Author Topic: Please explain this to a newbie idiot like myself  (Read 3359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Conspiracy_Factist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 594
  • Reputation: +156/-19
  • Gender: Male
Please explain this to a newbie idiot like myself
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2012, 10:16:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Belloc
    Quote from: gooch
    Quote from: Sigismund
    Whatever you do, please avoid the Dimond Brothers as you would a poisonous snake.  

    Best wishes and prayers.

    can you give me the biggest disagreement you have with the Dimond brohers, I read on another post that they disagreed with their stance thatMary is not co-redeemer..can you give me your biggest gripe with them.. are you  implying they are of bad will?


    asked and answered many, many times........stop a new thread on the Demons....er Deimonds if you want, lets not confuse "newbie"

    answered many times??? the only specific example given was about Mary co-redeemer, I don't want to be spoon fed anything, you give out names like Sungensis and others and this is supposed to prove the Dimonds are liars?? are u serious..
    that would be like someone in this forum who says stay away from you because there are 10 critics of you
    it's quite simple,you are making a serious allegation that someone is a liar...is it not reasonable i ask for specifics, once I know what the subject of contention is believe me I won't rely on you or anyone to get to the bottom of the truth......start a new thread, ok I agree..will do

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Please explain this to a newbie idiot like myself
    « Reply #31 on: October 02, 2012, 11:37:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hobble,

    The text you posted on page 4 (thank you for doing so) refers to a possibility of refusing the bad acts of a pope. This seems to be the SSPX position. But it only does so in one small line. Of course, prayer is necessary also. However the article seems to stress prayer as the only remedy. I wish he would have elaborated on practical suggestions in the meantime.


    Offline Hobbledehoy

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3746
    • Reputation: +4804/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Please explain this to a newbie idiot like myself
    « Reply #32 on: October 03, 2012, 12:16:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Hobble,

    The text you posted on page 4 (thank you for doing so) refers to a possibility of refusing the bad acts of a pope. This seems to be the SSPX position. But it only does so in one small line. Of course, prayer is necessary also. However the article seems to stress prayer as the only remedy. I wish he would have elaborated on practical suggestions in the meantime.


    Hello StevusMagnus! Long time no, uh, write(?)!

    Msgr. Journet treated the question as a tangential point in his treatise, and the ultimate remedy is prayer indeed. However, he (nor did any other theologian) ever imagine that the Roman Pontiff could ever actively abet and systematically implement a "new economy" of salvation devised by the modernists who sought to undermine the depositum fidei entrusted to the Church of Christ.

    The sedevacantists endeavor to explain that by positing that the leaders of the Johannine-Pauline structure have lapsed into formal heresy properly so-called and have lost legitimate claim to the primacy.

    However, different sedevacantists interpret what exactly that entails in different and sundry ways. Amongst them, there have been some who have expressed themselves in such wise so as to promote theological errors in an attempt to answer the anti-sedevacantists' objections.

    One recent example is found in those sedevacantists who would make their clerici acephali and epicopi vagantes as the duly appointed hierarchy of the Church of Christ, as if ordinary jurisdiction and formal Apostolcity can be claimed without the Roman Pontiff in the equation. This is an attempt to address the serious objection that sedevacantism subverts the perpetuity of the visible structure of the Church as Christ Himself has established it.

    In order for the sedevacantists to logically posit their self-appointed clergy as constituting the Ecclesia docens, they must first demonstrate and prove:

    (1) precisely how, when and why the occupants of the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot claim to constitute the Ecclesia docens;

    (2) precisely how, when and why the occupants of the Johannine-Pauline structures lapsed away from the Catholic and divine faith into formal heresy, properly so-called;

    (3) what precisely in the documents of the Johannine-Pauline council can be said to constitute the "Å’conomia nova" of the modernists, by identifying the heresies and errors thereof and demonstrating what theological label is to designate these propositions (according to the methodology of the eminent theologians whom Holy Mother Church has proposed to us as our teachers and guides in these matters);

