Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on April 22, 2014, 08:30:57 AM
-
1st Argument by Jimmy Akin:
According to many current sedevacantists, Pius XII was the last valid pope. He died in 1958, which was 53 years ago.
Here is where the argument gets interesting: In order to be pope, under current canon law, one must be elected by the college of cardinals. In order to be a member of the college of cardinals, one must be appointed by the pope. In order for the pope to appoint you, he must be alive.
If the last valid pope died in 1958, that would seem to mean that no cardinals have been validly appointed since then. How many cardinals are alive today who were appointed before 1958?
None.
The longest-serving cardinal at present is Eugenio Sales, who wasn’t appointed until 1969. If his elevation to the cardinalate was invalid, and so were all subsequent elevations due to a lack of valid popes, then it would appear that the college of cardinals now has no members. With no valid members, it would seem impossible for there to be another validly elected pope.
Ever.
That would be odd.
It would certainly seem to be contrary to the will of Christ who, in the words of Vatican I, willed “that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church.” If Christ really wills that there be an ongoing series of successors then one would think he would keep the Church from getting into a position where it is impossible to elect any more successors.
So do we have a good argument here, from Vatican I, after all? An argument that deals a death-blow to a major current form of sedevacantism?
2nd Argument (Quoted by Nishant):
Cardinal Billot says: "God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election."
3rd Argument of Pope Benedict XIV (Quoted by Nishant):
it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: "This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion" (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition).
This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: "Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world" (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world" (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap.
Commentary:
1) The first two arguments establish the impossibility of sedevacantism.
2) The 3rd argument establishes the schismatic nature of the sedevacantist position.
3) All three in combination establish that all the various sedevacantist theories are total hallucinations.
-
As I have said to Nishant, I think it is very much debatable that the whole Church recognizes these men as popes.
One cannot use the Novus Ordo to measure such a thing. So the "recognition" of the majority of the Novus Ordo prelates does not extend to verify what Billot is teaching, since they themselves don't have the faith; it would be tantamount to arguing that since the AP calls them popes, they must be.
Similarly, the vast majority of Novus Ordo Catholics cannot be used as this gauge, since they themselves dissent even from the teaching of the N.O. Church on such things like birth control and the Real Presence-- the former still "officially" condemned by the Novus Ordo Church, the former still "officially" taught; but the Novus Ordo faithful as an overwhelming majority accept and reject these respectively.
Traditional Catholics cannot be said to recognize these men when they reject everything they teach. When theologians speak of recognition they aren't talking about putting his picture in the vestibule or inserting his name in the canon only, rather these are things which follow logically from peacefully accepting the authority of the pope in question. Traditional Catholics reject that authority, not just a little bit, but completely. There is certainly no peaceful acceptance on our end toward these men. And there hasn't ever been.
-
As I have said to Nishant, I think it is very much debatable that the whole Church recognizes these men as popes.
One cannot use the Novus Ordo to measure such a thing. So the "recognition" of the majority of the Novus Ordo prelates does not extend to verify what Billot is teaching, since they themselves don't have the faith; it would be tantamount to arguing that since the AP calls them popes, they must be.
Similarly, the vast majority of Novus Ordo Catholics cannot be used as this gauge, since they themselves dissent even from the teaching of the N.O. Church on such things like birth control and the Real Presence-- the former still "officially" condemned by the Novus Ordo Church, the former still "officially" taught; but the Novus Ordo faithful as an overwhelming majority accept and reject these respectively.
Traditional Catholics cannot be said to recognize these men when they reject everything they teach. When theologians speak of recognition they aren't talking about putting his picture in the vestibule or inserting his name in the canon only, rather these are things which follow logically from peacefully accepting the authority of the pope in question. Traditional Catholics reject that authority, not just a little bit, but completely. There is certainly no peaceful acceptance on our end toward these men. And there hasn't ever been.
I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.
And if you are not willing to recognize their recognition, you have effectively eliminated the worldwide heirarchy.
In that case, it is not evident to me how to avoid the charge of violating indefectibility and schism.
And of course, Jimmy Akin's argument is unassailable.
-
...meaning that, not only have you wiped out the worldwide heirarchy, leaving none remaining with ordinary jurisdiction, but you have also pre-empted the means of restoring one.
-
Great post, Sean.
I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.
Exactly. There is none such. Then clearly the whole ecclesia docens recognizes Pope Francis as Pontiff and professes communion with him.
And Mith seems to leave out that Pope Benedict XIV clearly described for us that "una cuм" is really "an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter." So how can it be claimed, on the contrary, that is not recognition of the Pope?
Cardinal Billot, and also Fr. Hunter cited on the other thread, explains that this cannot be - if Pope Francis was outside the Church, then so would the whole ecclesia docens also be, for they profess communion with him, which however is impossible.
Therefore, the reverse must be true, since all of them profess communion with him, he must be inside the Church. And therefore, their acceptance of him is an infallible sign and effect of the validity of his election.
As Fr. Hunter says, in the practical order, it suffices us to know that "if the bishops agree in recognizing a man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of bishops would be separated from their head, and the divine constitution of the Church would be ruined".
-
As I have said to Nishant, I think it is very much debatable that the whole Church recognizes these men as popes.
One cannot use the Novus Ordo to measure such a thing. So the "recognition" of the majority of the Novus Ordo prelates does not extend to verify what Billot is teaching, since they themselves don't have the faith; it would be tantamount to arguing that since the AP calls them popes, they must be.
Similarly, the vast majority of Novus Ordo Catholics cannot be used as this gauge, since they themselves dissent even from the teaching of the N.O. Church on such things like birth control and the Real Presence-- the former still "officially" condemned by the Novus Ordo Church, the former still "officially" taught; but the Novus Ordo faithful as an overwhelming majority accept and reject these respectively.
Traditional Catholics cannot be said to recognize these men when they reject everything they teach. When theologians speak of recognition they aren't talking about putting his picture in the vestibule or inserting his name in the canon only, rather these are things which follow logically from peacefully accepting the authority of the pope in question. Traditional Catholics reject that authority, not just a little bit, but completely. There is certainly no peaceful acceptance on our end toward these men. And there hasn't ever been.
I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.
Who are you using as a measure? Most of the Novus Ordo bishops aren't Catholics to begin with, and as such do not compose the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and are not a reliable rule to determine this doctrine of universal acceptance.
Whatever non-heretic (ergo, presumably Catholic) prelates are left can hardly constitute a moral unanimity, much less an absolute one.
-
Why so much interest in trying to defeat sedevacantism, Sean, if it's so useless and impossible an idea?
-
I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.
Can you name "a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction" who holds and professes publicly the Catholic Faith wholly and entirely?
-
Mith, even under your view, there is no bishop with ordinary jurisdiction (who comprise the ecclesia docens) who doesn't pray in communion with Pope Francis. I take it you admit this? Please tell us, if you believe otherwise, which bishops do not.
Secondly, please tell us, what is the actual profession that recognizes a man as Pontiff, if it is not the act of praying for him as Pope? Please cite some authority for the latter. From Pope Benedict XIV's statement, it seems fairly evident that not only is this act an express profession of such a recognition, but it is also "the chief and most glorious form of communion".
-
As I have said to Nishant, I think it is very much debatable that the whole Church recognizes these men as popes.
One cannot use the Novus Ordo to measure such a thing. So the "recognition" of the majority of the Novus Ordo prelates does not extend to verify what Billot is teaching, since they themselves don't have the faith; it would be tantamount to arguing that since the AP calls them popes, they must be.
Similarly, the vast majority of Novus Ordo Catholics cannot be used as this gauge, since they themselves dissent even from the teaching of the N.O. Church on such things like birth control and the Real Presence-- the former still "officially" condemned by the Novus Ordo Church, the former still "officially" taught; but the Novus Ordo faithful as an overwhelming majority accept and reject these respectively.
Traditional Catholics cannot be said to recognize these men when they reject everything they teach. When theologians speak of recognition they aren't talking about putting his picture in the vestibule or inserting his name in the canon only, rather these are things which follow logically from peacefully accepting the authority of the pope in question. Traditional Catholics reject that authority, not just a little bit, but completely. There is certainly no peaceful acceptance on our end toward these men. And there hasn't ever been.
...I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.
Sean, please point out for us a single bishop (by name) with ordinary jurisdiction! We'll review your candidate if you can come up with one.
Have you ever stopped and thought for a moment that this just might be the "great apostasy"?
-
...if "Pope" Francis was outside the Church, then so would the whole ecclesia docens also be, for they profess communion with him...
Agreed, the apostates (each and every one of them) are outside the Church.
-
I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.
Please name all the bishops you can think of who are not public heretics. You can include those with or without ordinary jurisdiction. I will be surprised if you can name a single bishop who has ordinary jurisdiction who has not also publicly contradicted the infallible teachings of the Church.
And if you are not willing to recognize their recognition, you have effectively eliminated the worldwide heirarchy.
I will not recognize public heretics.
-
1st Argument by Jimmy Akin:
According to many current sedevacantists, Pius XII was the last valid pope. He died in 1958, which was 53 years ago.
Here is where the argument gets interesting: In order to be pope, under current canon law, one must be elected by the college of cardinals.
False. This falsehood should no longer be making the rounds on CI. Anyone who has been paying attention knows it to be refuted by pre-V2 theologians (e.g. Cardinal Journet). Canon law requires the Cardinals to elect the pope but it is also an accepted legal principal that when the law is impeding the purpose for which it was created, it has no force.
So, Sean Johnson, Jimmy Akins' argument is not only assailable, it holds no water whatsoever. It is a junk argument.
-
If we are going to start throwing around accusations of schism, I think the recognize and resist folks have to answer how they are not in schism. They claim that they are subjects of the authority of a schismatic and heretical man, but they refuse to obey him whom they believe to be the legitimate reigning pontiff. Either way you look at it, they are on a trajectory to ruin. They need to understand that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church and can never have any authority whatsoever and to follow/recognize one is to join him in heresy and schism. And they need to understand the necessity of obeying the man whom they recognize as the sovereign pontiff.
-
And Mith seems to leave out that Pope Benedict XIV clearly described for us that "una cuм" is really "an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter." So how can it be claimed, on the contrary, that is not recognition of the Pope?
You obviously do not understand what submission means. Recognition is worthless if it is not accompanied by submission. Pope Innocent didn't require recognition, he required submission. Without it you are damned.
-
I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.
Can you name "a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction" who holds and professes publicly the Catholic Faith wholly and entirely?
Okay, down-thumbers, name just one.
-
Name one saint who knowingly refused submission to the man whom he recognized as the sovereign pontiff? St. Vincent Ferrer is often used as an example but he never refused submission to the man whom he recognized as the sovereign pontiff. He was merely wrong about who the sovereign pontiff actually was. He was not held culpable for that error. But willingly refusing submission to the sovereign pontiff is a mortal sin.
-
I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.
Can you name "a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction" who holds and professes publicly the Catholic Faith wholly and entirely?
Okay, down-thumbers, name just one.
I hope you are not holding your breath Charlemagne. It may be a very long wait. I think we have tried this exercise before. There are some lists of known valid bishops in the NO (i.e. consecrated in the traditional rite) but the list is very short. The list is shorter if you limit it to only those bishops who have never publicly said something heretical. I think it is actually less than a couple dozen. But not one of these has ordinary jurisdiction unless you take the SV position and say that they retain OJ because their resignation was never accepted by a legitimate pope.
-
One thing that is not adequately addressed by the R&R folks is the doubtful validity of the NO episcopal consecration rite. Not only were the words changed but even the meaning was changed. That is irrefutable. The only question is whether the rite continues to signify the grace which is conferred. However, who can say with infallible certainty whether or not it is valid? Not even the pope has the power to make infallible judgments on novelties and no one denies the novelty of this man-made rite which was based on the faulty (and discredited) research of a modernist Benedictine monk.
-
I think the recognize and resist folks have to answer how they are not in schism. They claim that they are subjects of the authority of a schismatic and heretical man, but they refuse to obey him whom they believe to be the legitimate reigning pontiff. Either way you look at it, they are on a trajectory to ruin. They need to understand that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church and can never have any authority whatsoever and to follow/recognize one is to join him in heresy and schism. And they need to understand the necessity of obeying the man whom they recognize as the sovereign pontiff.
I'm embarrassed for any Sedevacantist that actually uses that argument. It's pathetic.
You are just plain WRONG, in particular the part I bolded.
The Pope doesn't have the authority to change the Faith or destroy the Church. It's basic "Traditional Catholicism 101" -- part of the charter of Traditional Catholicism (or, the foundation/justification for the very existence of the Traditional movement). We Catholics have a right to resist the Pope on such things. Haven't you ever heard the argument? If a parent tells you to commit a sin, you can disobey that parent, because he's stepping outside his authority? You don't have to declare that he's not your father.
Like Bishop Williamson said -- Sedevacantists and Novus Ordo Catholics both err on the subject of Papal Infallibility/obedience -- it's just that they each deal with that "fact" a different way.
Sedes believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they reject his papacy.
Novus Ordo Catholics believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they follow him off a cliff.
They both need to hit the books.
P.S. Do you think Our Lord was kidding when he said "even the elect" could be deceived? Meditate on that for a bit. Who do you picture, when you picture "the Elect" falling? When He says "the Elect", He's talking about SERIOUS CATHOLICS -- like the people on CathInfo. That means that even WE could be deceived into taking the wrong path.
-
Ok, it's my turn to make a demand that will be met by silence and inaction.
Someone please prove, with a quote from Vatican I (etc.) that the Pope must be followed even in matters involving sin or destruction of the Faith.
In other words, please show me that your crazy notion of papal obedience has some basis in Church doctrine, rather than your own mistaken opinion.
Don't worry, I won't be waiting, I have much better things to do. And I'm sure I'd be waiting forever.
-
I think the recognize and resist folks have to answer how they are not in schism. They claim that they are subjects of the authority of a schismatic and heretical man, but they refuse to obey him whom they believe to be the legitimate reigning pontiff. Either way you look at it, they are on a trajectory to ruin. They need to understand that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church and can never have any authority whatsoever and to follow/recognize one is to join him in heresy and schism. And they need to understand the necessity of obeying the man whom they recognize as the sovereign pontiff.
I'm embarrassed for any Sedevacantist that actually uses that argument. It's pathetic.
You are just plain WRONG, in particular the part I bolded.
The Pope doesn't have the authority to change the Faith or destroy the Church. It's basic "Traditional Catholicism 101" -- part of the charter of Traditional Catholicism (or, the foundation/justification for the very existence of the Traditional movement). We Catholics have a right to resist the Pope on such things. Haven't you ever heard the argument? If a parent tells you to commit a sin, you can disobey that parent, because he's stepping outside his authority? You don't have to declare that he's not your father.
Like Bishop Williamson said -- Sedevacantists and Novus Ordo Catholics both err on the subject of Papal Infallibility/obedience -- it's just that they each deal with that "fact" a different way.
Sedes believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they reject his papacy.
Novus Ordo Catholics believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they follow him off a cliff.
They both need to hit the books.
What about the modified form of the argument, that R&R can inculcate a practical disrespect, occasionally downright contempt, for the person of the pope and the members of the hierarchy?
-
What it "can" lead to, or the "dangers" of such a position are completely irrelevant.
The only question is: is the position true or not? Is it legitimate, or not?
It reminds me of the Accordistas who advocate a practical agreement with Modernist Rome because, "Hey, if we keep going like this, we're going to end up schismatic!"
No, if the classic SSPX position is fine, then it's always fine. It doesn't have a magical expiration date when it "spoils" and turns schismatic.
And of course in a grave crisis like this, ANY path, including the true path, is fraught with danger. That's neither here nor there. It's beside the point.
We didn't decide to have this little Crisis in the Church. It wasn't our idea. All we can do is deal with it and wait for God to end it in His own good time.
Our only job is to pass the test. That is, to be found faithful.
-
If the bishops of the SSPX can disagree over R&R, then they are getting their opinions from different theologians. It seems there is no definitive theologian who provides the answer that brings unity. They probably judge the situation from their own circuмstances and personal experience, backed up with some theologians words in the abstract, but I long to see a theologian who speaks entirely in the abstract and theory, who forgets himself and his own interests, who does not depend on personal experience or refer to his own situation, who values the truth to a martyr like quality, who has no passion on the subject and who will present facts, who has a Catholic spirit and Catholic sensus that will enable him to analyse and judge according to truth for the satisfaction of all those of good will.
-
Matthew, are you disobeying the Pope in any matter where he asserts his authority infallibly? For example, does the Pope maintain that the SSPX is in schism, and is the Pope's declaration (if such a declaration exists) on the schismatic nature of the SSPX declared infallibly with the power of his office? Does the Pope infallibly guarantee the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments and does he claim infallibility when promoting the NO Mass and in charging the faithful with attending said Mass?
If the Pope is invoking that power of his office then how can you claim to be justified in disobedience to his councils?
Please correct any ignorance I may have.
God bless.
-
It seems there is no definitive theologian who provides the answer that brings unity. They probably judge the situation from their own circuмstances and personal experience, backed up with some theologians words in the abstract, but I long to see a theologian who speaks entirely in the abstract and theory, who forgets himself and his own interests, who does not depend on personal experience or refer to his own situation, who values the truth to a martyr like quality, who has no passion on the subject and who will present facts, who has a Catholic spirit and Catholic sensus that will enable him to analyse and judge according to truth for the satisfaction of all those of good will.
Google "Bishop Williamson".
You're welcome.
-
Matthew, are you disobeying the Pope in any matter where he asserts his authority infallibly? For example, does the Pope maintain that the SSPX is in schism, and is the Pope's declaration (if such a declaration exists) on the schismatic nature of the SSPX declared infallibly with the power of his office? Does the Pope infallibly guarantee the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments and does he claim infallibility when promoting the NO Mass and expecting the faithful to attend that Mass?
If the Pope is invoking that power of his office then how can you claim to be justified in disobedience to his councils?
Please correct any ignorance I may have.
God bless.
I will not follow him when he contradicts Tradition or the Catholic Faith. It's that simple.
The Pope doesn't have the authority to change or destroy the Faith. What's so hard to understand about that?
-
I think the recognize and resist folks have to answer how they are not in schism. They claim that they are subjects of the authority of a schismatic and heretical man, but they refuse to obey him whom they believe to be the legitimate reigning pontiff. Either way you look at it, they are on a trajectory to ruin. They need to understand that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church and can never have any authority whatsoever and to follow/recognize one is to join him in heresy and schism. And they need to understand the necessity of obeying the man whom they recognize as the sovereign pontiff.
