Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on June 03, 2011, 11:29:56 PM
-
The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law
John Salza, J.D.
Sedevacantists use many different authorities and arguments to support their thesis that we have no Pope. However, their biggest “stick” is Pope Paul IV’s cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio (1559). In this Apostolic Constitution, Pope Paul IV declared that if the Roman Pontiff, prior to his election to the papacy, was a heretic, then his election to the papacy is invalid. Pope Paul IV further declared that the invalidity of such an election happens automatically, without any need for further declaration. (cuм Ex does not address the situation of a legitimately elected Pope who falls into heresy after his election, which most Sedevacantists believe is almost if not entirely impossible; however, the analysis that follows also applies to that hypothetical). Following are the pertinent parts of cuм Ex:
“In addition, if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
“(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
“(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
“(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
Pope Paul IV’s decree on the invalidity of the papal election of a heretic affirms the Divine Law that formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church, without the need for ecclesiastical censure, and that such self-expulsion disqualifies one from being Pope (one severed from the Body cannot rule the Body). This begs the obvious question: How does one determine whether a Cardinal was a heretic prior to his election to the papacy? How does one know whether self-expulsion for pre-election heresy has occurred?
While Sedevacantists answer the question by literally “taking the law into their own hands,” Catholics are required to look to the ecclesiastical law of the Church to resolve the issue. Ecclesiastical law (canon law and other papal legislation) helps to understand the Divine Law in light of the facts and circuмstances of a particular case. Because Sedevacantists believe Pope John Paul II was an “anti-pope,” they believe that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (and not the 1983 Code promulgated by John Paul II) is the operative law. Hence, we begin by looking to the 1917 Code.
First, the 1917 Code says that the Pope is the sole judge of the Cardinals. Canon 1557, par. 1-2 says: “It belongs entirely to the Roman Pontiff to judge…Cardinal Fathers / Cardinal Priests.” Moreover, canon 1558 says: “In the causes of which canon 1556, 1557 treat, the incompetence of any other judge is absolute.” In other words, only the Pope – and no one else – can judge a Cardinal in doctrinal or disciplinary matters. The Pope’s authority is absolute (est absoluta) in this regard. Unlike the Pope, who has no judge, the Cardinals do have a judge – and it is the Pope alone. Therefore, the Pope alone determines if a “Cardinal…prior to his elevation as Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.”
As applied to the Sedevacantist thesis, Sedevacantists claim that Pope John XXIII (Cardinal Roncalli) was invalidly elected because he was a heretic prior to claiming the papal throne. This is a reason why Sedevacantists don’t believe we have had a Pope since 1958. But in order for Cardinal Roncalli’s election to the papacy to have been invalidated for heresy (or any other transgression), Pope Pius XII would have had to judge that Cardinal Roncalli was a heretic, since Pius XII is sole judge of his Cardinals under canons 1557 and 1558 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. But he did not. Therefore, Cardinal Roncalli’s election to the papacy cannot be invalidated using cuм Ex because Pope Pius XII did not judge him guilty of heresy, or any other crime which violates Divine Law.
Sedevacantists correctly maintain that Divine Law expels a formal heretic from the Church without further declaration. They point to canon 188, par. 4 of the 1917 Code which says that “all offices whatsoever fall vacant and without any declaration if the cleric…publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.” However, the same Code of Canon Law also determines how we know a cleric has publicly defected from the Faith and lost his office as a result of the defection: The Church tells us. Thus, ecclesiastical law follows Our Lord’s directive: “tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17). While the person in Matthew 18 was publicly suspected of a transgression, Jesus tells us to treat him as excommunicated only after the Church judges the matter.