    (4) they must demonstrate the theological, moral and Canonical ramifications of the deliberate and contumacious adherence of these propositions of the Johannine-Pauline council, both as regards to the Bishops of the time and to the laity and clergy who remain materially adhered to the structures that were brought forth by the Johannine-Pauline council and its modernist proponents;

    (5) how exactly are we to contextualize these occurrences to the doctrines of Holy Mother Church as set forth in the Encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the approved theologians of the illustrious schools; and

    (6) why does it necessitate positing the conglomerate and acephalous clerics of the anti-modernist resistance as constituting the Ecclesia docens, and what are the criteria whereby the faithful may readily identify who exactly amongst these same clerics to be ascribed the "hierarchical claim" and how these clerics are to "exercise" such a claim (for example, what prevents one from ascribing such "hierarchical claim" to Bp. Pivarunas, but denying it to Bp. Slupski, or how can the faithful determine who are the charlatans and frauds, such as Ryan "St. Anne" Scott?).

    Numbers one through five have been done by individual apologists (whether clerical or lay), or groups thereof, but not in a systematic manner, much less according to the strict scholastic methods of inquiry as seen in how theologians such as Franzelin, Van Noort, Scheeben, Garrigou-Lagrange, Tanquerey, Fenton, &c., present sacred doctrine in their manuals and commentaries. As one sedevacantist has written:

    Quote
    There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism". This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form?


    Number six essentially constitutes the controversy in question, and it has become a public controversy now because of the contumacy of certain polemicists who have made novel theories in prejudice to sound theology.

    In order for such sedevacantists as the aforementioned polemicists to evade the censure of theological error or of being "rash," they have to methodically and systematically present the predicament of the Church in the present day according to the teachings and methods of Thomistic philosophy and theology. They cannot just pretend the Johannine-Pauline structures do not exist or have relevance, because millions of Catholics adhere to them in good faith, and immune from danger of formal heresy according to the promise of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima in the third portion of the great "Secret."

    For to posit that the conglomerate of acephalous and vagrant clergy in the anti-modernist resistance is to be identified as the Ecclesia docens is equivalent to stating categorically and unequivocally that the "traditionalist movement" is the Church (not just a portion thereof), and that the Johannine-Pauline structures necessarily impute the guilt of formal heresy unto those who adhere to them, without due consideration of the great obfuscation of the present age whereby millions of Catholics yet remain deluded and led astray without guilt of their own.

    Furthermore, positing that the the conglomerate of acephalous and vagrant clergy in the anti-modernist resistance is to be identified as the Ecclesia docens would indeed invest them with "executive responsibility" for what has been happening with the Church for the past decades: including everything from the Johannine-Pauline council, to the sex abuse scandals and the conspiracy to conceal these crimes, to the immorality rampant and encouraged at such events as the "Youth Days" or whatever they are called, &c.

    For, if these clerics have been "sent" by some sort of missio extraordinaria, and have been endowed with the necessary power and jurisdiction: why would Christ make this hierarchy (sic) of His Church so powerless, divided, and enfeebled so as to allow the damnation of millions upon millions of Catholics who have defected into modernism or lapsed away from the faith in the Johannine-Pauline structures?

    Or is the responsibility of these clerics limited to the faithful who attend their chapels and give them stipends? If so, how can their missio be universal and pertain to the entirety of the Church of Christ (both the Latin Occident and the Churches of the Orient)? How can these sedevacantists say that their interpretation of things does not lead to a cult?

    This is how problematic the so-called "hierarchical claim" of the traditionalist clerics truly is. It is not helping the anti-modernist resistance, nor does it vindicate sedevacantism in any way. On the contrary, it is inherently subversive not only to sedevacantism, but to the entire resistance against the Johannine-Pauline structures.

