I just don't want you to slither away and not answer like you've done before.
-
Well Ladislaus? Are you preparing some mega-reply?
I've been busy lately. What's your hurry?
No hurry, I just don't want you to slither away and not answer like you've done before.
I never "slither away". Sometimes I just lose interest. And given your attitude, what's my incentive to respond to you?
-
Well Ladislaus? Are you preparing some mega-reply?
I've been busy lately. What's your hurry?
No hurry, I just don't want you to slither away and not answer like you've done before.
I never "slither away". Sometimes I just lose interest. And given your attitude, what's my incentive to respond to you?
Alright, I just wanted to be sure.
-
Well Ladislaus? Are you preparing some mega-reply?
I've been busy lately. What's your hurry?
No hurry, I just don't want you to slither away and not answer like you've done before.
I never "slither away". Sometimes I just lose interest. And given your attitude, what's my incentive to respond to you?
Alright, I just wanted to be sure.
I'll get back to it. I just have been very busy the past few days without much time to post.
-
So, for instance, if I'm living during the reign of Pius IX and he declares the dogma of papal infallibility, and I think that infallibility is heretical, all I need to do is to say, "Aha! Pius IX is a heretic." in order to reject the dogma of papal infallibility. And so forth. That is a real problem that cannot be understated.
In the time leading up to the definition of papal infallibility, a LOT of Catholics didn't believe in it. Let's say I didn't believe in it back then. Once the Church defined it, the Catholic response must be, "Ooops. I guess I was wrong. I now believe it with the certainty of faith." Similarly, with V2, there are many in the Conciliar Church who just say, "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen." So they suspend their judgment.
I don't believe this is a valid comparison at all, because papal infallibility was never condemned, nor an error etc. It was undefined. But in fact it was evident all along anyways, because of the very nature of the papacy, and i don't understand how could anyone reject it or not believe in it even before it was defined.
What we're dealing with in V2 is not with undefined allowable opinions, but with things that were explicitly condemned and declared heretical, erroneous etc. all of a sudden turned around and declared orthodox. "Yesterday's heresy is today's orthodoxy" indeed.
There is no comparison here. None. Additionally, it is a matter of fact that all those diabologians who were silenced, suppressed, suspect, censured etc., were all of a sudden reinstated after Pius XII died and made the "periti" at V2, it's clear as daylight what happened. Congar, Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Ratzinger etc. they were all in the blacklist. The infiltrators got "one of theirs" apparently on the Throne of St. Peter to let it all loose, simple as that.
"The coup of the century," as Scar from the Lion King says in his anthem.
This cannot be emphasised enough. You can even compare things as simple as pre-V2 Catechisms, devotionaries FOR CHILDREN, writings of all the Saints, Popes etc. to see that what was clearly condemned was suddenly made true teaching. There is no contest. There are books that specifically condemn the idea that non-Catholics sects are means of salvation, specifically, with those very same words, but yet V2 says the total opposite.
Besides, these infiltrators have openly declared that they have made Luther's wishes true in regards to the Mass for instance. Ever read what "Cardinal" Willebrands said about this? They have admitted the same for all the rest too. What more can one ask?
Can you point to any such example in the history of the Church? Where things that were explicitly condemned, declared heretical etc., were suddenly overturned and declared orthodox? Where the ramblings of suspect, silenced, censured theologians suddenly were accepted and incorporated into an Ecuмenical Council? Is there but a single case of this happening before? I have always wondered.
Great analysis, Disputaciones. However, I think you have only scratched the surface. The Conciliar Church has a completely new and foreign orientation. JXXIII opened the windows of the Church to the world (as in worldly thinking). Even many of the Ecclesia Dei people are lax and worldly (but not all, maybe not most). There is only a very thin Catholic veneer and most Conciliar Catholics are quite happy with that. They would rather not be burdened with traditional morality. Some appreciate the beauty of traditional ceremonies (Fr. Ratzinger?) but that's about as far as they want to go with tradition. Why fast 3 hours before Mass when one can get away with fasting 1 hour? Why scruple about traditional codes of conduct (modesty, etc) when one can still call oneself Catholic and have a "priest" assure everyone every Sunday that we are all going to Heaven? I guarantee you that if you go to a Conciliar Mass every Sunday it will not be long before you find St. Alphonsus' ascetical works amusing and irrelevant/outdated. Saving our souls is hard enough when we are trying to follow tradition. It is nearly impossible if we follow the teaching of the Conciliar Church. So yes, I agree with you, the analogies to earlier times fall flat in the face of such a momentous shift in orientation. Not even the Arians were as bold as the Modernists. I don't know of any event which can quite compare to the sudden change in direction of such a large group of co-religionists. I don't think we have anything to apologize about with regard to our opinion that this new orientation, new institution and new religion is not at all Catholic. And I agree with Ladislaus that there is not universal acceptance of the Conciliar popes and that therefore Nishant ought to find some other way to preserve the visibility of the Church because attaching it to the Conciliar hierarchy is not credible. If visibility is attached to the Conciliarists it will soon lose all meaning. What good is it to preserve visibility if it causes you to lose your soul? It is never permitted to separate oneself from the Catholic Church but neither is it permitted to attach oneself to heretics. We are in a difficult situation.