Attempting to ignore Jesus’ words and take matters into their own hands, Sedevacantists also refer to Titus 3:10-11 where St. Paul tells Titus to avoid a heretic after two admonitions because he is self-condemned. However, Titus 3 is consistent with Matthew 18. Titus has the authority to determine who is a heretic in his diocese because he is their bishop. He has God-given authority over his subjects. St. Paul is not giving every Catholic the authority to make a formal and binding determination of another Catholic’s orthodoxy. Titus 3 is an instruction from one apostle and bishop to another bishop concerning his ecclesial authority. Similarly, Matthew 18 is an instruction from Our Lord to his future bishops concerning their authority. Both passages reveal that ecclesial authority (either the bishop of a diocese or the Church at large) must determine whether Divine Law has been violated. The case of a claimant to the papal throne would necessarily involve the jurisdiction of the Church at large (a “Matthew 18” case vis-à-vis a “Titus 3” case).
As applied here, the Pope is the sole judge of whether the self-expulsion of a Cardinal contemplated by cuм Ex and canon 188.4 has occurred. This papal judgment is required even if the Pope does not affirm the self-expulsion with a public decree of excommunication (but, as we will see, canon law also requires declaratory sentences to be issued for the common good of the Church). Said differently, with regard to the putative heresy of a Cardinal, ecclesiastical law requires the Pope (and no one else) to determine whether Divine Law has been violated (irrespective of whether the Pope issues a canonical censure).
Sedevacantists ignore the mandates of the governing ecclesiastical law and Scripture itself and, consequently, make themselves the judge of Divine Law.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law imposes other requirements that Sedevacantists ignore. For example, canon 1939, par. 1 requires a special investigation for certain transgressions against Divine Law (e.g., heresy):
If the transgression is not notorious, or not entirely certain, but has arisen from rumor or public report . . . before anyone is summoned to answer for the transgression, a special investigation must be undertaken to decide whether, and or what foundation, the charge may be founded.
The alleged heresies of Cardinal Roncalli must be considered “not notorious” and “not entirely certain” because they do not meet the definition of “public” and “notorious” under canon 2197 of the 1917 Code. The alleged heresies cannot be considered “public” under canon 2197, par. 1 because they were not “already commonly known” (evidenced by the fact that Pope Pius XII neither investigated nor rendered any judgment against Roncalli for heresy and almost the entire Catholic population accepted Roncalli as Pope). Further, under the same canon, the circuмstances were not such as to lead to the conclusion that the alleged heresies would easily become commonly known (evidenced by the fact that, over the last 50 years, the College of Cardinals, the four successor Popes and almost the entire Catholic world held Roncalli as a true Pope).
Further, the alleged heresies cannot be considered “notorious in fact” under canon 2197, par. 3 because they were not “publicly known” (for the reasons explained above) and were not committed under such circuмstances that “no maneuver can conceal nor legal defense excuse” them. In fact, since Pope Pius XII (or anyone else with ecclesiastical authority) never even alleged that Roncalli committed heresy, it is not possible to raise, much less evaluate, a “maneuver” or “legal defense” (to such “non-allegations”) as this canon requires. Of course, if no canonical defense could excuse Roncalli’s public and notorious heresies, then one must explain how Pope Pius XII failed to recognize such grievous crimes, much less punish Roncalli for them.
The same canonical conclusions apply to the alleged heresies of Cardinals Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger before they were validly elected to the papacy. That being the case, ecclesiastical law requires a special investigation (inquisition specialis) to be undertaken to assess such accusations of transgression. This investigation is required for “anyone” who is suspected of a transgression, and would certainly apply to someone who claimed to be Pope. Further, canon 1939, par. 2 specifically applies this rule to the question of whether a declaratory sentence is required against someone who has already incurred self-expulsion for heresy.
As we alluded to, Canon 2223, par. 4 sets forth the rules for when declaratory sentences are required:
In general, to declare a penalty latae sententiae is left to the prudence of the superior; but whether at the instance/request of a party who is involved, or because the common good requires it so, a declaratory sentence must be given.