    For in positing these ecclesiological errors, sedevacantists such as the aforementioned polemicists incur the censure of Cajetan as cited by Msgr. Journet

    Quote from: Msgr. Charles Journet, in fact, in his work [i
    The Church of the Word Incarnate: An Essay of Speculative Theology[/i] (trans. A.H.C. Downes; London: Sheed and Ward, 1954), pg. 411n]During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. "The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus―who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church―condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably" (De Comparatione etc., cap. vi., 74). Here are the seventh and the twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance: "Peter neither is nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church"; "There is nothing whatsoever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant" (Denz. 633 and 653).


    The anti-sedevacantists could make the argument that such polemicists as those in question expose "sedevacantism" as theologically untenable by subscribing to the condemned twenty-seventh proposition of John Hus.

    Moreover, the twenty-eighth proposition seems to be blueprint of the so-called "Apostolic Church" that these sedevacantists have devised: "Christ through His true disciples scattered through the world would rule His Church better without such monstrous heads," Christus sine talibus monstruosis capitibus per suos veraces discipulos sparsos per orbem terrarum melius suam Ecclesiam regularet" (Denz., no. 654). And there have been sedevacantists who have lamented the dogmatic definition of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff by the Vatican Council (Session IV, 18 July 1870) in the Constitution Pastor aeternus as the "preparation" for the present day ecclesiastical crisis; ironically echoing the Jansenists and Gallicanists that preceded them.

    Ultimately, this renders such sedevacantists' opinion the very "sedevacantism" (to speak anachronistically) that John Hus himself professed, as his twentieth proposition seems to show: "If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it," "Si Papa est malus et praesetim, si est praescitus, tunc ut Iudas apostolus est diaboli, fur, et filius perditionis, et non est caput sanctae militantis Ecclesiae, cum nec sit membrum eius" (Denz., no. 646). For if these so-called apologists of the sedevacantist camp adopt an ecclesiology that hearkens to the errors of John Hus, there may be a legitimate objection that posits the possibility that "sedevacantism" as interpreted by these polemicists is ultimately a revival of the Hussite heresies.

    In making the acephalous and vagrant clergy the Ecclesia docens, such theorists are devising an "Å’conomia nova" of their own, wherein this sort of "sedevacantism" brings forth a new abominatio in desolationem (cf. Dan. cap. xi., 31, cap. xii., 11), or, rather, a new abominatio desolationis (cf. Dan. cap. ix., 27, S. Matt. cap. xxiv., 15, S. Marc. cap. xiii., 14): not only a Church without a Pope, but a Church that has no need of a Pope to have a hierarchy that can claim Apostolic succession formaliter and ordinary jurisdiction. A new and vile form of fideicide that brings about scandal and error in a manner analogous to the Hegelian historicist "dogmatics" of the modernists and their Johannine-Pauline structures.

    The sickening and heart-rending irony of the tragic errors of such sedevacantists as those who Missal-sift (whilst condemning the SSPX for "Pope-sifting") is that they, in their endeavors to expose the Johannine-Pauline anti-liturgy as ushering in the "abomination of desolation," have themselves ushered in another "abomination of desolation" - a Church that not only is bereft of a Pope, but has no need of one to function.

    The explanation of the crisis presently assailing Holy Mother Church, commonly known as "sedevacantism" in the discourse of traditional Catholics of the day, is a very complex, polymorphous thing. I, however, refuse to avail myself of theological error and even heresy in resisting the Johannine-Pauline novelties.

    To be frank, I myself have been in a sort of "suspended animation" on account of the problematic and labyrinthine ramifications and implications of sedevacantism, and have been in the process of critically reviewing the ecclesiological orientation that informs certain interpretations of sedevacantism.

    After much prayer, study and discussion, I can definitively state:


                   I  

                     still  
     
                           don't  

                                   know

                                            all

                                                the  

                                                      answers.
                                                                                                                             

    If I would be compelled to give a name to the stance to which I subscribe - though I am loathe to be compartmentalized by a label - I reckon that it would have to be docta ignorantia (thanks, Nicholas of Cusa!).

    In light of the liturgical abuses of certain acephalous and vagrant clerics of the sedevacantist persuasion, and beholding the principles pertaining to the Sacred Canons, the notes of the Church, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, &c., woefully misunderstood and abused by the lay followers of these clerics, I cannot identify myself with the sedevacantist persuasion in the same manner as hitherto.