I'm embarrassed for any Sedevacantist that actually uses that argument. It's pathetic.
You are just plain WRONG, in particular the part I bolded.
The Pope doesn't have the authority to change the Faith or destroy the Church. It's basic "Traditional Catholicism 101" -- part of the charter of Traditional Catholicism (or, the foundation/justification for the very existence of the Traditional movement). We Catholics have a right to resist the Pope on such things. Haven't you ever heard the argument? If a parent tells you to commit a sin, you can disobey that parent, because he's stepping outside his authority? You don't have to declare that he's not your father.
Like Bishop Williamson said -- Sedevacantists and Novus Ordo Catholics both err on the subject of Papal Infallibility/obedience -- it's just that they each deal with that "fact" a different way.
Sedes believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they reject his papacy.
Novus Ordo Catholics believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they follow him off a cliff.
They both need to hit the books.
P.S. Do you think Our Lord was kidding when he said "even the elect" could be deceived? Meditate on that for a bit. Who do you picture, when you picture "the Elect" falling? When He says "the Elect", He's talking about SERIOUS CATHOLICS -- like the people on CathInfo. That means that even WE could be deceived into taking the wrong path.
Your reponse is off the mark. To compare disobeying the pope because he asked you to do something sinful is in no way comparable to systematically refusing submission not only to all his commands but also for all intents and purposes refusing communion with him. The SSPX will not allow NO priests and bishops to say Mass at their chapels. They will never call a NO priest when there is a need for emergency coverage. The SSPX and the NO refuse to have ANYTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. In no way can you claim submission to the sovereign pontiff. If you tried to claim that you should be mocked.
When the "pope" is trying to destroy the faith that should set off an alarm in your head. You should then be asking does this man have the Faith? If he has publicly departed from the Faith then he loses his office automatically and without any declaration. cf. Canon 188.4.
My father (RIP) will always be my father no matter what he believed or did. The pope is only the pope as long as he professes the Catholic faith. If he departs from the Faith, he loses his office.
The pope does not have to be obeyed if he commands you to do something sinful. But there is a vast difference between asking you to do something sinful and actively and willfully seeking to destroy the faith of all Catholics. (cf. Pope Francis - "There is no Catholic God.")
PS. "...if it were possible."
-
Ok, it's my turn to make a demand that will be met by silence and inaction.
Someone please prove, with a quote from Vatican I (etc.) that the Pope must be followed even in matters involving sin or destruction of the Faith.
In other words, please show me that your crazy notion of papal obedience has some basis in Church doctrine, rather than your own mistaken opinion.
Don't worry, I won't be waiting, I have much better things to do. And I'm sure I'd be waiting forever.
No one is demanding that you obey Pope Francis. He is not the pope. But if you believe he is the pope then you ought to be obeying him.
Previous generations understood that when the Pope was destroying the Faith, he would lose his office due to public schism or heresy.
-
You miss one important element --
Catholics will always disagree. Even learned theologians.
What if there's a heated debate about something, and the pope is on the other side of the argument? Can a given priest decide the Pope is heretical, and hence he's lost his office?
In other words, if a Pope can ipso facto lose his office for any heresy, then who gets to decide that the Pope has indeed lost his Office? Who gets to judge the Pope?
I'll answer it for you: No one on earth. Only a future council can judge the pope.
-
Ok, it's my turn to make a demand that will be met by silence and inaction.
Someone please prove, with a quote from Vatican I (etc.) that the Pope must be followed even in matters involving sin or destruction of the Faith.
In other words, please show me that your crazy notion of papal obedience has some basis in Church doctrine, rather than your own mistaken opinion.
Don't worry, I won't be waiting, I have much better things to do. And I'm sure I'd be waiting forever.
No one is demanding that you obey Pope Francis. He is not the pope. But if you believe he is the pope then you ought to be obeying him.
Previous generations understood that when the Pope was destroying the Faith, he would lose his office due to public schism or heresy.
So I can't disobey the pope, but I can depose him from the Papal Chair. Gotcha.
That makes a TON of sense.
:rolleyes:
-
I will not follow him when he contradicts Tradition or the Catholic Faith. It's that simple.
The Pope doesn't have the authority to change or destroy the Faith. What's so hard to understand about that?
Matthew, I believe that I understand that and I think it is simply a truism that one cannot obey a command that goes against Tradition or Faith; and that nobody on earth has the power to change Tradition or Faith is another truism. However, I do believe that you have not properly addressed my question, as I was not asking whether or not the Pope(s) in question was contradicting Tradition or Faith (for I think that everyone here is agreed that he/they often have done precisely that), but whether or not the Pope has exercised the power of infallibility which belongs to the office that you maintain he holds on a matter in which you claim the right to disobey. Now, while I think it's obvious that you have to disobey anybody, including the Pope, if he asks you to act in contradiction to the Faith or Tradition, how can you be acting in contradiction to Faith or Tradition in obeying any command that the Pope guarantees is lawful with infallibility, I.e. with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit? If the Pope says infallibly that the SSPX is schismatic (please inform me if he is not making that claim) then either the Holy Spirit has assured us that the SSPX is schismatic, or the "Pope" never had the office which allows for the infallible assurance of the Holy Spirit to begin with.
See, if the Pope guarantees that the NO Mass is valid and licit then does that not imply that the Holy Spirit Himself has sanctioned said Mass?
Again, if I'm ignorant of anything vital to the discussion then please take the time to enlighten me.
God bless.
-
You miss one important element --
Catholics will always disagree. Even learned theologians.
What if there's a heated debate about something, and the pope is on the other side of the argument? Can a given priest decide the Pope is heretical, and hence he's lost his office?
In other words, if a Pope can ipso facto lose his office for any heresy, then who gets to decide that the Pope has indeed lost his Office? Who gets to judge the Pope?
I'll answer it for you: No one on earth. Only a future council can judge the pope.
No, the Church can judge the pope. In fact, during the Great Western Schism, the Cardinals met and agreed that they had been forced into electing Urban so they declared that the election was invalid and proceeded to elect Clement. The Church later judged that the Cardinals were in error on the validity of Urban's pontificate but the Church did not say that the Cardinals had no right to make such a judgment. If the Cardinals are unable to make such a judgment a council could also make the judgment. You are right that the lone opinion of a single priest is worthless but if the entire Church is represented then the Church's judgment can remove a man from the papal office.
In the present case, we are not talking about a lone-wolf priest. There are more than 40 bishops and hundreds of priests and thousands of faithful who believe Francis is a heretic. If a council were to formalize it and elect a new pope, I believe we would be obliged to accept him.
-
I will not follow him when he contradicts Tradition or the Catholic Faith. It's that simple.
The Pope doesn't have the authority to change or destroy the Faith. What's so hard to understand about that?
but whether or not the Pope has exercised the power of infallibility which belongs to the office that you maintain he holds on a matter in which you claim the right to disobey. Now, while I think it's obvious that you have to disobey anybody, including the Pope, if he asks you to act in contradiction to the Faith or Tradition, how can you be acting in contradiction to Faith or Tradition in obeying any command that the Pope guarantees is lawful with infallibility, I.e. with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit? If the Pope says infallibly that the SSPX is schismatic (please inform me if he is not making that claim) then either the Holy Spirit has assured us that the SSPX is schismatic, or the "Pope" never has the office which allows for the infallible assurance of the Holy Spirit to begin with.
See, if the Pope guarantees that the NO Mass is valid and licit then does that not imply that the Holy Spirit Himself has sanctioned said Mass?
The pope has never invoked infallibility on the things you mention.
SSPX "schism", for example, isn't on the books *anywhere*. It's a vague impression Rome would like the average person to have -- but when you call them on it, they deny it.
The Novus Ordo Mass is a good question, as it seems to invoke the Ordinary Magisterium, etc. but I'm not a theologian and this seems to be part of the "mystery" of this Crisis.
Matthew
-
Ok, it's my turn to make a demand that will be met by silence and inaction.
Someone please prove, with a quote from Vatican I (etc.) that the Pope must be followed even in matters involving sin or destruction of the Faith.
In other words, please show me that your crazy notion of papal obedience has some basis in Church doctrine, rather than your own mistaken opinion.
Don't worry, I won't be waiting, I have much better things to do. And I'm sure I'd be waiting forever.
No one is demanding that you obey Pope Francis. He is not the pope. But if you believe he is the pope then you ought to be obeying him.
Previous generations understood that when the Pope was destroying the Faith, he would lose his office due to public schism or heresy.
So I can't disobey the pope, but I can depose him from the Papal Chair. Gotcha.
That makes a TON of sense.
:rolleyes:
No you can't depose anyone. You have no authority. But why don't you try reading some books on Canon Law. That might help you understand that a pope deposes himself if he departs from the faith publicly.
-
The pope has never invoked infallibility on the things you mention.
SSPX "schism", for example, isn't on the books *anywhere*. It's a vague impression Rome would like the average person to have -- but when you call them on it, they deny it.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
-
No you can't depose anyone. You have no authority. But why don't you try reading some books on Canon Law. That might help you understand that a pope deposes himself if he departs from the faith publicly.
You say that a Pope deposes himself if he departs from the faith. But who really "deposes" him. By that I mean tells him he is no longer pope, kicks him out of the papal apartment, explains to the whole world that he is no longer pope, orders the cardinals to come and elect a new pope (or now if the sedevacantist theory is true there are no cardinals so they would have to elect a new pope some other way). You know, who does all of the things involved in "deposing" a pope. would an individual bishop do these things, or would there have to be a council?
-
No you can't depose anyone. You have no authority. But why don't you try reading some books on Canon Law. That might help you understand that a pope deposes himself if he departs from the faith publicly.
You say that a Pope deposes himself if he departs from the faith. But who really "deposes" him. By that I mean tells him he is no longer pope, kicks him out of the papal apartment, explains to the whole world that he is no longer pope, orders the cardinals to come and elect a new pope (or now if the sedevacantist theory is true there are no cardinals so they would have to elect a new pope some other way). You know, who does all of the things involved in "deposing" a pope.
A council can formalize it. I guess I should mention that even if a council formalized the situation it doesn't necessarily mean that Francis is going to suddenly agree to leave. Nor does it mean that the entire Conciliar Sect is suddenly going to stop following Francis.
-
A council can formalize it.
So there would have to be a council? OK. Thanks.
-
Your opinion sounds good and simple and all "if he's a public heretic, he's not the pope!"
But then there's the small issue that this little Interregnum has been in effect since the death of Pius XII (according to most Sedevacantists) -- that's a long interregnum. And what about the rest of the Church? Because it's the Church that you sedevacantists say is vacant, not just Peter's Chair.
No valid Cardinals left, and no one who can appoint any? Hmm...that's quite a corner you've painted the Church into there.
-
Mith, even under your view, there is no bishop with ordinary jurisdiction (who comprise the ecclesia docens) who doesn't pray in communion with Pope Francis. I take it you admit this? Please tell us, if you believe otherwise, which bishops do not.
Secondly, please tell us, what is the actual profession that recognizes a man as Pontiff, if it is not the act of praying for him as Pope? Please cite some authority for the latter. From Pope Benedict XIV's statement, it seems fairly evident that not only is this act an express profession of such a recognition, but it is also "the chief and most glorious form of communion".
What source would suffice, Nishant? Vatican II ended in 1965 and there is a near complete "transformation" of the beliefs of the clergy in the Vatican.
I can only think of the Trad Bishops (who are not officially recognized the novus ordo apparatus) who actually adhere to the Catholic Faith as expressed as the Deposit of Faith.
1) Change Latin to English? No real biggie.
2) Change the structure of every single Sacrament? Again, not much of a biggie but a big red flag. Our Lord did leave this part to the apostles.
3) Publicly profess that other faiths have salvific components? Whoa there - that sounds really close to denying Our Lord.
4) Publicly professing that Jєωs do not need to believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ? This statement is a denial of Our Lord and it implies that He is just One of many - which is really just indifferentism.
-
please point out for us a single bishop (by name) with ordinary jurisdiction! We'll review your candidate if you can come up with one ... (each and every one of them) are outside the Church.
Yeah, right.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/
1. You can find a list of all the world's bishops above. Please inform us of the criteria by which you arrived at the conclusion that each and every one of these have lost their office.
2. More importanlty, your position is objectively heterodox, and borders on heresy. The faith compels you to believe that there cannot cease to be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. Do you dispute this?
If you do, then I will cite Vatican I, which expressly says that there must always be pastors and teachers in the Church until the end of time, who were sent just as the Apostles were sent, and theological texts explaining that this means there cannot cease to be bishops with canonical mission and ordinary power of jurisdiction in the Church, for formal Apostolic succession requires the same.
Recognition is worthless
Have you ever read the entirety of the text of Billot, cited by Fr. Boulet, that Sean is talking about? The last time we discussed this, it was evident to me that you had not, even though, just as here, you proceeded to draw all sorts of unwarranted conclusions on your own.
Before all else, here is the text in its entirety,
God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.
From all of which it is evident how far modern sedevacantists are from the mind of the Church on this matter.
And I can cite more texts if you want, from more recent theologians like Msgr. Noort and Rev. Connell on the same. But first, set your own opinion aside, try to understand what these theologians are teaching, and learn from those appointed to teach.
-
I don't think any of the positions are without problems. Here are pointed out some of the problems of sedevacantism while on other threads are pointed out the problems with sedeplenism such as how can the true Church give us an evil council and an evil Mass? I don't know the answers to these questions.
-
Your opinion sounds good and simple and all "if he's a public heretic, he's not the pope!"
But then there's the small issue that this little Interregnum has been in effect since the death of Pius XII (according to most Sedevacantists) -- that's a long interregnum. And what about the rest of the Church? Because it's the Church that you sedevacantists say is vacant, not just Peter's Chair.
No valid Cardinals left, and no one who can appoint any? Hmm...that's quite a corner you've painted the Church into there.
Your position is no better. You are in the unenviable position of claiming that Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Law, Cardinal Martini, Cardinal Mueller, Pope "There is no Catholic God" Francis and all the rest are/were the only legitimate authorities in the Church. That has been the case since Pius XII. That's a long period of apostasy. And for all intents and purposes the entire visible Church is vacant for you too. Except it is more so for you than for SVs because all the SVs have to do is hold a council and elect a pope. But you have to convert the entire Conciliar Sect before there is any solution for you. And I sure don't know how you will ever resolve the issue of the validity of the NO sacraments, especially the episcopal consecrations. That's quite a corner you've painted the R&R folks into.
-
please point out for us a single bishop (by name) with ordinary jurisdiction! We'll review your candidate if you can come up with one ... (each and every one of them) are outside the Church.
Yeah, right.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/
1. You can find a list of all the world's bishops above. Please inform us of the criteria by which you arrived at the conclusion that each and every one of these have lost their office.
2. More importanlty, your position is objectively heterodox, and borders on heresy. The faith compels you to believe that there cannot cease to be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. Do you dispute this?
If you do, then I will cite Vatican I, which expressly says that there must always be pastors and teachers in the Church until the end of time, who were sent just as the Apostles were sent, and theological texts explaining that this means there cannot cease to be bishops with canonical mission and ordinary power of jurisdiction in the Church, for formal Apostolic succession requires the same.
Recognition is worthless
Have you ever read the entirety of the text of Billot, cited by Fr. Boulet, that Sean is talking about? The last time we discussed this, it was evident to me that you had not, even though, just as here, you proceeded to draw all sorts of unwarranted conclusions on your own.
Before all else, here is the text in its entirety,
God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.
From all of which it is evident how far modern sedevacantists are from the mind of the Church on this matter.
And I can cite more texts if you want, from more recent theologians like Msgr. Noort and Rev. Connell on the same. But first, set your own opinion aside, try to understand what these theologians are teaching, and learn from those appointed to teach.
Nishant,
What good is all this if we have cardinals actually saying that the Jєωs do not need to accept Jesus to be saved and that even atheists if they are good people can be saved?
The structure can remain in place for centuries after the Holy Ghost abandons it - the Lutheran Church is 500 years old and it ain't going no where. (It leads to Hell - but that's a different thread).
Post-Vatican II, the hierarchy has blended the Catholic faith with the faiths of the world and blended the Catholic faith with the atheist tenants of the world - Marxism with a Cross. By doing this, they are acting as if the Deposit of Faith is their personal plaything.
So, back to your structures... Let's do a tally sheet!
The structures + apostasy = No Good
The structures + indifferentism = No Good
The structures + hedging the words of Our Lord = No Good (along with the sneaking suspicion that many of the church hierarchy are actually atheists)
The structure - The Deposit of Faith = No Good
The structure must serve the Deposit of Faith, the structure by itself and in absence of the Catholic Faith? Well, all those other "churches" like the Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Mormon all have that.
-
Your opinion sounds good and simple and all "if he's a public heretic, he's not the pope!"
But then there's the small issue that this little Interregnum has been in effect since the death of Pius XII (according to most Sedevacantists) -- that's a long interregnum. And what about the rest of the Church? Because it's the Church that you sedevacantists say is vacant, not just Peter's Chair.
No valid Cardinals left, and no one who can appoint any? Hmm...that's quite a corner you've painted the Church into there.
Your position is no better. You are in the unenviable position of claiming that Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Law, Cardinal Martini, Cardinal Mueller, Pope "There is no Catholic God" Francis and all the rest are/were the only legitimate authorities in the Church. That has been the case since Pius XII. That's a long period of apostasy. And for all intents and purposes the entire visible Church is vacant for you too. Except it is more so for you than for SVs because all the SVs have to do is hold a council and elect a pope. But you have to convert the entire Conciliar Sect before there is any solution for you. And I sure don't know how you will ever resolve the issue of the validity of the NO sacraments, especially the episcopal consecrations. That's quite a corner you've painted the R&R folks into.
The only consistent Sedevacantists are the conclavists.
If you *really* believed that Francis wasn't a pope, almost pope, remnant of a pope, reminds you of a pope, etc. -- if you REALLY believed he wasn't the pope AT ALL and that the Church has been without a pope for 50+ years, you'd get together and elect one, like several groups have done.
Hey, I need a vehicle to get around. If my car was *dead* I wouldn't waste a lot of time getting a new one. It's essential to living where I live that you have a working vehicle. And it's essential for the Catholic Church to have a pope. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Because Roman Catholics believe in a visible Church with a visible hierarchy, including a visible head, until the End of Time (which we aren't at yet!) End of story.
If you believe in the Catholic notion of the Catholic Church, you know that a Pope is not optional. Especially after 50 years, come on!