While, according to Divine Law, formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church without the need for a declaratory sentence, ecclesiastical law (can 2223.4) requires a declaratory sentence (sententia declaratoria dari debet) of said heresy if the common good of the Church requires it. Needless to say, it is in the best interests of the Catholic Church to know whether we have a valid Pope. Nothing more important for the Church could possibly be imagined. Hence, a declaratory sentence proclaiming a Cardinal’s pre-election heresy “must be given.” If such an ecclesiastical declaration were not required, the Church would never know with certainty whether Divine Law has been violated, and this uncertainty would undermine the Church’s very mission and existence. This also means maintaining the Sedevacantist position (that a given papal election is invalid) in the absence of a declaratory sentence attacks the best interests of the Church.
Further, it should go without saying that the required declaratory sentence must be given by ecclesiastical authority (Mt 18:17; Titus 3:10-11). Of course, nothing in either positive law or Divine Law permits just any Catholic individual or group to issue declaratory sentences and ecclesiastical censures, nor does the law permit Catholics to licitly resist a duly elected Pope in the absence of these required ecclesiastical adjudications. As applied here, since the elected Pope would be the object of the investigation, any declaratory sentence would have to come from the College of Cardinals – the next highest authoritative rank in the Church. Further, we are reminded that a declaratory sentence of heresy against an anti-pope would simply affirm that he excommunicated himself (ecclesiastical law determining that self-expulsion occurred under Divine Law), and that a valid Pope has no judge on earth but God.
Ecclesiastical law poses further problems for the Sedevacantist thesis. Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII legislated that a Cardinal’s election to the papacy is presumed to be valid, irrespective of any ecclesiastical censures he may have incurred prior to his election.
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
First, to participate “actively” in the election of the Supreme Pontiff means to vote for the Pope, and to participate “passively” in the election means to be elected Pope (to be the “passive” object of the “election”). Second, Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII’s legislation is clear that “by reason of any excommunication…whatsoever” a Cardinal is not excluded from being elected to the papacy. “Any excommunication whatsoever” necessarily includes a Cardinal’s excommunication for heresy. This means the governing ecclesiastical law – which Sedevacantists agree applies to the question at hand – presumes the validity of papal elections, until there is a determination by the Church of whether or not Divine Law has been violated. Ecclesiastical law, then, requires this formal determination to be made by the Church after the election.
As applied here, we recall that Pope Pius XII never declared Cardinal Roncalli a heretic. Roncalli was never excommunicated under ecclesiastical law. Thus, if, according to the Pius X/XII legislation, a Cardinal who was a heretic by both Divine and ecclesiastical law (self-expulsion affirmed by judicial sentence) can be elected to the papacy, how much more so can a Cardinal be elected Pope who, like Cardinal Roncalli, never incurred ecclesiastical censure for heresy! The “more” includes the “lesser,” and thus if a self-expelled censured heretic (the “more”) can be elected Pope, then a self-expelled but non-censured heretic – the Sedevacantist claim against Cardinal Roncalli – (the “lesser”) can also be elected Pope.
These ecclesiastical provisions provide Cardinals with the opportunity to follow the same path to the papacy as St. Peter himself took. St. Peter committed a public act of apostasy by denying Our Lord before validly ascending to the papal office. Hence, ecclesiastical law requires the Church to presume that the elected Pope has reconciled with Christ (as St. Peter did) and thus pre-election heresy, apostasy or schism does not automatically invalidate his election (whether the offense continues after the election is a separate question determined by the same procedures of ecclesiastical law requiring special investigations and declaratory sentences). If there were no presumptive validity of papal elections, then Catholics would never have assurance that they have a true Pope, for any ecclesiastical impediment would operate to nullify his election. This would cripple the Church.
The presumption of valid papal elections is also reflected in the 1917 Code. Canon 2264 provides that even if a Cardinal excommunicated himself for heresy prior to his election to the papacy, his jurisdiction as pope is valid, and also licit if recognized by the faithful:
An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to can. 2261, par. 3 [not applicable to self-expelled heretics]; otherwise it is valid and also licit, if it was requested by the faithful in accordance with the norm of can. 2261, par. 2.