    So, some things have changed since we last met here, Stevus.

    Time has a way of doing that...
    Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Please explain this to a newbie idiot like myself
    « Reply #33 on: October 03, 2012, 01:06:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hobble,

    Thank you for that very thoughtful and thorough response.

    As John Venarri once said, "Sedevacantism seems to ask more questions than it answers."

    I like your quote by Cajetan regarding the state of the Church in between popes.

    Quote
    the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. "The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power.


    Even if one says BXVI is the pope it seems as if the current Church is functioning as if it had no head.

    Offline Hobbledehoy

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3746
    • Reputation: +4804/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Please explain this to a newbie idiot like myself
    « Reply #34 on: October 03, 2012, 01:39:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Even if one says BXVI is the pope it seems as if the current Church is functioning as if it had no head.


    That's right: the forces of anti-Christ are working in such a manner so that both options (whether to accept Benedict XVI as the Roman Pontiff or not) are exceedingly problematic, to the point of demanding a heroic perseverance in the profession and practice of the holy Catholic faith.

    The modernist novelty of "collegiality" whereby the aggregate of bishops has audaciously usurped the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in the Johannine-Pauline structures (as seen in the hypocritical protests whereby the bishops attempted to levy their political influence against the SSPX or anything else proximate to Catholicism, whilst hiding criminal perverts and propagandizing heresy), has also ushered an ecclesiological "abominatio desolationis" by marginalizing the office of the Roman Pontiff as a mere figurehead. Again, a Church that can ostensibly be either horrendously acephalous or monstrously bicephalous (according to the notion of "collegiality") and has no use for a Pope.

    This is why the "talks with Rome" were destined for failure, because the Johannine-Pauline structure cannot be understood by Catholic ecclesiology: it is a mysterium iniquitatis. One may say that divine Providence allowed the talks between the SSPX and the Vatican machine in order to prove all the more clearly that it is modernism that is sacred to the political regime of the elitists of the "new economy" of the N. O.

    Prayer is the most efficient and sole remedy now more than ever, and I think all the anti-modernist camps can agree: and this was why I posted those pages from the pen of Msgr. Journet.

    It seems the office of the Roman Pontiff is the most attacked and abused of all the teachings of the Church, after the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: it is truly the Passion of Our Lord renewed in His Mystical Body (to speak by analogy) by the fideicide (faith-killing) of the present day. And yet it is to be expected, because the reality of the beautiful dogma of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff (as defined by the Vatican Council) and the dread Mysteries of the sacred Altar (as defined by the sacred Council of Trent, amongst many other sources of Catholic dogma) have their same source in the Word Incarnate, Our Lord the Eternal High Priest, whose Divinity is being denied by heretics, schismatics, Jews, Mohammedans, etc.

    The Church, the Roman Primacy, the sacred Altars: all suffer the violent attacks upon the divine Person of Our Lord Himself.

    Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Please explain this to a newbie idiot like myself
    « Reply #35 on: October 03, 2012, 06:49:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes. As Peter denied our Lord three times before his crucifixion so the modern popes deny Him before the crucifixion of His Mystical Body. They in practice deny the primacy of their own office, the primacy of the one true Faith, and the primacy of Christ in the social order. Except where Peter acted out of human weakness and repented bitterly, the popes of today justify their betrayal as affirming Christ! The Devil's finest hour. In reality they affirm a false anti-Christ of their own making: an idol. I am convinced they are so disoriented they truly believe this idol to be Christ. Thus the insane inconsistency in their words and thus the dangerousness of their sincerity mixed with the trappings of the true Faith. Deluded shepards leading their sheep to the wolf, all the while thinking they are serving them. In any other time Catholics en masse would have recognized this modernism for the insanity that it is. The devil had to work 2,000 years on civilization before coming upon a time where men were so deluded that they no longer even recognize the disease much less the cure.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16