I'll admit though -- it doesn't reflect poorly on individual sedevacantist laymen per se -- just all the clergy that adhere to sedevacantism. They're hypocrites and inconsistent. Cognitive dissonance all the way.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too! (What they usually say about the Recognize & Resist position). Claim there's no Pope and ignore the Pope, so you can do whatever you want, but don't take any risks like electing a new one.
How are non-conclavist Sedevacantists any different than the R&R position they criticize so harshly? Because their Mass is 2 seconds shorter? (They don't mention Pope Francis in the Canon)
-
But Captain, no one here is denying the magnitude of the crisis. We are discussing what is the proper response to it.
In St. Athanasius' time, a large portion of the hierarchy had fallen into heresy. Some historians put the estimates above 90%. It doesn't matter even if it's worse now, we have to do two things, keep the Faith and avoid falling into a schismatic mentality.
As Roman Catholics, we remain at all times professing communion with the Pontiff, just as St. Athanasius did, despite the weakness of Pope Liberius against Arianism. A similar example we could cite would be St. Maximus, Pope Honorius and Monothelitism. These illustrations could be multiplied.
Keep the Faith (safeguard against heresy), pray in communion with the man universally recognized as Roman Pontiff (safeguard against schism), and you do all things well.
-
Your opinion sounds good and simple and all "if he's a public heretic, he's not the pope!"
But then there's the small issue that this little Interregnum has been in effect since the death of Pius XII (according to most Sedevacantists) -- that's a long interregnum. And what about the rest of the Church? Because it's the Church that you sedevacantists say is vacant, not just Peter's Chair.
No valid Cardinals left, and no one who can appoint any? Hmm...that's quite a corner you've painted the Church into there.
Your position is no better. You are in the unenviable position of claiming that Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Law, Cardinal Martini, Cardinal Mueller, Pope "There is no Catholic God" Francis
It seems to me a more accurate quote would be "I believe... not* in a Catholic God."
To be fair, he did not say that "THERE IS" no Catholic God, just that he personally doesn't believe in one. But then he also said you can go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe, implying that atheists have just as much right as anyone to believe in the NON-existence of God, even if Francis does not share in their belief -- but he shares in their belief that they have some kind of right to believe it. It's a quasi-Americanist heresy, it seems to me. (I say quasi-Americanist because an outgrowth of Americanism is this: "I might not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to express it.")
*He actually is quoted as saying, "I believe in God, but not in a Catholic God."
and all the rest are/were the only legitimate authorities in the Church. That has been the case since Pius XII. That's a long period of apostasy. And for all intents and purposes the entire visible Church is vacant for you too. Except it is more so for you than for SVs because all the SVs have to do is hold a council and elect a pope. But you have to convert the entire Conciliar Sect before there is any solution for you. And I sure don't know how you will ever resolve the issue of the validity of the NO sacraments, especially the episcopal consecrations. That's quite a corner you've painted the R&R folks into.
-
please point out for us a single bishop (by name) with ordinary jurisdiction! We'll review your candidate if you can come up with one ... (each and every one of them) are outside the Church.
Yeah, right.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/
1. You can find a list of all the world's bishops above. Please inform us of the criteria by which you arrived at the conclusion that each and every one of these have lost their office.
You are a joker. Is the new Mass protestentized or not? Do each and every one of of those Conciliar bishops not say this heretical/schismatic Mass? Do they even have valid orders?
2. More importanlty, your position is objectively heterodox, and borders on heresy. The faith compels you to believe that there cannot cease to be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. Do you dispute this?
You are a joker, Nishant. You are straining gnats and swallowing camels. Only a theologian would have to be worried about getting that right. But every one of us is required to believe the articles in the creed and in the Conciliar Sect we don't have that. "Pope" Francis doesn't believe in a Catholic God. In other words he publicly denies the Holy Trinity. But you attach yourself to him. Are you insane?
It is not an infallible explicit teaching of the Church that there must always be bishops with OJ. It is a theological conclusion which is drawn from the deposit of the faith. But it is not infallible. It is especially not infallible because it is a complex topic which is not easily understood. For you to make that the basis of your belief that the Conciliar Sect must hold legitimate authority is pathetic. Even if it is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the Conciliar Sect which holds OJ.
If you do, then I will cite Vatican I, which expressly says that there must always be pastors and teachers in the Church until the end of time, who were sent just as the Apostles were sent, and theological texts explaining that this means there cannot cease to be bishops with canonical mission and ordinary power of jurisdiction in the Church, for formal Apostolic succession requires the same.
V1 also says the same thing about popes but that doesn't mean there is going to be a pope at every moment.
Recognition is worthless
Have you ever read the entirety of the text of Billot, cited by Fr. Boulet, that Sean is talking about? The last time we discussed this, it was evident to me that you had not, even though, just as here, you proceeded to draw all sorts of unwarranted conclusions on your own.
I already refuted your interpretation of Cardinal Billot, yes, the entire text. You didn't respond back so I took that to mean you gave up.
From all of which it is evident how far modern sedevacantists are from the mind of the Church on this matter.
In your irrational fantasy land, maybe.
And I can cite more texts if you want, from more recent theologians like Msgr. Noort and Rev. Connell on the same. But first, set your own opinion aside, try to understand what these theologians are teaching, and learn from those appointed to teach.
Please do.
-
Your opinion sounds good and simple and all "if he's a public heretic, he's not the pope!"
But then there's the small issue that this little Interregnum has been in effect since the death of Pius XII (according to most Sedevacantists) -- that's a long interregnum. And what about the rest of the Church? Because it's the Church that you sedevacantists say is vacant, not just Peter's Chair.
No valid Cardinals left, and no one who can appoint any? Hmm...that's quite a corner you've painted the Church into there.
Your position is no better. You are in the unenviable position of claiming that Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Law, Cardinal Martini, Cardinal Mueller, Pope "There is no Catholic God" Francis and all the rest are/were the only legitimate authorities in the Church. That has been the case since Pius XII. That's a long period of apostasy. And for all intents and purposes the entire visible Church is vacant for you too. Except it is more so for you than for SVs because all the SVs have to do is hold a council and elect a pope. But you have to convert the entire Conciliar Sect before there is any solution for you. And I sure don't know how you will ever resolve the issue of the validity of the NO sacraments, especially the episcopal consecrations. That's quite a corner you've painted the R&R folks into.
The only consistent Sedevacantists are the conclavists.
If you *really* believed that Francis wasn't a pope, almost pope, remnant of a pope, reminds you of a pope, etc. -- if you REALLY believed he wasn't the pope AT ALL and that the Church has been without a pope for 50+ years, you'd get together and elect one, like several groups have done.
Hey, I need a vehicle to get around. If my car was *dead* I wouldn't waste a lot of time getting a new one. It's essential to living where I live that you have a working vehicle. And it's essential for the Catholic Church to have a pope. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Because Roman Catholics believe in a visible Church with a visible hierarchy, including a visible head, until the End of Time (which we aren't at yet!) End of story.
If you believe in the Catholic notion of the Catholic Church, you know that a Pope is not optional. Especially after 50 years, come on!
I'll admit though -- it doesn't reflect poorly on individual sedevacantist laymen per se -- just all the clergy that adhere to sedevacantism. They're hypocrites and inconsistent. Cognitive dissonance all the way.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too! (What they usually say about the Recognize & Resist position). Claim there's no Pope and ignore the Pope, so you can do whatever you want, but don't take any risks like electing a new one.
How are non-conclavist Sedevacantists any different than the R&R position they criticize so harshly? Because their Mass is 2 seconds shorter? (They don't mention Pope Francis in the Canon)
I'm a conclavist in the sense that I think it is possible for a pope to be elected by traditionalist clergy. The key is to do it in such a way that it is accepted by a large number of the traditional clergy. Without acceptance, you cannot have a legitimate pope. I mostly agree with what you have said above. I hope SVs will be inspired to consider the possibility of electing a Catholic pope.
I also think the election of a Catholic pope might inspire R&R folks to reconsider.
-
Your opinion sounds good and simple and all "if he's a public heretic, he's not the pope!"
But then there's the small issue that this little Interregnum has been in effect since the death of Pius XII (according to most Sedevacantists) -- that's a long interregnum. And what about the rest of the Church? Because it's the Church that you sedevacantists say is vacant, not just Peter's Chair.
No valid Cardinals left, and no one who can appoint any? Hmm...that's quite a corner you've painted the Church into there.
Your position is no better. You are in the unenviable position of claiming that Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Law, Cardinal Martini, Cardinal Mueller, Pope "There is no Catholic God" Francis
It seems to me a more accurate quote would be "I believe... not* in a Catholic God."
To be fair, he did not say that "THERE IS" no Catholic God, just that he personally doesn't believe in one. But then he also said you can go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe, implying that atheists have just as much right as anyone to believe in the NON-existence of God, even if Francis does not share in their belief -- but he shares in their belief that they have some kind of right to believe it. It's a quasi-Americanist heresy, it seems to me. (I say quasi-Americanist because an outgrowth of Americanism is this: "I might not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to express it.")
*He actually is quoted as saying, "I believe in God, but not in a Catholic God."
and all the rest are/were the only legitimate authorities in the Church. That has been the case since Pius XII. That's a long period of apostasy. And for all intents and purposes the entire visible Church is vacant for you too. Except it is more so for you than for SVs because all the SVs have to do is hold a council and elect a pope. But you have to convert the entire Conciliar Sect before there is any solution for you. And I sure don't know how you will ever resolve the issue of the validity of the NO sacraments, especially the episcopal consecrations. That's quite a corner you've painted the R&R folks into.
Pure sophistry. You should be ashamed.
-
Nice, real classy. Ad hominem all around, and you end with a request for texts you have not read.
If it is your claim that saying the New Mass even in good faith puts one outside the Church, you need to back that up by more than just a gratuitous assertion to that effect. It certainly wasn't Archbishop Lefebvre's position, who expressly said that in judging the culpability of those who attend in good faith, we must be pastors and not hangmen.
Your second argument demonstrates that you are not a serious person - as if matters of sacred theology cannot be true unless they were simple enough for anyone to understand.
I've proved to you from the best sources a million times formal Apostolic succesion requires ordinary jurisdiction, and you still act as if this teaching is optional. It is admitted by all sedevacantist clergy and learned laymen today who have spoken or written about this matter. I can only conclude you are unwilling to be taught.
Do you accept Cardinal Billot's teaching or not? On the other thread, you made a claim so absurd it didn't warrant a response - that Cardinal Billot was talking about a historical situation long gone, and that therefore for this reason alone Pope Alexander VI was legitimate. No, he was not, as the lengthier portion should make clear, he says, "the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions." This is unanimously taught.
“So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly ... one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.”
For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession”
Certainty of the Pope's Status
Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?
Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty ... This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.
But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty ... This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church's magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.
-
.
The Newcreed of Newpope Newfrancis might go something like this:
I believe in God, but not in a Catholic God, the great Architect of the Universe, and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was conceived, and was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he arose again; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the great Architect of the Universe, and from there will come to be arbitrator over all the living and the dead. I believe in the spirit of Vatican II, the one world religion, the communion of Newsaints, the forgiveness of everyone's sins, the reincarnation of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.
If he doesn't want us to think this kind of thing, then we ought to hear him say what he believes by pronouncing the Apostles' Creed in public. As far as I know, we have not heard him do that.
When he says the so-called Nicene Creed in Newmass, what does he say? Or does he say it at all? I've seen videos of him being silent while someone else says stuff like that. But the Apostles' Creed is not part of the Roman Rite, even the Newrite (the so-called ordinary form). It's largely only used as the first prayer of the Rosary -- which videos show Francis apparently praying, in private, but not LEADING, so that everyone can hear him say the words. In the videos of him praying his Rosary in private, he has the look of a child caught in the act of doing something he's not supposed to do. This raises suspicions.
.
-
Come on, now, Matthew. "Disobedience" isn't the problem here. I should hope that the R&R, in the interests of honest discussion, would stop that nonsense immediately. We are talking about the MAGISTERIUM and not obedience to or disobedience to POSITIVE COMMANDS. What's at issue is the degree to which one must submit to the magisterium and questions around papal infallibility. Until that's acknowledged and we drop this "obedience" red herring, there can be no honest debate about the subject .. and the rift and animosity between R&R and the sedevacantists will only increase.
-
2) The 3rd argument establishes the schismatic nature of the sedevacantist position.
Lots of people would argue that your R&R is in fact schismatic.
-
Nice, real classy. Ad hominem all around, and you end with a request for texts you have not read.
I don't take pride in my classiness like you do Nishant. I just seek the truth. Can I only request texts that I have read? That's weird. Did you not offer to post additional texts?
If it is your claim that saying the New Mass even in good faith puts one outside the Church, you need to back that up by more than just a gratuitous assertion to that effect. It certainly wasn't Archbishop Lefebvre's position, who expressly said that in judging the culpability of those who attend in good faith, we must be pastors and not hangmen.
Are you actually claiming that Pope Francis says the new Mass in good faith? Do you believe in a Catholic God?
Your second argument demonstrates that you are not a serious person - as if matters of sacred theology cannot be true unless they were simple enough for anyone to understand.
The fact that you twisted what I said about the infallibility of the idea that at every moment there must be a bishop with OJ shows you are dishonest or at least not very bright. You build up a strawman so you can knock it down. Maybe that's the only way you can feel good about yourself. The question was not about what is true, it was about what truths are we required to assent to? Minimally we are required to assent to the creed but the Conciliar Sect does not scruple to deny articles of the creed. Theologians would also be required to assent to those theological assertions which are at least certain. I took issue with your bullying on a theological point which is not even formally defined by the Church and yet you ignore the fact that Francis is openly denying articles of the creed.
I've proved to you from the best sources a million times formal Apostolic succesion requires ordinary jurisdiction, and you still act as if this teaching is optional. I can only conclude you are unwilling to be taught.
I only remember you quoting Van Noort which didn't say whether the point was certain or not and did not provide any cross references for where the Fathers of the Church or some other ancient source would affirm the idea. That doesn't mean that it is not true but it sure isn't a guarantee of its accuracy.
Do you accept Cardinal Billot's teaching or not? On the other thread, you made a claim so absurd it didn't warrant a response - that Cardinal Billot was talking about a historical situation long gone, and that therefore for this reason alone Pope Alexander VI was legitimate. No, he was not, as the lengthier portion should make clear, he says, "the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions." This is unanimously taught.
Yes, he was. Your interpretation leads to the view that it is absolutely impossible for the pope to lose his office. That is absurd. May St Robert Bellarmine hit you over the head with a Canon Law commentary. Cardinal Billot is obviously talking about historians trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of a Pope who was accepted as such during his lifetime. He wasn't claiming that it was impossible for a pope to lose his office.
“So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly ... one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.”
For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession”
Again, as I have already said many times the universal Church does not accept/recognize the Conciliar popes. It is a disputed issue. Maybe if you keep repeating the same argument over and over people will start believing your nonsense. But then what good will it do?
Certainty of the Pope's Status
Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?
Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty ... This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.
But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty ... This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church's magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.
What is more certain, Nishant, that Pope Francis is a heretic or that he is indeed the pope?
Your ideas about the crisis are leading souls to ruin. We are already getting reports of many SSPX folks who think nothing of going to the new Mass. And I have seen no response from you on the validity of the new episcopal rite.
-
And of course in a grave crisis like this, ANY path, including the true path, is fraught with danger. That's neither here nor there. It's beside the point.
Our only job is to pass the test. That is, to be found faithful.
Matt, So then, by your logic of paths and adherence to the Pope in any act that is not against faith or morals, if the Pope requests that an SSPX chapel join a diocese, one must obey since that act is in itself, an act of the visible church, and does not, in and of itself, constitute a sinful act, right? And of course in a grave crisis like this, ANY path, including the true path, is fraught with danger.
-
And of course in a grave crisis like this, ANY path, including the true path, is fraught with danger. That's neither here nor there. It's beside the point.
Our only job is to pass the test. That is, to be found faithful.
Matt, So then, by your logic of paths and adherence to the Pope in any act that is not against faith or morals, if the Pope requests that an SSPX chapel join a diocese, one must obey since that act is in itself, an act of the visible church, and does not, in and of itself, constitute a sinful act, right? And of course in a grave crisis like this, ANY path, including the true path, is fraught with danger.
Nope, that would be totally different. Rome is Modernist. We're Traditional Catholics, remember? That one chapel can't be part of the diocese without a large number of its parishioners losing the Faith. Hey, we have proof. It's called the last 50 years of history.
-
Come on, now, Matthew. "Disobedience" isn't the problem here. I should hope that the R&R, in the interests of honest discussion, would stop that nonsense immediately. We are talking about the MAGISTERIUM and not obedience to or disobedience to POSITIVE COMMANDS. What's at issue is the degree to which one must submit to the magisterium and questions around papal infallibility. Until that's acknowledged and we drop this "obedience" red herring, there can be no honest debate about the subject .. and the rift and animosity between R&R and the sedevacantists will only increase.
I consider that as obvious as some sedevacantists consider their position "Hey, he's a heretic; he's not the pope!"
Whatever you want to call it, the Pope, the visible "conciliar church", etc. can't bind something damaging to the Faith on Catholics. Catholics have a right to keep the Faith. They have a right to not be poisoned with modernism.
The status of the Pope isn't anywhere near as clear-cut. The pope question I don't know about with anything close to certainty.
The Catholic Faith can't involve contradictions and U-TURNS. So if it's a U-TURN, it must not be the Magisterium, whether ordinary or extraordinary. There must be a continuity with Tradition in there somewhere. The Pope can't just re-write the Faith.
Again, I'm not a theologian, but I know that much.
And again, the degree that R&R Catholics ignore the pope is suspiciously similar to how most Sedevacantists ignore him. Actually, I think Sedes talk about the pope *much more* (maybe some kind of defensiveness? guilt? who knows) than the average SSPX-attending Catholic.
But if you're not going to "move on", what does it matter that you've gone ahead and personally declared the See to be vacant?
It's like telling a man that he needs to admit that his wife (who's been missing for 30 years) is dead. If he has no inclination to get married again, what difference does it make if the man wants to think she's still alive out there?
Whether he's the Pope, he's an impostor, he's a prisoner of the Vatican, the seat is impaired, damaged, or anything else -- if you're not going to get down to business and elect a pope, why even bother saying that Francis is not the pope?
The non-conclavist Sede position is just as much "on the fence" as the R&R position could ever hope to be.