Canon 2261, par. 2 provides:
Without contradicting paragraph 3, the faithful may, for any just cause, request sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated person, especially if other ministers are not available, in the this case the excommunicated person can administer them and is not under any obligation to enquire as to the reason for the request.
As applied here, Cardinals Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were never excommunicated by declaratory sentences before being elected to the papacy. Therefore, Canon 2264 says they had (and Pope Benedict XVI continues to have) valid jurisdiction over the universal Church. Canon 2264 also indicates that even a Pope who, as a Cardinal, “excommunicated” himself for heresy (self-expulsion), still has valid jurisdiction over the Church if no “condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced.” Moreover, because the faithful (which is 99.9 percent of the people in the Catholic Church) request the sacraments from the current Pope and the bishops and priests in communion with him, his jurisdiction is also licit in addition to being valid.
Thus, even if Sedevacantists argue, for example, that Cardinal Ratzinger was self-expelled before his papal election for heresy (often pointing to some of his controversial writings as a private theologian), the Sedevacantists are still subject to his jurisdiction as Pope, which is both valid and licit under the Church’s ecclesiastical law. By withdrawing submission from the Holy Father and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2).
In summary, ecclesiastical law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. These ecclesiastical provisions serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence – especially when dealing with a claimant to the papal throne. To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith. If St. Paul formally and publicly rebuked St. Peter for a disciplinary matter (Gal 2:11-12), how much more formal and public would the investigation of a Pope need to be for a doctrinal matter, and one whose outcome determines the validity of his office! As with St. Peter, the reigning Pope must be formally confronted with his errors by legitimate authority, and given time to respond before any offense can be asserted. As we have seen, the Church’s ecclesiastical law mandates the requirements for this procedure.
In 1917, Our Lady came to Fatima to warn the Church of the crisis of Faith we are now experiencing. She also revealed that the Holy Father would have much to suffer (in none of Her reported communications did She say the Pope would lose his office for heresy). In that same year, Pope Benedict XV providentially promulgated law that would prevent people from saying the forewarned crisis was so bad we no longer have a Pope. As we have seen, Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII followed suit with their own legislation.
Sadly, Sedevacantism is an over-reaction to the crisis in the Church foretold by Our Lady, accompanied by an ignorance of ecclesiastical law. In fact, it is fair to conclude that Sedevacantism is part of the very crisis in question, since it has created even more confusion among the faithful, already so confused and scandalized by the doings of the post-conciliar era. Restoring the Church will be furthered by recognizing the authority of the current Pope, as well as properly distinguishing his binding papal teachings from his mere opinions and actions, which may be the product of human weakness or self-respect, but which can never be evidence of formal heresy.
-
The dear Mr. Salza seems to be unfortunately only familiar with a small spectrum of sedevacantist opinion. This is why in part I concede, I part I have to deny.
So I jump right into his argumentation by holding that the last conclaves were indeed lawful.
I think we all agree that the legal designation to the Papacy can be only lost in three ways:
through (1) the death (2) the voluntary refusal of the designation or renunciation of office (3) the removal of the designation by competent authority.
Now in the case of John Paul II or Benedict XVI, these three things are not the case. I have to conclude that they posses a legal designation to the Papacy. The impediment to those Papacies can therefore not be a legal one, that is, he is materially Pope.
But he who intends to teach error or promulgate harmful disciplines, posits an impediment to receive papal authority, that is, he is not Pope formally.
Proof: The condition of accepting authority sine qua non is that he who receives it have the intention of promoting the common good of the community of which he is the head.
In the Church, the common good is to teach men the truth.
Conclusion: Benedict XVI is Pope materially, since he is living, has accepted the designation of the Conclave and has not been removed by competent authority. But he is not Pope formally, since he places an impediment for receiving Papal authority.