Some say the R&R position is schismatic; I could retort that the sedevacantist position is heretical. Claiming that 50+ years without a Pope is "no problem" and "hunky dorey" borders on heretical. Isn't the Pope part of the visible constitution of the Church? The Pope is not a nicety, a bonus, or an extra.
-
By the way, I'm sorry if I'm ruffling some feathers here.
I just want the readers to know, with no uncertain terms, that the R&R position isn't a pushover. We can go on the offensive, too.
Usually I just let it rest. I don't like to argue until I'm blue in the face. In fact, I won't do that. I'm posting a bit on Sedevacantism today, but soon I'm going to let it rest again. Everyone else can argue back and forth until kingdom come. I have a family to raise and a bunch of souls to help save.
But our position isn't a ten-pound weakling. It's as prudent, viable and defensible as the Sedevacantist position and then some.
So, once in a while, I like to remind everyone lest anyone get the wrong impression.
-
Speaking of Cardinal Billot, Nishant, here is what he has to say about a heretic pope:
It is by violating the divine law through the sin (peccatum) of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority - “ having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis],” as Cardinal Billot says, “he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.” (De Ecclesia, 5th ed. [1927] 632.)
Source: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=15&catname=10
That contradicts your assertion that once a man is accepted by the Church as the Roman Pontiff, he cannot be judged to have lost his office.
-
I just want the readers to know, with no uncertain terms, that the R&R position isn't a pushover. We can go on the offensive, too.
The R&R position is the one of most common sense.
-
Source: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Pope_Bad.pdf
PAGES 11 and 12:
CHAPTER II
FIRST OPINION: GOD WILL NEVER PERMIT THAT THE POPE FALL INTO HERESY
The defenders of this first opinion judge, based as much on rational arguments as on the Scriptures and Tradition, that Our Lord will never permit that any successor of St. Peter should come to lose his faith(1).
The first defender of this opinion, appears to have been Albert Pighi, a Dutch theologian of the XVIth Century, in his work “Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae Assertio”(2).
Since then numerous authors have adopted this position. The most significant among them, for the authority which they enjoy and for the attention which they dedicate to the matter, are: Suarez(3), Saint Robert Bellarmine(4), Cardinal Billot(5), D. Bouix(6).
Let us see how Cardinal Billot defends his position: “admitted the hypothesis that the Pope should have become notoriously heretical, one must concede, without hesitation, that he would lose “ipso facto” the pontifical power, since by his own will he has put himself outside the body of the Church, becoming an unbeliever (...)
I said: ‘admitted the hypothesis”. But it appears by far more probable that this hypothesis is a mere hypothesis, never reducible to act, in virtue of what St. Luke says (22: 32): “I have prayed for you that your faith not fail, and you, once being converted, confirm your brethren”. That this ought to be understood of Saint Peter and of all his successors, is what the voice of Tradition attests, and what we shall demonstrate “ex professo” later, on treating of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. For the time being we shall consider this as absolutely certain(7). Now, even though these words of the Gospel refer principally to the pontiff in as much as a public person who teaches “ex cathedra”, one ought to affirm that they extend, by a certain necessity, also to the private person of the pontiff, in regard to his preservation from heresy.(8)
To the pontiff, in effect, was given the ordinary function of confirming the rest in faith. For this reason, Christ -- who for His dignity is heard in everything -- asks for Him the gift of an indefectible faith. But in favor of whom, I ask, is this petition made? Of an abstract and metaphysical person, or, rather of a real and living person, upon whom it is incuмbent to confirm the rest? Or perhaps he will be called indefectible in the faith, who cannot err in establishing what the others must believe, but personally can become shipwrecked in the faith? And -- observe -- even though the Pontiff, falling into notorious heresy lost “ipso facto” the pontificate, he would however, logically fall into heresy before losing
1. As is obvious, we are not discussing the possibility of the Pope being in material heresy. No one denies, that mistakenly or by inadvertence, the Supreme Pontiff can fall into material heresy, as a private person. As far as the equal possibility is concerned in what touches official but not infallible docuмents, see pp. 85 ff.
2.Lib. IV, C. VIII, Cologne, 1538, fol. CXXXI ss., cited by Dublanchy, article Infaillibilite du Pape
, in Dict. de Theol. Cath., col. 1715.
3. See pages 13, 14, 25-27.
4. See pages 13 - 27
5. Text which we cite in the following, and the French canonist of the XIX Century.
6. See pages 31-36. To avoid misunderstandings, we wish to insist on a point already emphasized in the second note to the synoptic outline on pages 110-111. Almost all the defenders of this first opinion consider it not certain. For this reason, they analyze also the hypothesis of the Pope falling into heresy, giving their opinions on this possible destitution in this eventuality. It is not, then, to be wondered at that various of the followers of this first opinion are listed also among the followers of other opinions. This is the case of Saint Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, Cardinal Billot, Bouix. - See in this respect pages 26-27.
7. Note that Cardinal Billot does not qualify it as “absolutely certain” that the Pope cannot turn
heretic, but, yes, that the passage of the Scriptures alluded to refers to Saint Peter and his successors - which no Catholic author can deny, whatever be the exact meaning of the promise made here by Our Lord.
8. In general the authors do not admit that the quoted passage of the Gospel must be applied necessarily to the person of the Pope in his pronouncements which are not “ex cathedra”. This is what we show later (p. 15) citing Palmieri, Van Leak, Straub, Dublanchy.
PAGES 13 and 14:
his charge; this being so, the defectibility in the faith would coexist with the duty of confirming his brethren, which the promise of Christ would seem to exclude in an absolute way. - More yet: if, considering the providence of God, it cannot happen that the Pontiff fall into occult or merely internal heresy, for this would cause commitant evils very much worse. Now, the order established by God, requires absolutely that, as a private person, the Supreme Pontiff cannot be a
heretic not even losing the faith in the internal forum alone.
“For -- writes Saint Robert Bellarmine (“De Rom. Pont.”, lib. IV, c. 6) -- the pontiff not only must not and cannot preach heresy, but he must also always teach the truth, and without doubt he will do that, given that Our Lord ordered him to confirm his brethren. But how, I ask, will a heretical pontiff confirm his brothers in the faith and always preach the true faith? God can, without doubt, wrench from a heretical heart a confession of the true faith, as at another time he made the mule of Balsam speak. But this would be rather violent and not at all in conformance with the manner of acting of Divine Providence, which disposes all things with sweetness.(9)
-- Finally, if the hypothesis of a Pope who turned notoriously heretical were made a reality, the Church would be thrown into such and so many afflictions, that already “a priori” one can perceive that God would never permit it.”(10)
A. NUANCES WITHIN THIS FIRST OPINION
Among the positions adopted by the defenders of this first opinion, there exist certain nuances, which it behooves us to put in relief. There are those who think that this opinion constitutes a truth of the faith. Such was, for example, the thinking of Matthaeucci, a Franciscan theologian who died in 1722(11).
Other authors, among whom is Cardinal Billot, whom we cite above, do not think that this opinion constitutes a truth of faith, but they classify it as by far the most probable, tending to lessen this probability of the opposing opinions.
Others, finally, defend this position in an even less rigid way. This is the case of Suarez and of Saint Robert Bellarmine. It does not seem to them that the passage of Saint Luke (22, 32) is decisive, at the same time that, according to them certain docuмents of Tradition, which admit the hypothesis of a Pope heretic, have a greater value than that attributed to them, for example, by Cardinal Billot.
We can see that even the tone of the argumentation of Suarez differs from that which we can note in the cited passage of Cardinal Billot:
“Though many(12) may hold, with verisimilitude (that the Pope can fall into heresy), to me however, in a few words, it appears more pious and more probable to affirm that the Pope, as a private person, can err by ignorance but not contumaciously. For though God could prevent the Pope heretic from causing damage to the Church, nevertheless the more smooth manner of acting of Providence would be that, having promised that the pope would never err in defining, God in consequence would provide that he would never turn heretic. Furthermore, one ought to hold that that which up to now has never happened in the Church, by order and providence of God, cannot happen”(13).
9. For the reasons stated further on (especially those stated on pages 15 ff. and53), it does not seem to us that the argument adduced here by Saint Robert Bellarmine or by Cardinal Billot demonstrates the thesis sustained by them as being the most probable. There is nevertheless in this argument a residue which is undeniably true: Providence could not permit that the adhesion of the pope to heresy be something frequent and as it were habitual. On the contrary, such a thing only could be admitted as exceptional, characterizing one of the most dramatic and profound trials to which the Church militant might be subjected. Taking the very example of the mule of Balsam, given by Saint Robert Bellarmine and by the other followers of the first opinion, we would say that providence would not have to permit that mules normally and frequently speak but one mule, that of Balsam, spoke.
10. Billot Tractatus de Ecclesis Christi, 1909, tomus I, pp. 609-610. Neither does this last argument presented by Cardinal Billot appear conclusive. Could Our Lord, though He permitted the malice of men to injure his very Person, to the point of carrying Him to die on a cross, not permit that the ingratitude and malice of men subject the Holy Church to a new “Via Crucis”? That this could come about without breaking the promise of Divine assistance, is obvious and may even prefigured in the fact that during the Passion not one bone of the sacred body of Our Redeemer was broken.
11. See Ferraris, Prompta Bibl., article “Papa”, col. 1843, no. 65; col. 1845. This passage of Ferraris is reproduced by Bouix, Tract, de papa, tom. II, p. 658. The affirmation cited from
Mattheuccius is found in his work Controv. VII, Cap. I, no. 7.
12. In this point, Suarez refers to Saint Robert Bellarmine, “De Summo Pont.”, lib. 4, cap. 7.
13. Suarez, De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, No. 11, p. 319. Neither does it seem to us that this last argument alleged by Suarez is decisive. For the end of the world, for instance, Our Lord prophesied terrible happenings (see Mat. 24, 1:41; Mark 13, 1:31; Luke 21, 5:33), which in numerous of their aspects will not have had precedents in all of history.
-
I just want the readers to know, with no uncertain terms, that the R&R position isn't a pushover. We can go on the offensive, too.
The R&R position is the one of most common sense.
Yes, disobedience is the common sense of modern men. But the common sense of the Church is that heretics cannot hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church. cf. Canon 188.4.
-
I think it is abundantly clear now that Nishant is in the habit of cherry-picking only those quotes which support his position and then completely disregarding any counter-arguments or quotes which would tend to refute his ideas.
-
I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.
Can you name "a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction" who holds and professes publicly the Catholic Faith wholly and entirely?
Okay, down-thumbers, name just one.
From the R&R perspective, I believe the closest a post-conciliar bishop came to holding their perspective was Bishop Castro de Mayer. But he would probably be one of the worst examples in this debate from a R&R perspective.
-
Mith, even under your view, there is no bishop with ordinary jurisdiction (who comprise the ecclesia docens) who doesn't pray in communion with Pope Francis. I take it you admit this? Please tell us, if you believe otherwise, which bishops do not.
Secondly, please tell us, what is the actual profession that recognizes a man as Pontiff, if it is not the act of praying for him as Pope? Please cite some authority for the latter. From Pope Benedict XIV's statement, it seems fairly evident that not only is this act an express profession of such a recognition, but it is also "the chief and most glorious form of communion".
Nishant,
I am unaware of any bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who doesn't name Francis in the canon. But this is hardly remarkable, nor is it significant since my position is not that one need be a sedevacantist to be a Catholic and remain a member of the hierarchy.
That being said, I am only saying I am unaware of any, not that I "know" there aren't any. I know that in the internet age its tempting to think that because we are not aware of something or someone through the internet that it doesn't exist. We should fight that temptation.
One accepts the pope by abiding by his laws, sharing his faith, not protesting his canonizations and official acts, etc. I don't think this is controversial, so I'll leave it at that and if you really, really need them, I'll cite some sources when I'm home again.
-
Authority and communion are inseparable. One cannot truly recognize an authority which they are not in communion with, nor can one be in communion with one whose authority they do not recognize.
Communion is a bond of faith, at the very least. R&R Catholics do not have a bond of faith with Francis. Their mention of him in the canon and their commemorative beach-ball in the vestibule is a nervous and anxious lip service because they're afraid they'll be in schism if they don't give that lip service. But it's a dream. They aren't in communion with Francis. Ergo, they do not and cannot accept his authority; they certainly accept his authority as the leader of their faith. He doesn't share their faith.
-
I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.
Can you name "a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction" who holds and professes publicly the Catholic Faith wholly and entirely?
Okay, down-thumbers, name just one.
Well...there's Gumbleton, Wuerl, Dolan, Mahoney, Weaklan, Schonborn, Kasper, the guy from Honduras....Oh, crap! Never mind.
-
By the way, I'm sorry if I'm ruffling some feathers here.
I just want the readers to know, with no uncertain terms, that the R&R position isn't a pushover. We can go on the offensive, too.
Usually I just let it rest. I don't like to argue until I'm blue in the face. In fact, I won't do that. I'm posting a bit on Sedevacantism today, but soon I'm going to let it rest again. Everyone else can argue back and forth until kingdom come. I have a family to raise and a bunch of souls to help save.
But our position isn't a ten-pound weakling. It's as prudent, viable and defensible as the Sedevacantist position and then some.
So, once in a while, I like to remind everyone lest anyone get the wrong impression.
Matthew, it's not about winning, it's about the truth. Many of us, including myself, once held the position called R&R, but have since realized that it is untenable.
You may find that over time, you may be willing to take another look.
-
Your opinion sounds good and simple and all "if he's a public heretic, he's not the pope!"
But then there's the small issue that this little Interregnum has been in effect since the death of Pius XII (according to most Sedevacantists) -- that's a long interregnum. And what about the rest of the Church? Because it's the Church that you sedevacantists say is vacant, not just Peter's Chair.
No valid Cardinals left, and no one who can appoint any? Hmm...that's quite a corner you've painted the Church into there.
Your position is no better. You are in the unenviable position of claiming that Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Law, Cardinal Martini, Cardinal Mueller, Pope "There is no Catholic God" Francis and all the rest are/were the only legitimate authorities in the Church. That has been the case since Pius XII. That's a long period of apostasy. And for all intents and purposes the entire visible Church is vacant for you too. Except it is more so for you than for SVs because all the SVs have to do is hold a council and elect a pope. But you have to convert the entire Conciliar Sect before there is any solution for you. And I sure don't know how you will ever resolve the issue of the validity of the NO sacraments, especially the episcopal consecrations. That's quite a corner you've painted the R&R folks into.
The only consistent Sedevacantists are the conclavists.
If you *really* believed that Francis wasn't a pope, almost pope, remnant of a pope, reminds you of a pope, etc. -- if you REALLY believed he wasn't the pope AT ALL and that the Church has been without a pope for 50+ years, you'd get together and elect one, like several groups have done.
Hey, I need a vehicle to get around. If my car was *dead* I wouldn't waste a lot of time getting a new one. It's essential to living where I live that you have a working vehicle. And it's essential for the Catholic Church to have a pope. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Because Roman Catholics believe in a visible Church with a visible hierarchy, including a visible head, until the End of Time (which we aren't at yet!) End of story.
If you believe in the Catholic notion of the Catholic Church, you know that a Pope is not optional. Especially after 50 years, come on!
I'll admit though -- it doesn't reflect poorly on individual sedevacantist laymen per se -- just all the clergy that adhere to sedevacantism. They're hypocrites and inconsistent. Cognitive dissonance all the way.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too! (What they usually say about the Recognize & Resist position). Claim there's no Pope and ignore the Pope, so you can do whatever you want, but don't take any risks like electing a new one.
How are non-conclavist Sedevacantists any different than the R&R position they criticize so harshly? Because their Mass is 2 seconds shorter? (They don't mention Pope Francis in the Canon)
None us that recognize the state of sedevacante are lawful electors, including "sedevacatist" bishops and priests. None of us has the means or resources to locate and contact the lawful electors.
We may see this truth, but we are not yet in a position to do anything about it, except pray and sacrifice.
-
You're the one who made it personal, Clemens Maria, not me. Anyway, I don't know how you can just reject without scruple something unanimously admitted by all traditional priests today, even sedevacantists, admitted by sedevacantist lay writers like John Lane and John Daly, and by most of the sedevacantist posters on this forum just like that over and over again. It makes it necessary to go back to the basics ad nauseam.
And no, it's not really true that this is something on which the Church has pronounced nothing,
This is de fide, from Vatican I.
So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
It's evident even in the above that there will be shepherds and teachers in the Church until the end of time, sent just as the Apostles are sent. And the unanimous teaching of theologians confirms it, that a canonical mission from Christ and through Peter is necessary for formal Apostolic succession. Again, this is basic and elementary. Pretty much all sedevacantists concede it, your own position is a novelty among a minority. Why don't you provide some sources that back up your position for a change?
We'll have to start here again, and come back to the other point.
-
Anyway, I don't know how you can just reject without scruple something unanimously admitted by all traditional priests today, even sedevacantists, admitted by sedevacantist lay writers like John Lane and John Daly, and by most of the sedevacantist posters on this forum just like that over and over again.
This is precisely why you are so incredibly annoying, Nishant. What did I reject? Is this another case of you building a strawman? If this is about ordinary jurisdiction then I'm afraid you will not find anywhere in this discussion a statement from me saying that it is possible for the Church to not have perpetual successors of the Apostles. Just like I would never deny that the Church will have perpetual successors of Peter. However, affirming that does not force me to admit that public heretics can hold office. You on the other hand are asserting absurdities such as the pope can never lose his office. Or heretics and schismatics can rule the Church.
It makes it necessary to go back to the basics ad nauseam.
Agreed, you are nauseating.
And no, it's not really true that this is something on which the Church has pronounced nothing,
This is de fide, from Vatican I.
So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
Once again, you post something that doesn't support your assertions. You are claiming that because you do not know of any traditional bishops with ordinary jurisdiction then it follows that only Conciliar heretics can have ordinary jurisdiction. I deny that. You won't find any support for that anywhere in the traditions of the Church.
It's evident even in the above that there will be shepherds and teachers in the Church until the end of time, sent just as the Apostles are sent. And the unanimous teaching of theologians confirms it, that a canonical mission from Christ and through Peter is necessary for formal Apostolic succession. Again, this is basic and elementary. Pretty much all sedevacantists concede it, your own position is a novelty among a minority. Why don't you provide some sources that back up your position for a change?
The same sources you quote also say that in order to have Apostolic succession a bishop must have apostolicity of doctrine and all theologians are unanimous on that point. The Conciliar bishops do not have apostolicity of doctrine and they have doubtful orders. Therefore it is you who are departing from the teaching of the Church, not me. You effectively deny the necessity of apostolicity of doctrine. Show me a source that says the pope can be a public heretic. Show me a source which says the pope can teach that there is no Catholic God.
I know that if this argument continues you will eventually be reduced to defending Francis. When that happens, you will finally be out in the open.
-
You shift the goalposts again with your prevarications, Clemens Maria. Earlier you said, on discussing whether there must always be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, "It is especially not infallible because it is a complex topic which is not easily understood."
The above is false, as I have shown, it is indeed de fide, from Vatican I.
Now you say, "You are claiming that because you do not know of any traditional bishops with ordinary jurisdiction then it follows that only Conciliar heretics can have ordinary jurisdiction" which is a strawman.
Do you now admit, in principle, that there must always be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction? You need to affirm that first, before we can discuss who these are.
I am unaware of any bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who doesn't name Francis in the canon. But this is hardly remarkable, nor is it significant since my position is not that one need be a sedevacantist to be a Catholic and remain a member of the hierarchy.
Very good, Mith. We agree.
That being said, I am only saying I am unaware of any, not that I "know" there aren't any.
Sure, but as you know, a moral unanimity suffices. And if known bishops unanimously do this, then certainly a moral unanimity exists.
-
You shift the goalposts again with your prevarications, Clemens Maria. Earlier you said, on discussing whether there must always be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, "It is especially not infallible because it is a complex topic which is not easily understood."
The above is false, as I have shown, it is indeed de fide, from Vatican I.
You haven't shown anything. Show me in V1 where it says that OJ is necessary and I will show you where it says that apostolicity of doctrine is necessary. I accept the V1 teaching. But I deny that it says what you say it means. There will always be perpetual successors of the apostles. That is de fide. But a successor of the apostles must teach the same doctrine as the apostles. That is de fide. That a successor of the apostles must have OJ is questionable. But for the sake of argument I will concede it. Show me where the successors of the apostles are who have both OJ and apostolicity of doctrine. I think I already know where they are but they are not in the Conciliar Sect.
Now you say, "You are claiming that because you do not know of any traditional bishops with ordinary jurisdiction then it follows that only Conciliar heretics can have ordinary jurisdiction" which is a strawman.
What exactly is your claim then? Are you saying that traditional bishops have OJ? I will buy you a beer then.
Do you now admit, in principle, that there must always be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction? You need to affirm that first, before we can discuss who these are.
Let's do that Nishant. Tell me who these are.
Sure, but as you know, a moral unanimity suffices. And if known bishops unanimously do this, then certainly a moral unanimity exists.
You can't even be sure the Conciliar bishops are in fact bishops. The rite of consecration is doubtful. Some say it is more than doubtful. It may be indubitably invalid. The unanimity of the Conciliar bishops is no more indicative of the state of the Church/papacy than the unanimity of Anglican bishops.
-
I am unaware of any bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who doesn't name Francis in the canon. But this is hardly remarkable, nor is it significant since my position is not that one need be a sedevacantist to be a Catholic and remain a member of the hierarchy.
Very good, Mith. We agree.
That being said, I am only saying I am unaware of any, not that I "know" there aren't any.
Sure, but as you know, a moral unanimity suffices. And if known bishops unanimously do this, then certainly a moral unanimity exists.
Yes, but again, a moral unanimity cannot be discerned from the Novus Ordo hierarchy. I would not go as far to say that the entire Novus Ordo hierarchy has defected, as I believe the Church is eclipsed and there remain (at least theoretically) Catholics within the hierarchy, they hardly constitute a moral unanimity. On the contrary they constitute a very obscure minority.
-
Nishant,
At the present time, none of us knows what these bishops think about Francis or his claim to the Papacy. We do not even know who they are. Here is what we do know:
1. We know they exist, or at least one bishop still exists at a minimum.
2. We know that the remaining members of the hierarchy must have a mission. They must have formal apostolic succession.
3. We know that whatever bishops remain, that they have kept the Faith.
It seems to me that your entire premise is based solely on unproven assumtions.
-
Nishant,
At the present time, none of us knows what these bishops think about Francis or his claim to the Papacy. We do not even know who they are. Here is what we do know:
1. We know they exist, or at least one bishop still exists at a minimum.
2. We know that the remaining members of the hierarchy must have a mission. They must have formal apostolic succession.
3. We know that whatever bishops remain, that they have kept the Faith.
It seems to me that your entire premise is based solely on unproven assumtions.
Yes, good post.
It appears (convincingly to me) that there must always remain formal successors of the Apostles to carry out the Great Commission.
Naturally, the difficulty posed by this in our current time is their visibility. But are we properly understanding visibility? The Church has NEVER been invisible, yet at the moment she began, she was known to only one other person in that upper room: the Blessed Virgin. The Church was visible at that instant, not only once the apostles had proceeded into the world (at which point the vast and significant majority of the world was still unaware of her existence). The salient point here is that the Church hierarchy can be obscured from the view of most and still be visible.
These are difficulties, not doubts. Pray for perseverance.
-
Nishant, sorry I accused of intellectual dishonesty. Please forgive me.
-
Your opinion sounds good and simple and all "if he's a public heretic, he's not the pope!"
But then there's the small issue that this little Interregnum has been in effect since the death of Pius XII (according to most Sedevacantists) -- that's a long interregnum. And what about the rest of the Church? Because it's the Church that you sedevacantists say is vacant, not just Peter's Chair.
No valid Cardinals left, and no one who can appoint any? Hmm...that's quite a corner you've painted the Church into there.
Your position is no better. You are in the unenviable position of claiming that Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Law, Cardinal Martini, Cardinal Mueller, Pope "There is no Catholic God" Francis and all the rest are/were the only legitimate authorities in the Church. That has been the case since Pius XII. That's a long period of apostasy. And for all intents and purposes the entire visible Church is vacant for you too. Except it is more so for you than for SVs because all the SVs have to do is hold a council and elect a pope. But you have to convert the entire Conciliar Sect before there is any solution for you. And I sure don't know how you will ever resolve the issue of the validity of the NO sacraments, especially the episcopal consecrations. That's quite a corner you've painted the R&R folks into.
The only consistent Sedevacantists are the conclavists.
If you *really* believed that Francis wasn't a pope, almost pope, remnant of a pope, reminds you of a pope, etc. -- if you REALLY believed he wasn't the pope AT ALL and that the Church has been without a pope for 50+ years, you'd get together and elect one, like several groups have done.
Hey, I need a vehicle to get around. If my car was *dead* I wouldn't waste a lot of time getting a new one. It's essential to living where I live that you have a working vehicle. And it's essential for the Catholic Church to have a pope. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Because Roman Catholics believe in a visible Church with a visible hierarchy, including a visible head, until the End of Time (which we aren't at yet!) End of story.
If you believe in the Catholic notion of the Catholic Church, you know that a Pope is not optional. Especially after 50 years, come on!
I'll admit though -- it doesn't reflect poorly on individual sedevacantist laymen per se -- just all the clergy that adhere to sedevacantism. They're hypocrites and inconsistent. Cognitive dissonance all the way.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too! (What they usually say about the Recognize & Resist position). Claim there's no Pope and ignore the Pope, so you can do whatever you want, but don't take any risks like electing a new one.
How are non-conclavist Sedevacantists any different than the R&R position they criticize so harshly? Because their Mass is 2 seconds shorter? (They don't mention Pope Francis in the Canon)
Matthew,
How is your comment any different from "If you *really* believed he was the pope, you'd follow his errors?"
In sooth, the crisis is unprecedented. In many/most cases, Catholics aren't sure "where we go from here." This is why conclavists make up a ridiculous minority of sedevacantists (and since they believe they have a "pope," they're really not even sedevacantists proper).
The real mystery of the crisis is the lack of authority. Most trads and sedes are reluctant to claim any. To be perfectly honest, this may actually be a mistake in the end (as I think theoretically a traditional bishop could claim a certainly vacant see, by election of the local faithful) but in any event, it's precisely the lack of authority that is the cause of all this confusion. Don't hold it against sedevacantists who aren't conclavists because they're simply trying to avoid precisely what they're so wrongly accused of, usurping authority.
-
I am confused as to why so many people tell us that we cannot use our private judgment to "depose the pope" on the one hand but we can use our private judgment to sift everything he says and does to determine when he says or does something in line with Catholic teachings on the other.
It seems to me that the safer course is actually to make one judgment that he is not the pope when we discover that he is clearly a heretic or apostate than to constantly have to judge everything that comes out of his mouth. Too often, what the Conciliar popes have said sound, at first hearing, to be in accord with Catholicism but then we find that those statements have actually been formally condemned by the Church because what those beliefs ultimately lead to; that is, the slow heat of the pot, so to speak, until we find ourselves in a rolling boil.
-
Sure, Clemens Maria. Please forgive me too if you were hurt by anything I said, that was not my intention.
Since you've said you'll grant here that there are always to be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the Church, we'll move past that.
Next, you raise two questions, sacramental validity and whether all bishops in newChurch have necessarily lost the Faith.
Please tell me if you agree with these articles,
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/conditional_ordination.pdf
Moreover, Archbishop Lefebvre, in contrasting his approach with the position of the Nine said expressly, "They think and behave as if there is no Pope, suppressing all prayers for the Pope. In practice, they tend to hold almost all the sacraments of the new rites to be invalid. This radicalism is not the attitude of the Society."
Mith,
Since you agree with this principle, but dispute its application, I'll cite to you one text which shows us how to apply it (presupposing that it can be done, and that efforts to explain it away by an underground bishop would be rejected by Fr. Hunter as dubious) have in practice.
Fr. Sylvester Hunter puts it for us very clearly, we'll continue in the next post,
But besides these speculative truths, there are certain matters of fact concerning which the Church can judge with infallible certainty. These are called by many writers dogmatic facts ...
First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition[ for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not he exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.
This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church ... from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
-
Since I know you accept this teaching in principle, we can move on. The burden of proof is on you to show that,
1. Despite the clear statement of Pope Benedict XIV that the solemn act of praying una cuм the Pope is indeed "an affirmative indication that recognizes him as the head of the Church, vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter", that somehow this is not an act of recognition sufficient for the condition to apply, and moreover that,
2. Despite all appearances to the contrary, all bishops who are candidates remaining who have a mission (even supplied, for the sake of the argument) from a Pope, who still possess ordinary jurisdiction, somehow do not recognize Pope Francis in this sufficient way.
Remember, there are about 5000 bishops that pray in communion with the Pope, you have said in the past and on this thread, you think some bishops in communion with Pope Francis still have not lost the Faith. Let's say of these only 1%, that is 50, have not lost the Faith and are relevant.
Even with all these assumptions as you like, the thesis that there is some underground bishop somewhere no one knows of, which is ad-hoc and arbitrary, even if it were true, would not in any way suffice to undercut moral unanimity. Secondly, such a bishop would necessarily be even excluded from consideration, according to Fr. Hunter's teaching above, who is talking of bishops whom the faithful can see and discern as either recognizing the Pope or not.
Therefore, moral unanimity exists.
But you yourself grant that, if the fact of universal recognition is verified in the concrete, then we know with infallible certainty that all conditions required for the validity of the election were fulfilled, this being according to the Faith a sign and effect of the same.
By the way, not to you but to others who are still inclined to dispute this principle (which Cardinal Billot calls the most important of all in discussing the possibility of a Pope heretic), I say, even the canonists Wernz and Vidal whom you cited elsewhere expressly teach this, that universal acceptance is an infallible sign and effect of a valid election.
Therefore, it would follow that Pope Francis is a valid Pope.
-
Therefore, it would follow that Pope Francis is a valid Pope.
Yes. Pope Francis is a valid pope. The Sedevacantists have to stop with their nonsense.
-
Ok, it's my turn to make a demand that will be met by silence and inaction.
Someone please prove, with a quote from Vatican I (etc.) that the Pope must be followed even in matters involving sin or destruction of the Faith.
In other words, please show me that your crazy notion of papal obedience has some basis in Church doctrine, rather than your own mistaken opinion.
Don't worry, I won't be waiting, I have much better things to do. And I'm sure I'd be waiting forever.
Clearly, there is no quote from any Catholic source that says anyone is to be followed in matters "involving sin or destruction of the Faith".
What I would like to see is the source all the Recognize and Resist people have for saying that the ordinary, universal magisterium can routinely err and that Catholics need only follow solemnly proclaimed extraordinary magisterial pronouncements.
I'd like to see the source the Recognize and Resist people have for saying that the Church can promulgate laws and rites that are harmful to the faith or actively promote sin (for example, the new Code of Canon Law that specifically allows heretics to receive certain sacraments under certain conditions).
The Conciliar popes and bishops have not merely ordered people to commit various sins. They have actively taught that the Catholic Faith encourages apostasy. They teach that worshipping with non-believers is a positive good. They teach this by their pronouncements and their actions. And the vast majority of people who consider themselves Catholic have accepted this teaching and they are losing the Faith (if they every had it).
The Recognize and Resist position is based, it seems, entirely on fine legal points (while ignoring that one sticky canon from the 1917 Code, Canon 188, that says any heretic loses his office without any declaration) and refuses to note that the people they are recognizing and resisting are not Catholics at all but must be avoided as "warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs" (Pope Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio).
-
What I would like to see is the source all the Recognize and Resist people have for saying that the ordinary, universal magisterium can routinely err and that Catholics need only follow solemnly proclaimed extraordinary magisterial pronouncements.
But this is going to be another demand (or at least an invitation) "that will be met by silence and inaction" (to quote Matthew).
For Pius IX wrote in Tuas Libenter (21 Dec. 1863):
...even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith. Ref: Denzinger/Ferrari 1683
Hence, we cannot pick and choose what we will believe, even from what we receive from the universal and ordinary magisterium.
Picking and choosing from the Church's teaching what one will believe is the very definition of heresy.
-
Since I know you accept this teaching in principle, we can move on. The burden of proof is on you to show that,
1. Despite the clear statement of Pope Benedict XIV that the solemn act of praying una cuм the Pope is indeed "an affirmative indication that recognizes him as the head of the Church, vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter", that somehow this is not an act of recognition sufficient for the condition to apply, and moreover that,
2. Despite all appearances to the contrary, all bishops who are candidates remaining who have a mission (even supplied, for the sake of the argument) from a Pope, who still possess ordinary jurisdiction, somehow do not recognize Pope Francis in this sufficient way.
Remember, there are about 5000 bishops that pray in communion with the Pope, you have said in the past and on this thread, you think some bishops in communion with Pope Francis still have not lost the Faith. Let's say of these only 1%, that is 50, have not lost the Faith and are relevant.
Even with all these assumptions as you like, the thesis that there is some underground bishop somewhere no one knows of, which is ad-hoc and arbitrary, even if it were true, would not in any way suffice to undercut moral unanimity. Secondly, such a bishop would necessarily be even excluded from consideration, according to Fr. Hunter's teaching above, who is talking of bishops whom the faithful can see and discern as either recognizing the Pope or not.
Therefore, moral unanimity exists.
But you yourself grant that, if the fact of universal recognition is verified in the concrete, then we know with infallible certainty that all conditions required for the validity of the election were fulfilled, this being according to the Faith a sign and effect of the same.
By the way, not to you but to others who are still inclined to dispute this principle (which Cardinal Billot calls the most important of all in discussing the possibility of a Pope heretic), I say, even the canonists Wernz and Vidal whom you cited elsewhere expressly teach this, that universal acceptance is an infallible sign and effect of a valid election.
Therefore, it would follow that Pope Francis is a valid Pope.
Is this for me?
-
The Recognize and Resist position is based, it seems, entirely on fine legal points
What I placed in bold should be replaced with "Sedevacantist".
-
Since I know you accept this teaching in principle, we can move on. The burden of proof is on you to show that,
1. Despite the clear statement of Pope Benedict XIV that the solemn act of praying una cuм the Pope is indeed "an affirmative indication that recognizes him as the head of the Church, vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter", that somehow this is not an act of recognition sufficient for the condition to apply, and moreover that,
2. Despite all appearances to the contrary, all bishops who are candidates remaining who have a mission (even supplied, for the sake of the argument) from a Pope, who still possess ordinary jurisdiction, somehow do not recognize Pope Francis in this sufficient way.
Remember, there are about 5000 bishops that pray in communion with the Pope, you have said in the past and on this thread, you think some bishops in communion with Pope Francis still have not lost the Faith. Let's say of these only 1%, that is 50, have not lost the Faith and are relevant.
Even with all these assumptions as you like, the thesis that there is some underground bishop somewhere no one knows of, which is ad-hoc and arbitrary, even if it were true, would not in any way suffice to undercut moral unanimity. Secondly, such a bishop would necessarily be even excluded from consideration, according to Fr. Hunter's teaching above, who is talking of bishops whom the faithful can see and discern as either recognizing the Pope or not.
Therefore, moral unanimity exists.
But you yourself grant that, if the fact of universal recognition is verified in the concrete, then we know with infallible certainty that all conditions required for the validity of the election were fulfilled, this being according to the Faith a sign and effect of the same.
By the way, not to you but to others who are still inclined to dispute this principle (which Cardinal Billot calls the most important of all in discussing the possibility of a Pope heretic), I say, even the canonists Wernz and Vidal whom you cited elsewhere expressly teach this, that universal acceptance is an infallible sign and effect of a valid election.
Therefore, it would follow that Pope Francis is a valid Pope.
Is this for me?
I'm assuming it is.
1) You are using Ex Quo to effectively disregard the very purpose of the teaching of Universal acceptance, which is ironic for obvious reasons. The infallible sign that a putative pope is actually the pope because the hierarchy and the universal Church regard him as such is rooted in the indefectability of the Church. Because the pope is the proximate rule of faith (and we learn the faith from him) a situation could not arise where the universal Church learned the faith from a false pope, in particularly from a heretic.
The una cuм is a verbal recognition-- there is no practical recognition. You aren't learning the faith from these men, nor are any traditional Catholics, nor are Novus Ordo Catholics, and the Novus Ordo bishops take and leave what they want. If we learned the faith from the conciliar popes, we would lose the faith. Nor are you abiding by their laws.
2) With the above in mind, a reply to your second point isn't really necessary because your idea of what it means to recognize and/or adhere to the pope undermines the very purpose of this doctrine in the first place. The onus is really on you to first prove (which you would not be able to) that a universal peaceful acceptance is measured without regard to the actual PRACTICE of faithful Catholics.
-
The Recognize and Resist position is based, it seems, entirely on fine legal points
What I placed in bold should be replaced with "Sedevacantist".
Actually, it is not. The concept that the pope must be Catholic is not a "fine legal point." Even Matthew has admitted, on another topic, that we may find out one day that he was never pope.
-
Therefore, it would follow that Pope Francis is a valid Pope.
Yes. Pope Francis is a valid pope. The Sedevacantists have to stop with their nonsense.
This has been an amazing thread for me, and I am forced to agree that sedevacantism is untenable, even as a theological opinion. But, still, can we say that someone like Pope John Paul II may have fallen into heresy, and hence, was excommunicated automatically, but that he abjured his errors in the confessional and was, consequently, restored to the Petrine office which he, for a short time, may have forfeited?
-
The Recognize and Resist position is based, it seems, entirely on fine legal points
What I placed in bold should be replaced with "Sedevacantist".
Actually, it is not. The concept that the pope must be Catholic is not a "fine legal point." Even Matthew has admitted, on another topic, that we may find out one day that he was never pope.
The Pope must be Catholic? Really? lol
Honestly, common sense folks. Common sense.
-
Mithrandylan, yes it was directed at you, but also at Ambrose, as your two views are quite similar.
Okay, a few quick points.
1. Your idea makes the teaching almost impossible to apply, whereas both Cardinal Billot and Fr. Hunter imply it is a quick and easy rule. Take the case of the former, Savonarola had various grievances with Pope Alexander VI, and he also accused "with all certitude" him of various things, of simony, of heresy, of not being a Christian and not even believing in God. Shouldn't this prove definitively that Pope Alexander VI was not Pope?
Not at all, says Cardinal Billot, it is not even necessary to examine the specific facts of the case, the very verified fact of universal acceptance of Pope Alexander VI at this time, proves that he was Pope. Now, according to your reasoning, Savonarola could have replied to your objection, "Ah, but nobody is really following Pope Alexander VI, as they don't imitate and put into practice the same things he is doing". But obviously Cardinal Billot regards that as false, he regards it as easily verified that the Pope had universal acceptance, and that this fact takes precedence over any accusation and infallibly proves that Pope Alexander VI was and remained legitimate Pontiff.
2. If the una cuм is not a sufficient manifestation of the profession of communion with the Pope, please give us the simple and easily verifiable measure, manifested in the external forum, recognizable by the simple faithful (as the authorities cited presume exists, in the case of Pope Alexander VI et al) that is.
3. You're ignoring the difficulty this causes to your position, which Fr. Hunter explains wonderfully. If you insist Pope Francis is outside the Church, and if by all appearances the whole ecclesia docens professes communion with him, it would follow that the whole Church teaching is outside the Church, which is absurd. Therefore, the truth is that Pope Francis is inside the Church, and is the valid Pope. You need to find and show us, for the argument to have some plausibility, these bishops with ordinary jurisdiction that denies Pope Francis' pontificate, and in a sufficient number as to undercut moral unanimity of the recognition.
-
To have a serious discussion of the subject, I invite both sides of this issue (I'm a sede-doubtist "fence-sitter") to recognize the valid points of the opposing camp. I myself see valid points on both sides, and distortions / exaggerations on both sides as well. At the end of the day, I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was also a sede-doubtist, as was Bishop de Castro de Mayer.
R&R has some serious problems.
Sedevacantism has some serious problems.
I try to navigate away from both those sets of problems, while acknowledging the valid points on each side. That's why I'm in the sede-doubtist camp.
-
The Recognize and Resist position is based, it seems, entirely on fine legal points
What I placed in bold should be replaced with "Sedevacantist".
Actually, it is not. The concept that the pope must be Catholic is not a "fine legal point." Even Matthew has admitted, on another topic, that we may find out one day that he was never pope.
We "may found out one day" and we "know today" are two different things.
-
Therefore, it would follow that Pope Francis is a valid Pope.
Yes. Pope Francis is a valid pope. The Sedevacantists have to stop with their nonsense.
This has been an amazing thread for me, and I am forced to agree that sedevacantism is untenable, even as a theological opinion. But, still, can we say that someone like Pope John Paul II may have fallen into heresy, and hence, was excommunicated automatically, but that he abjured his errors in the confessional and was, consequently, restored to the Petrine office which he, for a short time, may have forfeited?
No. When one is removed from office for heresy the removal is permanent. He could be restored to office if he confessed his error, but that would require a formal appointment. The office is vacant and remains vacant until filled.
A heretic "automatically" loses his offices in the Church by law. There is no law that provides for a reconciled heretic to automatically regain offices he lost.
But even your suggestion that any of the Conciliar popes "abjured [their] errors in the confessional [and were] restored" to the unity of the Church is laughable for they all continued spreading the same heresies. None have ever said, "Remember when I told you such-and-such? Forget that. I was wrong." No. They either never mentioned it again and allowed others to continue to quote their false and demonic teachings or they repeated and reinforced those teachings.
-
Not at all, says Cardinal Billot, it is not even necessary to examine the specific facts of the case, the very verified fact of universal acceptance of Pope Alexander VI at this time, proves that he was Pope. Now, according to your reasoning, Savonarola could have replied to your objection, "Ah, but nobody is really following Pope Alexander VI, as they don't imitate and put into practice the same things he is doing". But obviously Cardinal Billot regards that as false, he regards it as easily verified that the Pope had universal acceptance, and that this fact takes precedence over any accusation and infallibly proves that Pope Alexander VI was and remained legitimate Pontiff.
Universal acceptance of the legitimacy of a particular pontificate is key. The election of a man to the office of the papacy is an act of administration and not a sacrament where validity in the latter is not determined by the subjective acceptance of any particular person or persons.
-
The Recognize and Resist position is based, it seems, entirely on fine legal points
What I placed in bold should be replaced with "Sedevacantist".
Actually, it is not. The concept that the pope must be Catholic is not a "fine legal point." Even Matthew has admitted, on another topic, that we may find out one day that he was never pope.
We "may found out one day" and we "know today" are two different things.
Is it really? When the layman, Eusebius, deposed Nestorius because the archbishop declared that Mary was the Mother of Christ but not the Mother of God, he wasn't basing his actions on a truth definitively declared by the Church. He was basing his actions on a truth that can be known by ordinary reason.
Ordinary reason can tell us that Bergoglio is not a Catholic and is therefore not the pope even though he claims.... You know, I'm not even sure that he claims to be pope. It is simply not something we need to find out from some future pope or future council.
-
A heretic "automatically" loses his offices in the Church by law. There is no law that provides for a reconciled heretic to automatically regain offices he lost.
There's been no formal declaration of heresy, however. Yours is a private judgment.
-
Please tell me if you agree with these articles,
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/conditional_ordination.pdf
I can't say that I do. Fr. Cekada has written an excellent rebuttal of the SSPX position on the Conciliar episcopal consecrations. http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/06/1968-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-valid-or-no/ (http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/06/1968-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-valid-or-no/)
I quickly scanned Fr. Scott's article on the Conciliar ordinations because I have not read it before but I already found something objectionable:
The new rites of ordination are similarly illegitimate, for they do not adequately express the Catholic Faith in the priesthood.
That is a damning quote. The only way a sacramental form can be used validly is if it signifies the grace which it confers. But Fr. Scott is admitting up front that the Conciliar ordination rite does not adequately express the Catholic Faith in the priesthood which is another way of saying that it does not signify the grace which it ought to be conferring. It is possible that the Latin form of the rite does not suffer from this defect (I don't know, I haven't studied it) but it seems clear that Fr. Scott and Michael Davies and in general most traditionalists agree that the vernacular form is deficient. That creates a positive doubt despite Fr. Scott's insistence that it does not. If there is a positive doubt, we must treat it as being invalid. i.e. the tutiorist approach.
The validity of the ordination rite is quickly becoming irrelevant since even if the ordination rite is found to be indubitably valid, nevertheless it must be conferred by a valid bishop and the Conciliar bishops consecrated with the 1968 rite are doubtfully valid. I think Fr. Cekada's articles prove that. In addition, I don't see how even a Pope could ever make an infallible judgement on the Conciliar consecrations because the Pope's infallibility is limited to judgements on the deposit of the Faith and can never be extended to novelties unless to declare them outside of the deposit of the Faith. But the 1968 rite is a man-made novelty based on the faulty and discredited research of a modernist Benedictine monk. There is no way to avoid at least a positive doubt concerning them. Following the tutiorist approach we must treat them as invalid.
By the way, I may not have been too clear about my apology to you. I apologize for ALL the insults I aimed at you yesterday. I know you are trying to make sense of the crisis. I harbor no ill will towards you. Neither do I harbor any ill will towards any R&R folks. Nevertheless, I no longer hold that position and I am attempting to explain why. My hope is that this crisis can be resolved and the papacy restored by the proper application of Catholic principles.
-
How about sedeprivationism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism
-
Ordinary reason can tell us that Bergoglio is not a Catholic and is therefore not the pope even though he claims.... You know, I'm not even sure that he claims to be pope. It is simply not something we need to find out from some future pope or future council.
I am actually starting to believe that he knows he is not Pope. At the very least, he doesn't want us to call him pope.
mmmmk. I won't.
-
A post of brevity from my phone:
Nishant, I'm not arguing that these men are antipopes because they're not peacefully accepted. I'm telling you that YOUR argument that they ARE popes due to peaceful acceptance is untrue, because they ARENT peacefully accepted. That's all.
I can't help but observe the absurdity of all these trads wanting to use a hierarchy of men they categorically reject as teachers of the Catholic faith as a measure of peaceful acceptance.
Think about it!
-
How about sedeprivationism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism
Sedeprivationism is one attempt to solve the problems with the various approaches.
I don't think that it goes quite far enough, because it still ultimately resolves into sedevacantism. Yet it's IMO really close.
But I've adopted the sede-doubtist view myself.
-
Let's look at the real problems with each position:
R&R -- magisterium-sifting is decidedly unCatholic. This is an absolutely correct criticism made by the sedevacantists against the R&R position. Also, the notion that a legitimate Pope and Ecuмenical Council could teach error on a grand scale to the Church and promulgate a harmful, "bastard", Protestant rite of Mass is also decidedly unCatholic.
SVism -- pope-sifting completely destroys the magisterium also. Catholics cannot in principle be allowed to reject popes based on their private judgment regarding the fact of heresy.
Sede-Doubtism -- allows for resistance based on doubts about legitimacy. Canon Law commentators say that one is not schismatic if refusal to submit comes from doubts about legitimacy. By leaving it at the level of doubts to be some day resolved authoritatively by the Church, it doesn't arrogate onto the plain of private judgment the authority to make this determination.
-
Maybe-Vacantism.
-
"Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation..." (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicuм, Vol. vii, n. 398)
"Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (Szal, Rev. Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2)
"Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ['probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs. to Sanchez and Palao]." (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp. xxv, sect. iii, nn. 35-8)
Who can argue that the reasons we have are not solidly founded? But if we go around like R&R and keep pretending that it's certain these men are popes, non pre Vatican II theologians would ever consider it Catholic to refuse submission / subjection to these popes. If I were certain that these men are popes, I would find some way to get back into submission to them.
-
Maybe-Vacantism.
I like it.
-
John Daly has a very informative writeup on some of the issues here. He exhibits some refreshing honesty in having moderated his position over time.
http://sedevacantist.com/npis.html
IMO he understates the dangers presented by R&R.
IMO he doesn't recognize at all the dangers posed by pope-sifting.
-
"Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation..." (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicuм, Vol. vii, n. 398)
"Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (Szal, Rev. Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2)
"Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ['probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs. to Sanchez and Palao]." (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp. xxv, sect. iii, nn. 35-8)
Who can argue that the reasons we have are not solidly founded? But if we go around like R&R and keep pretending that it's certain these men are popes, non pre Vatican II theologians would ever consider it Catholic to refuse submission / subjection to these popes. If I were certain that these men are popes, I would find some way to get back into submission to them.
Ahem.......Every Bishop on the planet?
-
"Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation..." (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicuм, Vol. vii, n. 398)
"Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (Szal, Rev. Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2)
"Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ['probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs. to Sanchez and Palao]." (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp. xxv, sect. iii, nn. 35-8)
Who can argue that the reasons we have are not solidly founded? But if we go around like R&R and keep pretending that it's certain these men are popes, non pre Vatican II theologians would ever consider it Catholic to refuse submission / subjection to these popes. If I were certain that these men are popes, I would find some way to get back into submission to them.
Ahem........non una cuм?
I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.
If I were a priest I would use the phrase "una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro" but then leave out the actual name ... in order to capture this current state of affairs.
-
Ahem.......Every Bishop on the planet?
If you are certain that these men are legitimate popes, then you are schismatic for refusing subjection to them. Carry on. This is why R&R is so decidedly unCatholic.
-
Ahem.......Every Bishop on the planet?
Peaceful acceptance by the bishops cannot convalidate an illegitimate election.
And the reason that these bishops accept the V2 popes is because they have all been corrupted with the exact same errors that the V2 popes hold.
At the height of the Arian crisis, when upwards of 90% of all the bishops had gone Arian, I'm sure that they would have peacefully accepted an Arian pope. You'd be left with a minority of dissidents disputing him. Sound familiar?
-
St. Pius X would have slapped you upside the head (or, alternatively, beaten you with fists) were you to have enunciated to him the principles behind R&R.
-
LOL.
And yet Wernz-Vidal cited above also teach, "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis." Please read carefully, this is conceptually distinct from ecclesiastical convalidation strictly so called. This is rather a sign and effect of a valid election.
The learned Dom Gueranger treats both together in these words, "when it is proved that the Church ... acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself” from which it follows that in any case we cannot doubt an election after the condition of such acceptance is verified.
Thus the notion of universal acceptance is indeed key and anyone who wishes to be a sedevacantist of any stripe must in the first place labor to show that, despite appearances, such recognition of the Pope does not exist.
You know, Mith, if it's ok with you, we can stop here. You and those who agree with you've made your case, and we've made ours. It's obvious to me now that we're not going to agree, I'm content to let the issue rest here.
Clemens Maria, sacramental validity is too big an issue to go into, but I for my part agree with Fr. Marie and Fr. Scott over Fr. Cekada, I'll explain why in more detail, if necessary on a separate thread, later.
-
SVism -- pope-sifting completely destroys the magisterium also. Catholics cannot in principle be allowed to reject popes based on their private judgment regarding the fact of heresy.
To see or to know something is not to judge. -St. Francis de Sales.
I don't see how the judgement of more than 40 Catholic bishops and hundreds of Catholic priests can be dismissed as private judgement. You can claim that they do not represent the Church but if they do represent the Church even if there is not unanimous agreement, it cannot be dismissed as private judgement. Maybe you are concerned that they do not have the power to bind you in conscience? That is certainly an issue. But the fact that no Catholic authority has yet bound you in conscience to hold that the pope has lost his office does not mean you are not bound in conscience to accept the truth when it is presented to you. If the pope is manifestly a heretic we are not free to say that we won't believe it until we are compelled by Church authority to believe it. If we know something as a fact we are not free to pretend that it is otherwise. Canon 188.4 is absolutely clear that if an ecclesiastic has publicly departed from the faith, he has lost his office by a tacit resignation. It is also clear that no formal declaration is necessary for the loss of office to occur. Therefore private judgement is not involved. Someone could be in error about what constitutes heresy. They could even be in error about the facts of what happened. But you cannot be excused from rejecting a pope whom you have moral certainty is a public heretic. If you fail to do so, you are responsible for the resultant damage to your faith.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
-
St. Pius X would have slapped you upside the head (or, alternatively, beaten you with fists) were you to have enunciated to him the principles behind R&R.
"The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.
"It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!
"And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth - 1 Jn 3:18]. When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "Si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [If any one love Me, he will keep My word - Jn 14:23], in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
"Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public docuмents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
"This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls."
--Pope St. Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio, November 18, 1912
-
St. Pius X would have slapped you upside the head (or, alternatively, beaten you with fists) were you to have enunciated to him the principles behind R&R.
"The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.
"It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!
"And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth - 1 Jn 3:18]. When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "Si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [If any one love Me, he will keep My word - Jn 14:23], in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
"Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public docuмents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
"This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls."
--Pope St. Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio, November 18, 1912
That sure did sound like the SSPX/R&R deathknell.
I think I'll stick with Sedevacantism.
-
Sede-doubtism.
You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident… (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church. (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable. (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff. (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church. (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted. (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)
If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope. (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)
While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope. (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it. (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered… (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope. (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
I don't see how the judgement of more than 40 Catholic bishops and hundreds of Catholic priests can be dismissed as private judgement. You can claim that they do not represent the Church but if they do represent the Church even if there is not unanimous agreement, it cannot be dismissed as private judgement.
This is absolutely "private judgment"; these men do not possess any authority in the Church.
-
LOL.
And yet Wernz-Vidal cited above also teach, "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis." Please read carefully, this is conceptually distinct from ecclesiastical convalidation strictly so called. This is rather a sign and effect of a valid election.
That's fine, Nishant. You believe then with the certainty of faith that these V2 popes are legitimate popes. In that case, you're in schism by refusing to submit to them. (LOL) I'm glad that you find this so amusing.
You fail to recognize that these same "bishops" are infected with the very errors as the man they are supposed to refuse to recognize on account of their error.
Also, this notion contradicts cuм ex apostolatus.
-
I don't see how the judgement of more than 40 Catholic bishops and hundreds of Catholic priests can be dismissed as private judgement. You can claim that they do not represent the Church but if they do represent the Church even if there is not unanimous agreement, it cannot be dismissed as private judgement.
This is absolutely "private judgment"; these men do not possess any authority in the Church.
It is not even a judgement never mind a private judgement. It is a recognition of facts.
-
I don't see how the judgement of more than 40 Catholic bishops and hundreds of Catholic priests can be dismissed as private judgement. You can claim that they do not represent the Church but if they do represent the Church even if there is not unanimous agreement, it cannot be dismissed as private judgement.
This is absolutely "private judgment"; these men do not possess any authority in the Church.
It is not even a judgement never mind a private judgement. It is a recognition of facts.
Uhm ..... no.
-
I don't see how the judgement of more than 40 Catholic bishops and hundreds of Catholic priests can be dismissed as private judgement. You can claim that they do not represent the Church but if they do represent the Church even if there is not unanimous agreement, it cannot be dismissed as private judgement.
This is absolutely "private judgment"; these men do not possess any authority in the Church.
It is not even a judgement never mind a private judgement. It is a recognition of facts.
Uhm ..... no.
Are you denying that Francis is a heretic?
-
OK, maybe by some sort of technicality these last few Popes have really been Popes.
They, along with the Cardinals supporting them, have been the most abominable heresiarchs in the history of the Church. This is not a laughing matter. Satan has been elected Pope and we're arguing about whether or not we'll have to wait until after Armageddon (or at least a severe and worldwide chastisement) before formally declaring Satan a heretic. Bergoligo isn't some zany clown running an insignificant sect; he isn't a nice man that just happens to have his head screwed on backwards; he is a dragon from hell breathing sin and death across the entire world, deceiving billions of souls into falling down and worshipping the Beast. That's the reality. I can't help thinking that these theological debates are a distraction. I feel that by now we ought to have established a Catholic commune where we all live together in poverty doing perpetual prayer and penance, spreading a "the end if nigh" message to whomever would hear us.
It's madness that we pretend like it's not that bad, that we can live lukewarm spiritual lives as long as we sedate ourselves with the vanity of believing that just because we're good enough to go to traditional mass, we are definitely numbered among the elect. We are sitting in cosy homes idly bickering at one and other like we have all the time in the world, that Rome is going to come round eventually and that we'll each receive a certificate and a pat on the back for being the first ones to "get it"; when I think we ought to be holding on to one and other for dear life and praying in fear and trembling for the darkness to go away.
Lukewarmness is so seductive. If you went about shouting that Rome worships the Devil (which it does) and that everybody has to repent or die you'd have to suffer the humiliation of being called a lunatic, an extremist, a fundamentalist, or at least "a religious enthusiast"; but that's exactly what I feel that we're being called to do. I think if people appreciated how terrible this all is (not that I do, I'm speaking here from a deeply buried fear that I'm too cowardly to face) there would be no lack of charity on this forum or in any Catholic circles. We simply can't afford it. Think. There are seven billion people in the world today and only a fraction of a fraction are aware that their Lord and Saviour, and most don't even know that he's that, is being crucified by the people who claim to worship him. That fraction of a fraction of a percent is naturally so precious that if you heard that they were all consumed with petty disagreements and bickering you'd be disgusted.
Something I heard about the Israelites in their captivity in Babylon really made an impression on me: it's said that while they were held captive they refused morally to sing any psalms because psalms were songs of triumph and joy and that it would have been scandalous to sing such songs in their miserable and abject state. Well, the Catholic Church is in captivity and who is weeping for her? Who is weeping for her like Jeremias weeped for Israel? The Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, the mother of the faithful who are the light of this world, has been humiliated and dragged through the mud by her own relates. She's been made to look like a prostitute in front of the whole world, the Church that kept her purity and sanctity through so many trials; such as when almost all of her children abandoned her, and it took the courage of one faithful man, St. Athanasius, to reel back in all of those prodigal sons and make them repent for their errors. This is the ancient Church that Christ founded and that has lived for centuries, and that countless martyrs have died for. Where is she now? Where is the Church that shouts across the world the glory of the martyrs and the holiness of the saints? She's been violated and disgraced by a pack of wolves dressed as sheep, and she is now identified with that "Whore of Babylon drunk on the blood of the martyrs".
Am I wrong for insisting on an apocalyptic mindset? But that Assisi meeting of JPII where Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, was presented to the whole world as being on the same level as idols, was one of the most abominable acts in the sight of God there has ever been. It's on the level of the Israelites golden calf episode. God's silence thus far should make every one of us tremble. The longer he waits to exact his wrath the more terrible that wrath will be when it finally arrives.
Pope St. Pius X thought that matters were so wicked in his time, that he even suspected that the Antichrit himself may have been born into the world. And look how far we've come in the way of sin and abomination since his time! How much worse can things get?
You talk about the Church being backed into a corner if the sedevacantist thesis is true, but that's beside the point. No matter what way you look at it, the Church is in dire peril and without the Hand of God intervening all is lost. That being said, there's no need to worry about there not being enough Cardinals to elect a Pope, because if God wants there to yet be another Pope before the end of the world, he'll surely send St. Peter down from heaven to crown that Pope. Waiting on the Holy Spirit to convert these dragons in Rome would be no less miraculous.
Lord, have mercy on our souls. Enlighten our minds so that we may see through this dense fog that afflicts us. Increase our charity sevenfold so that we may avoid sinning against one and other and against Thy everlasting commandments. Pray for us, Holy Mother of God; for without thy intercession we are desolate. Lord Jesus Christ, forgive us our sins; make us saints worthy of receiving Thy body and blood in the Sacrament which Thou created before giving Thyself up to be crucified for our sins, and which the successors of Thy apostle Peter have faithfully passed down to us over the course of centuries. Amen.
-
And it came to pass, after Israel was carried into captivity, and Jerusalem was desolate, that Jeremias the prophet sat weeping, and mourned with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and with a sorrowful mind, sighing and moaning, he said:
[1] Aleph. How doth the city sit solitary that was full of people! how is the mistress of the Gentiles become as a widow: the princes of provinces made tributary! [2] Beth. Weeping she hath wept in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks: there is none to comfort her among all them that were dear to her: all her friends have despised her, and are become her enemies. [3] Ghimel. Juda hath removed her dwelling place because of her affliction, and the greatness of her bondage: she hath dwelt among the nations, and she hath found no rest: all her persecutors have taken her in the midst of straits. [4] Daleth. The ways of Sion mourn, because there are none that come to the solemn feast: all her gates are broken down: her priests sigh: her virgins are in affliction, and she is oppressed with bitterness. [5] He. Her adversaries are become her lords, her enemies are enriched: because the Lord hath spoken against her for the multitude of her iniquities: her children are led into captivity: before the face of the oppressor.
[6] Vau. And from the daughter of Sion all her beauty is departed: her princes are become like rams that find no pastures: and they are gone away without strength before the face of the pursuer. [7] Zain. Jerusalem hath remembered the days of her affliction, and prevarication of all her desirable things which she had from the days of old, when her people fell in the enemy' s hand, and there was no helper: the enemies have seen her, and have mocked at her sabbaths. [8] Heth. Jerusalem hath grievously sinned, therefore is she become unstable: all that honoured her have despised her, because they have seen her shame: but she sighed and turned backward. [9] Teth. Her filthiness is on her feet, and she hath not remembered her end: she is wonderfully cast down, not having a comforter: behold, O Lord, my affliction, because the enemy is lifted up. [10] Jod. The enemy hath put out his hand to all her desirable things: for she hath seen the Gentiles enter into her sanctuary, of whom thou gavest commandment that they should not enter into thy church.
[11] Caph. All her people sigh, they seek bread: they have given all their precious things for food to relieve the soul: see, O Lord, and consider, for I am become vile. [12] Lamed. O all ye that pass by the way, attend, and see if there be any sorrow like to my sorrow: for he hath made a vintage of me, as the Lord spoke in the day of his fierce anger. [13] Mem. From above he hath sent fire into my bones, and hath chastised me: he hath spread a net for my feet, he hath turned me back: he hath made me desolate, wasted with sorrow all the day long. [14] Nun. The yoke of my iniquities hath watched: they are folded together in his hand, and put upon my neck: my strength is weakened: the Lord hath delivered me into a hand out of which I am not able to rise. [15] Samech. The Lord hath taken away all my mighty men out of the midst of me: he hath called against me the time, to destroy my chosen men: the Lord hath trodden the winepress for the virgin daughter of Juda.
[16] Ain. Therefore do I weep, and my eyes run down with water: because the comforter, the relief of my soul, is far from me: my children are desolate because the enemy hath prevailed. [17] Phe. Sion hath spread forth her hands, there is none to comfort her: the Lord hath commanded against Jacob, his enemies are round about him: Jerusalem is as a menstruous woman among them. [18] Sade. The Lord is just, for I have provoked his mouth to wrath: hear, I pray you, all ye people, and see my sorrow: my virgins, and my young men are gone into captivity. [19] Coph. I called for my friends, but they deceived me: my priests and my ancients pined away in the city: while they sought their food, to relieve their souls. [20] Res. Behold, O Lord, for I am in distress, my bowels are troubled: my heart is turned within me, for I am full of bitterness: abroad the sword destroyeth, and at home there is death alike.
[21] Sin. They have heard that I sigh, and there is none to comfort me: all my enemies have heard of my evil, they have rejoiced that thou hast done it: thou hast brought a day of consolation, and they shall be like unto me. [22] Thau. Let all their evil be present before thee: and make vintage of them, as thou hast made vintage of me for all my iniquities: for my sighs are many, and my heart is sorrowful.
-
LOL.
And yet Wernz-Vidal cited above also teach, "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis." Please read carefully, this is conceptually distinct from ecclesiastical convalidation strictly so called. This is rather a sign and effect of a valid election.
The learned Dom Gueranger treats both together in these words, "when it is proved that the Church ... acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself” from which it follows that in any case we cannot doubt an election after the condition of such acceptance is verified.
Thus the notion of universal acceptance is indeed key and anyone who wishes to be a sedevacantist of any stripe must in the first place labor to show that, despite appearances, such recognition of the Pope does not exist.
You know, Mith, if it's ok with you, we can stop here. You and those who agree with you've made your case, and we've made ours. It's obvious to me now that we're not going to agree, I'm content to let the issue rest here.
Clemens Maria, sacramental validity is too big an issue to go into, but I for my part agree with Fr. Marie and Fr. Scott over Fr. Cekada, I'll explain why in more detail, if necessary on a separate thread, later.
Nishant-
Why do you bother?
They don't want to hear it.
If after the "Trifecta" articles, in combination with Vennari's, they still want to maintain their hallucination, I say the wisdom of the philosopher Fleetwood Mac ought to prevail:
"You can go your own way."
Good disposition is clearly not there.
So why make the effort?
-
LOL.
And yet Wernz-Vidal cited above also teach, "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis." Please read carefully, this is conceptually distinct from ecclesiastical convalidation strictly so called. This is rather a sign and effect of a valid election.
The learned Dom Gueranger treats both together in these words, "when it is proved that the Church ... acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself” from which it follows that in any case we cannot doubt an election after the condition of such acceptance is verified.
Thus the notion of universal acceptance is indeed key and anyone who wishes to be a sedevacantist of any stripe must in the first place labor to show that, despite appearances, such recognition of the Pope does not exist.
You know, Mith, if it's ok with you, we can stop here. You and those who agree with you've made your case, and we've made ours. It's obvious to me now that we're not going to agree, I'm content to let the issue rest here.
Clemens Maria, sacramental validity is too big an issue to go into, but I for my part agree with Fr. Marie and Fr. Scott over Fr. Cekada, I'll explain why in more detail, if necessary on a separate thread, later.
Nishant-
Why do you bother?
They don't want to hear it.
If after the "Trifecta" articles, in combination with Vennari's, they still want to maintain their hallucination, I say the wisdom of the philosopher Fleetwood Mac ought to prevail:
"You can go your own way."
Good disposition is clearly not there.
So why make the effort?
Are you accusing those who don’t agree with you of being of bad will? It certainly appears so. You’re extremely prideful and arrogant, and you have a lot of growing up to do. And it’s a nice touch to quote on a traditional-Catholic forum a satanic band like Fleetwood Mac. Couldn’t you come up with something from the Rolling Stones?
-
LOL.
And yet Wernz-Vidal cited above also teach, "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis." Please read carefully, this is conceptually distinct from ecclesiastical convalidation strictly so called. This is rather a sign and effect of a valid election.
The learned Dom Gueranger treats both together in these words, "when it is proved that the Church ... acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself” from which it follows that in any case we cannot doubt an election after the condition of such acceptance is verified.
Thus the notion of universal acceptance is indeed key and anyone who wishes to be a sedevacantist of any stripe must in the first place labor to show that, despite appearances, such recognition of the Pope does not exist.
You know, Mith, if it's ok with you, we can stop here. You and those who agree with you've made your case, and we've made ours. It's obvious to me now that we're not going to agree, I'm content to let the issue rest here.
Clemens Maria, sacramental validity is too big an issue to go into, but I for my part agree with Fr. Marie and Fr. Scott over Fr. Cekada, I'll explain why in more detail, if necessary on a separate thread, later.
Nishant-
Why do you bother?
They don't want to hear it.
If after the "Trifecta" articles, in combination with Vennari's, they still want to maintain their hallucination, I say the wisdom of the philosopher Fleetwood Mac ought to prevail:
"You can go your own way."
Good disposition is clearly not there.
So why make the effort?
Are you accusing those who don’t agree with you of being of bad will? It certainly appears so. You’re extremely prideful and arrogant, and you have a lot of growing up to do. And it’s a nice touch to quote on a traditional-Catholic forum a satanic band like Fleetwood Mac. Couldn’t you come up with something from the Rolling Stones?
True, I should not have alleged bad disposition.
-
Sede-doubtism.
You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident… (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church. (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable. (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff. (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church. (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted. (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)
If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope. (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)
While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope. (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it. (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered… (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope. (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
Thank you for posting this great collection of quotes from a great man.
He sums up my views nicely.
However, the current SSPX is much more "confident" that the recent popes have been valid. Why? Why are they so dogmatically sedeplenist?
Obviously God willed that +Lefebvre die in 1991 -- if he wanted a "large, united Sedevacantist resistance to Modernist Rome" it would have happened. Nothing could have stopped it, if it had been God's will.
Who knows? Archbishop Lefebvre might have become formally sedevacantist if God had given him a few more years. He just wasn't one to move rashly. One of his greatest virtues was his prudence.
The problem is that I'm as hesitant as the Archbishop to go off and take drastic steps -- especially since I'm just a layman, and +Lefebvre never took that step. I would have to follow a prelate that I could trust. My job is to follow, not to lead. I am just a layman.
And let's face it -- there are "good prelates" on both sides of the Sede debate. Unfortunately, I don't know all of them that well.
I've seen putrid fruit on both sides, as well. So we wait, and the fight continues...
-
We are all trying to make sense of a difficult situation. And we are coming at it from different angles. One thing that I hope we can all agree on is that we all (traditionalists) are Catholic. I cannot say the same for the folks in the Conciliar Sect. I honestly don't know anyone in that sect (and I know many since I am the only traditionalist in my family) who accept either a) the teachings of the Catholic Church or b) the teachings of the Conciliar Sect. And I'm not talking about difficult to understand theological concepts such as epikeia, etc. I'm talking about basic articles of the creed and catechism. Nowadays everyone feels free to accept or reject anything they like and still call themselves Catholic. Francis himself rejects the Catholic God. It is painfully ironic to hear someone say, "Are you more Catholic than the pope?" or "Is the pope Catholic?"
I don't think the sometimes heated arguments on this forum are worthless. The reality is that a significant number of members of the Catholic Church are reading these forums and forming opinions about the crisis based on what they are reading here (as well as on other forums). Posting something here could have the same kind of influence on the members of the Catholic Church that advertising on national television could have on the citizens of a country. It is important. Sure, we should strive to act always like Catholic Ladies and Gentlemen but if we sometimes cross the line, it doesn't mean the entire endeavor is worthless. Personally, I have found it very helpful to have these discussions.
-
He said "dogmatic sedeplentist" :roll-laugh1:
Is that kind of like a "dogmatic heterosɛҳuąƖ?"
An attempt to make good seem evil?
An attempt to pretend it is just a thing men may individually take or leave?
Madness.
-
Since the last 20 pages of this thread cannot be maintained in the face of these arguments, it must be that nobody has paid attention to the article that mandated "dogmatic anti-sedevacantism:"
In the February 2014 issue of Catholic Family News, John Salza published a timely and revealing piece on the position of Archbishop Lefebvre with respect to the question of Sedevacantism – a topic on the mind of many today following the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the increasing doctrinal and moral chaos that has ensued. In his article, Mr. Salza mentioned a two-fold opinion with respect to a heretical Pope: that of St. Robert Bellarmine, who taught that a manifestly heretical Pope loses his office without a sentence from the Church; and that of Suarez, who taught that a heretical Pope loses his office by virtue of a declaration by the Church. In footnote #14, Mr. Salza notes an interesting point about this apparent contradiction:
“It is interesting to note that St. Bellarmine (d. 1621) and Suarez (d. 1617) lived at the same time, and yet both held that their seemingly inapposite opinions were the teaching of the Church Fathers and Doctors.”
There is an important point that needs to be clarified regarding the respective opinions of St. Bellarmine and Suarez. While there is indeed a difference between the two on the speculative level, when it comes to the practical level both opinions are in agreement. The difference between the two opinions refers to when and how a heretical Pope loses his office, but both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment, and consequent determination, is not the domain of private opinion.
The opinion of St. Bellarmine (which maintains that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office) does not preclude a judgment of guilt by the Church. It only maintains that the judgment does not cause the heretical Pope to lose his office, but rather confirms that he is guilty of heresy, and as such has lost his office. This is opposed to the opinion of Suarez, and others, who maintain that the judgment of guilt and declaration by the Church cause the loss of office. One opinion maintains that the Church judges the Pope guilty and then declares he has already lost his office as a result of his heresy; the other opinion maintains that the Church judges the guilt and then renders a declaration that causes the loss of office. The difference between the two is more technical than practical.
These are the two main opinions of theologians with respect to a heretical Pope, and the Church has never made a definitive judgment on which of the two is correct. But what is important to note is that both opinions agree that for a sitting Pope to be removed he must first be declared guilty of heresy by the Church – by an ecuмenical council, or by the College of Cardinals. The following is taken from Elements of Ecclesiastic Law by Sebastian B. Smith, D.D., Professor of canon law.
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”. (1)
As we can see, the difference between the two opinions pertains to the hypothetical question alone (a question of the speculative order) – namely, when and how a heretical Pope loses his office. On the practical level, both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt and declaration must be rendered – and this judgment belongs to the Church, not to individual Catholics. This is a point that every Sedevacantist I have spoken with, or otherwise corresponded with, has missed.
It should be noted that the aforementioned book by Canon Smith was sent to Rome for review. The Preface of the Third Edition explains that Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, “appointed two Consultors, doctors in canon law, to examine the ‘Elements’ and report to him. The Consultors, after examining the book for several months, made each a lengthy report to the Cardinal-Prefect”. Their detailed reports noted five inaccuracies or errors, all of which were corrected in the Third Edition. The citation provided above regarding a heretical Pope was not among the requested revisions. This shows that Rome found no error or inaccuracy in the assertion that a heretical Pope “must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals” to be considered to have lost his office. Hence, with the approval of Rome, this teaching remained in the revised Third Edition, which is the edition cited above.
It is also worth noting that I have personally drawn attention to this teaching of Canon Smith to a number of well-known Sedevacantist apologists, both priest and laymen, and every single one, without exception, has disagreed with it… but how could they not? Their conclusion (that the post-Conciliar Popes have not been real Popes) forces them to reject it, since accepting it would require that they revise their position. But as is too often the case, when someone embraces an error (in this case a false premise) and then draws erroneous conclusions based on that error, it is very difficult for them to retract it later on - especially when they have spent years and years defending the particular conclusion. If the Sedevacantists accepted the teaching of Canon Smith (which was implicitly approved by Rome), the most they would be able to maintain is that a future Pope or Council might determine that the post-Conciliar Popes were not true Popes, which just so happens to be the position held by Archbishop Lefebvre. Referring to Paul VI and John Paul II, the Archbishop said “one day the Church will have to examine their situation”, and in the end it “might have to pronounce the finding that these men had not been Popes (…) it is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church”. I think it is safe to say that the Archbishop would include Benedict XVI and Francis in that statement if he were alive today. Unlike the position of the Sedevacantists, that of Archbishop Lefebvre is in no way at variance with the teaching of Canon Smith.
The teaching of St. Francis De Sales with regarding a heretical Pope is also consistent with that of Canon Smith. In the following quote, St. Francis De Sales (d. 1622), who also lived at the time of Bellarmine and Suarez, refers to both hypothetical opinions mentioned above, as well as the necessity of the Church taking the appropriate action:
"Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric” [Acts 1]. (2)
Notice he says the Church must either deprive him (the opinion of Suarez), or declare him deprived (the opinion of St. Bellarmine). Regardless of which of the two hypothetical opinions one holds, it is not left to individual Catholics to make the judgment; rather, it is “the Church” that “must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric”.
A judgment of guilt must be rendered for a Pope to be considered to have lost his office. This judgment can be made, as we have said, by the Church, or it can be made by the Pope himself should he admit to his guilt. Just as a person who admits to committing a crime does not need a jury to find him guilty, neither would a Pope who openly left the Church, or openly admitted to denying a defined dogma, require a judgment of guilt. But to date, none of the post-Conciliar Popes have openly left the Church or publicly admitted to denying a defined dogma. Therefore, a judgment of guilt by the proper authorities would be necessary for them to be considered to have lost their office. The private opinion of individual Catholics, who personally consider the Pope to be a manifest heretic, does not suffice. This is confirmed by John of St. Thomas (d. 1644), who also lived at the time of St. Bellarmine and Suarez. Here is what he had to say about a Pope who is judged by individual Catholics to be a manifest heretic:
"St. Jerome - in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ - does not preclude the Church's judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it - yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church... So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned" (John of St. Thomas). (4)
It is one thing for Catholics living through the post-Conciliar nightmare to have the opinion that a future Pope or council will condemn the post-Conciliar Popes as heretics, as the Council of Constantinople did with Pope Honorius I, or perhaps declare that they lost their office while still living due to heresy, which would then render the Acts of their Pontificates null; but it is another thing altogether for individual Catholics to declare that they are not true Popes, simply because they personally consider them to be manifestly heretical.
Another question that arises is whether or not a heretical Pope would retain his authority if he had not been publicly declared guilty of heresy by the proper authorities and removed from office. Fr. Paul Laymann, S.J., who also lived at the time of Bellarmine and Suarez, addressed this very point. Fr. Laymann was considered one of the greatest moralists and canonists of his day. He served as a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Ingolstadt from 1603 to 1609, Professor of Moral Theology at the Jesuit house in Munich from 1609 to 1625, and as a Professor of Canon Law at the University of Dillingen from 1625 to 1632. In the following quote, which was written less than 70 years after Pope Paul IV issued the Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, the distinguished Professor of Canon Law wrote the following about a heretical Pope who was being tolerated by the Church:
“It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as a person, might be able to fall into heresy and even a notorious one, by reason of which he would merit to be deposed by the Church [opinion of Suarez], or rather, declared to be separated from her [opinion of Bellarmine]. (…) Observe, however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church, (…) still, while he were tolerated by the Church, and publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he would really enjoy the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees will have no less force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful.” (5)
Manifest Heresy
Another important point that needs clarification is what St. Bellarmine meant by the term “manifest heretic”. When he said “a pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope”, he was not referring merely to a Pope that has made materially heretical statements, or to a Pope who has given reason to believe he has lost the faith; manifest heresy requires something more: since heresy, properly so-called, requires pertinacity in the will (not simply an error in the intellect),
in order for a person who has made materially heretical statements to be considered formally heretical in the external forum, pertinacity in the will would also have to be manifest. Obviously, if a Pope publicly defected from the Faith by leaving the Church, or by publicly admitting that he rejects a defined dogma, this, in and of itself, would suffice to demonstrate pertinacity in the external forum. But without such an open admission of guilt, there would have to be another way to demonstrate that he was manifestly obstinate in his position. The other way, according to St. Bellarmine, is for the Pope to remain obstinate after two warnings. Only then would pertinacity be sufficiently demonstrated to render the Pope a manifest heretic. St. Bellarmine bases this on [mistakenly said “in”] the authority of St. Paul.
“In the first place” wrote Bellarmine, “it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence (…) Therefore… the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.” (6)
As we can see, according to Bellarmine a manifest heretic is one who remains obstinate “after two warnings”. Such manifest obstinancy reveals pertinacity in the will, which is necessary for a materially heretical statement to qualify as formal heresy in the external forum. By remaining obstinate after a solemn and public warning, the Pope would, in a sense, pass judgment upon himself, thereby showing himself to be a heretic properly so-called. It is for this reason, according to Bellarmine, that the Pope – “who judges all and is judged by no one” – can himself be judged and punished by the Church.
But the question arises: who would have the authority to issue a solemn and public warning to the Pope? The eminent eighteenth century Italian theologian, Father Pietro Ballerini, addressed this very point. He wrote: “The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune”. Then, after citing St. Paul’s letter to Titus (the same portion St. Bellarmine cited as his authority), Fr. Ballerini added:
“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. (Italics added) (7)
By remaining obstinate after two public warnings, issued by the proper authorities, the Pope would, as Fr. Ballerini said, pronounce sentence “upon himself”, thereby “making it clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church” and, in a certain way, “abdicated the Pontificate”.
Conclusion
Those who adhere to the Sedevacantist position based on the opinion of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, who held that a manifestly heretical Pope automatically loses his office, have mistakenly concluded that their private judgment on the matter suffices in place of a formal judgment by the Church; and that, based on their private judgment, they are permitted to declare openly that a man elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope is not a true Pope (8); and furthermore, that they are then permitted to attempt to persuade others to accept their private judgment as a public fact. (9) Based on this false premise, Sedevacantists apologists have spilled much ink over the years trying to explain to individual Catholics in the pew how they can detect heresy in the Pope, so that they too will personally conclude that the Pope is a “manifest heretic” and publicly adopt the Sedevacantist position. What they have failed to understand is that the judgment of heresy is not left to individual Catholics in the pew, but to the Church, which is why John of St. Thomas said: “be he [the Pope] ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned."
This demonstrates the wisdom and prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre, who, while not ruling out the possibility that a future Pope or council might determine that the post-Conciliar occupants of the Chair of Peter “had not been Popes”, left the final judgment to the Church, rather than rendering a public judgment he had no authority to make – especially given the fact that the Church has never declared that a Pope who falls into manifest heresy loses his office ipso facto, rather than by virtue of a judgment and declaration by the Church.
Notes:
1) Smith, Sebastian B. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (revised third edition), New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1881. Within that quote from Canonist Smith he provides two footnotes. Footnotes #70 references Craiss., n. 6S2. Footnote number 71 references Phillips, Kirchenr., vol. i., pp. 277, 274. If anyone has either of these books, please contact me by e-mail at RSiscoeTX@aol.com.
2) St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, [Tan Books] pg 305-306.
3) De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, pg. 316-317
4) John of St. Thomas, Disp. II, art III 26
5) Laymann, Theol. Mor., Lib, tract . I, cap, VII, pp. 145-146, 1625. Cited in the book Can Popes Go Bad, by De Silveira, pg. 87
6) De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
7) De Potestate Ecclesiastica, pgs.104-105
8) St. Thomas explains what is required for a judgment to be lawful: “Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful.” ST II-II Q 60, A2
9) St. Thomas said: “Since judgment should be pronounced according to the written law, as stated above, he that pronounces judgment, interprets, in a way, the letter of the law, by applying it to some particular case. Now since it belongs to the same authority to interpret and to make a law, just as a law cannot be made except by public authority, so neither can a judgment be pronounced except by public authority, which extends over those who are subject to the community.” He went on to say: “Wherefore even as it would be unjust for one man to force another to observe a law that was not approved by public authority, so too it is unjust if a man compels another to submit to a judgment that is pronounced by other than the public authority.” (S.T. Pt II-II, Q 60, A 6)
From the April 2014 Catholic Family News
-
...It's madness that we pretend like it's not that bad, that we can live lukewarm spiritual lives as long as we sedate ourselves with the vanity of believing that just because we're good enough to go to traditional mass, we are definitely numbered among the elect. We are sitting in cosy homes idly bickering at one and other like we have all the time in the world, that Rome is going to come round eventually and that we'll each receive a certificate and a pat on the back for being the first ones to "get it"; when I think we ought to be holding on to one and other for dear life and praying in fear and trembling for the darkness to go away.
good stuff mate...
-
You know, Mith, if it's ok with you, we can stop here. You and those who agree with you've made your case, and we've made ours. It's obvious to me now that we're not going to agree, I'm content to let the issue rest here.
Well Nishant, I wouldn't be so quick to say we'll never agree-- after all, you recently (and courageously, I might add) retracted your position on canonizations.
You've already had this discussion with John Lane on BF in the "On Schism" thread.
The pope is the proximate rule of faith, i.e., we learn the faith from him-- with docility, not dissenting, not proof-texting, not dissenting. But if the entire Church accepted a false pope (i.e., learned "the faith" from him with docility, not dissenting, not proof-texting, etc.) this would constitute a defection. But the Church is indefectible, so if the entire Church accepts a pope this is a sure sign that he is legitimate.
This is of paramount importance when considering the doctrine of universal acceptance.
It is not an argument you or any other R&R Catholic can make, because you don't accept Francis as a proximate rule of faith in the first place. You deny the very foundation which makes this doctrine "work".
And of course, that is a distinct argument from the one I have been making all along which is that there hasn't been universal peaceful acceptance of these men anyways. Traditional Catholics don't adhere to the conciliar popes as their proximate rule of faith-- if they had, they would have lost the faith! But even the Novus Ordo does not adhere to these men either-- bishops who administer communion to public sinners, divorced and remarried, who are involved in "social activism" etc. The vast majority of N.O. attendees don't actually attend the N.O. service, they use birth control, deny the Real Presence. There is no way you can use this a proof of universal acceptance.
-
Thank you for posting this great collection of quotes from a great man.
He sums up my views nicely.
So you're a convinced sede-doubtist then?
-
LOL.
And yet Wernz-Vidal cited above also teach, "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis." Please read carefully, this is conceptually distinct from ecclesiastical convalidation strictly so called. This is rather a sign and effect of a valid election.
The learned Dom Gueranger treats both together in these words, "when it is proved that the Church ... acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself” from which it follows that in any case we cannot doubt an election after the condition of such acceptance is verified.
Thus the notion of universal acceptance is indeed key and anyone who wishes to be a sedevacantist of any stripe must in the first place labor to show that, despite appearances, such recognition of the Pope does not exist.
You know, Mith, if it's ok with you, we can stop here. You and those who agree with you've made your case, and we've made ours. It's obvious to me now that we're not going to agree, I'm content to let the issue rest here.
Clemens Maria, sacramental validity is too big an issue to go into, but I for my part agree with Fr. Marie and Fr. Scott over Fr. Cekada, I'll explain why in more detail, if necessary on a separate thread, later.
Nishant-
Why do you bother?
They don't want to hear it.
If after the "Trifecta" articles, in combination with Vennari's, they still want to maintain their hallucination, I say the wisdom of the philosopher Fleetwood Mac ought to prevail:
"You can go your own way."
Good disposition is clearly not there.
So why make the effort?
The articles attack a straw man, and clearly avoid the issue. We are not avoiding anything, but those that publish these very clever and misleading articles will one day have to answer for it.
As has been stated: none of us have ever said that unauthorized bishops, priests, laypeople can make a juridical judgment. So if you attack us on that you are beating a straw man.
We are judging a public crime, based on public evidence. This type of judgment does not bind others as a juridical judgment would.
But all of this is a sort of game to you anyway, as you don't believe that Popes really have any power anyway. They are just figureheads that can be perpetually ignored and diaobeyed. What exactly is the practical difference between you and a member of Greek "orthodoxy?"
-
LOL.
And yet Wernz-Vidal cited above also teach, "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis." Please read carefully, this is conceptually distinct from ecclesiastical convalidation strictly so called. This is rather a sign and effect of a valid election.
The learned Dom Gueranger treats both together in these words, "when it is proved that the Church ... acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself” from which it follows that in any case we cannot doubt an election after the condition of such acceptance is verified.
Thus the notion of universal acceptance is indeed key and anyone who wishes to be a sedevacantist of any stripe must in the first place labor to show that, despite appearances, such recognition of the Pope does not exist.
You know, Mith, if it's ok with you, we can stop here. You and those who agree with you've made your case, and we've made ours. It's obvious to me now that we're not going to agree, I'm content to let the issue rest here.
Clemens Maria, sacramental validity is too big an issue to go into, but I for my part agree with Fr. Marie and Fr. Scott over Fr. Cekada, I'll explain why in more detail, if necessary on a separate thread, later.
Nishant-
Why do you bother?
They don't want to hear it.
If after the "Trifecta" articles, in combination with Vennari's, they still want to maintain their hallucination, I say the wisdom of the philosopher Fleetwood Mac ought to prevail:
"You can go your own way."
Good disposition is clearly not there.
So why make the effort?
The articles attack a straw man, and clearly avoid the issue. We are not avoiding anything, but those that publish these very clever and misleading articles will one day have to answer for it.
As has been stated: none of us have ever said that unauthorized bishops, priests, laypeople can make a juridical judgment. So if you attack us on that you are beating a straw man.
We are judging a public crime, based on public evidence. This type of judgment does not bind others as a juridical judgment would.
But all of this is a sort of game to you anyway, as you don't believe that Popes really have any power anyway. They are just figureheads that can be perpetually ignored and diaobeyed. What exactly is the practical difference between you and a member of Greek "orthodoxy?"
The papacy?
Now its my turn:
Please quote for me where any manual says a layman may declare a Pope deposed, or that you may judge the alleged public defection of a Pope (where the article just quoted from CFN expressly quotes both Suarez and St. Bellarmine, et al, as saying exactly the opposite).
-
LOL.
And yet Wernz-Vidal cited above also teach, "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis." Please read carefully, this is conceptually distinct from ecclesiastical convalidation strictly so called. This is rather a sign and effect of a valid election.
The learned Dom Gueranger treats both together in these words, "when it is proved that the Church ... acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself” from which it follows that in any case we cannot doubt an election after the condition of such acceptance is verified.
Thus the notion of universal acceptance is indeed key and anyone who wishes to be a sedevacantist of any stripe must in the first place labor to show that, despite appearances, such recognition of the Pope does not exist.
You know, Mith, if it's ok with you, we can stop here. You and those who agree with you've made your case, and we've made ours. It's obvious to me now that we're not going to agree, I'm content to let the issue rest here.
Clemens Maria, sacramental validity is too big an issue to go into, but I for my part agree with Fr. Marie and Fr. Scott over Fr. Cekada, I'll explain why in more detail, if necessary on a separate thread, later.
Nishant-
Why do you bother?
They don't want to hear it.
If after the "Trifecta" articles, in combination with Vennari's, they still want to maintain their hallucination, I say the wisdom of the philosopher Fleetwood Mac ought to prevail:
"You can go your own way."
Good disposition is clearly not there.
So why make the effort?
The articles attack a straw man, and clearly avoid the issue. We are not avoiding anything, but those that publish these very clever and misleading articles will one day have to answer for it.
As has been stated: none of us have ever said that unauthorized bishops, priests, laypeople can make a juridical judgment. So if you attack us on that you are beating a straw man.
We are judging a public crime, based on public evidence. This type of judgment does not bind others as a juridical judgment would.
But all of this is a sort of game to you anyway, as you don't believe that Popes really have any power anyway. They are just figureheads that can be perpetually ignored and diaobeyed. What exactly is the practical difference between you and a member of Greek "orthodoxy?"
The papacy?
Now its my turn:
Please quote for me where any manual says a layman may declare a Pope deposed, or that you may judge the alleged public defection of a Pope (where the article just quoted from CFN expressly quotes both Suarez and St. Bellarmine, et al, as saying exactly the opposite).
You're entertaining the strawman again.
The use of the word "declare" on your and Siscoe's part is a misleading verb, carrying with it the implication of other misleading adjectives, as if what sedevacantists believe is "solemn" or "official" or "binding" but that's simply not the case. Having been in the seminary, I'm sure you understand how the conscience is given license to act according to moral certainty arrived at by a particular judgement. We make judgements all the time, about everything-- we actually have to in order to act. A judgement which is arrived at with moral certainty allows a person to act safely in regards to it.
In the case of sedevacantism*, certain clergy and laymen have arrived at a morally certain judgement based on the evidence available to them that these men are not popes, and they then act according to that judgement. This is a perfectly sound and safe principle of moral theology.
This is completely different than the idea which you and Siscoe are continually alluding to, the idea of a "solemn declaration" by a lay person; but no such declaration is being made by any respectable sedevacantist. You are confusing (how, I'm not sure) the confidence of the sedevacantists in their position with them binding others to it-- something which they couldn't do even if they tried, but they don't even try to so it really is a strawman.
------------------------
*Besides moral certainty, others may arrive at the opinion of sedevacantism via doubt toward the putative Roman Pontiff's legitimacy. This position has the same end point (of adopting the sedevacantist position) but the order of operations and constituents thereof are a little different. However, it is not necessary to delve into them because the case is already made, and most sedevacantists adopt the position out of moral certainty to the non-pontificate rather than doubt toward the putative pontificate. I just wanted to point that out, so that the implication isn't that one need be morally certain about the sede vacante in order to behave as if it were true.
-
Sean, you've made the judgement that Francis is the pope. By what authority do you make that judgement? Because he's called pope by a couple billion non-Catholics is not a real answer.
The real question is, do you have moral certainty he's the pope?