Now Mr. Salza would claim that this it does not pertain to the faithful to accuse authority, as seen in Canon Law. But this needs to be distinguished. The faithful cannot accuse authority legally , but privately they can compare the magisterium of pre and post Vatican II. The reason is that the faithful cannot give assent to formulas that are contradictory. But it is contradictory. (quod esset demonstrandum, if you do not concede)
Again one would argue that this private judgment is not more than Protestantism. But that is again not true, since the faithful are not making up new doctrines but merely compare, because the Catholic Faith is one, and all its truths are consistent. It is metaphysically impossible to give assent to two contradictory formulas.
The Pope, as full possessor of the papacy, is above Canon Law. All sedevacantist argumentation from the side of Ecclesiastical Law is therefore futile. The thesis above passes over Canon Law and relies on philosophical principles of authority. Even the Pope is subject to them.
But saying that this thesis has no basis in Canon Law is equally wrong, since it actually safeguards the apostolicity and unity of the Church as a unified and single moral body and recognizes in them who are legally designated to ecclesiastical offices a legal designation.
If you research Ecclesiastical Law you will find out that there is a distinction of offices that are vacant: (a) de iure and de facto (b) de iure but not de facto (c) de facto but not de iure. This thesis holds that the office of the papacy is vacant de facto but not de iure.
This should give a little bit of an idea that the whole argumentation of John Salza is besides the point if one adheres to the principles above, since we (or "I") don´t question (at least for the sake of the argument) the legality of Benedicts designation to the Papacy.
-
I don't think people who reduce the whole sedevacantism issue to a matter of law really understand the issue.
The present "pope" teaches Catholics things that are diametrically opposed to teachings prior to Vatican II. Either his is right now and all the popes from Peter to Piux XII were wrong or they were right then and he is wrong now. And its not simply a matter of legality. If the pre-Vatican II teachings concerning the papacy and the rest of Catholic doctrines are true, then the current claimant cannot be the pope because if he is the Catholic faith itself has changed.
The pope question is not simply and purely a legal matter. Should the Congress pass a bill and the president sign the bill into law declaring the earth to be a perfect cube, the law itself may recognize the earth to be a cube, but it would still be a sphere. Before you say that the law would never recognize what is patently false to be true, consider that in many jurisdictions a man can marry another man and a woman can marry another woman. Even though everyone must, in law, pretend that two men or two women are married to each other, they are still not married and not living in a legitimate arrangement.
The pope question is more a matter of what is rather than what the law says it is.
-
TKGS
Great point! It's the same error we fall into when we say we believe something as Catholics because it has been written down and defined.
Truth preceeds definition, not vice versa.
-
I don't think people who reduce the whole sedevacantism issue to a matter of law really understand the issue.
The present "pope" teaches Catholics things that are diametrically opposed to teachings prior to Vatican II. Either his is right now and all the popes from Peter to Piux XII were wrong or they were right then and he is wrong now. And its not simply a matter of legality. If the pre-Vatican II teachings concerning the papacy and the rest of Catholic doctrines are true, then the current claimant cannot be the pope because if he is the Catholic faith itself has changed.
The pope question is not simply and purely a legal matter. Should the Congress pass a bill and the president sign the bill into law declaring the earth to be a perfect cube, the law itself may recognize the earth to be a cube, but it would still be a sphere. Before you say that the law would never recognize what is patently false to be true, consider that in many jurisdictions a man can marry another man and a woman can marry another woman. Even though everyone must, in law, pretend that two men or two women are married to each other, they are still not married and not living in a legitimate arrangement.
The pope question is more a matter of what is rather than what the law says it is.
You rely upon the strict letter of the law in order to accuse the SSPX of disobedience, but you retreat when it is a matter of viewing reality in the concrete. Even supposing your synopsis is absolutely accurate, it doesn't follow that they have simply become non-members of the Church.
-
cuм Ex does not address the situation of a legitimately elected Pope who falls into heresy after his election, which most Sedevacantists believe is almost if not entirely impossible...
FYI, it is entirely POSSIBLE that a legitimately elected Pope COULD fall into heresy.
Question: What does "almost impossible" even mean? Answer: Nothing, really, as it means something IS, however unlikely, POSSIBLE.
If a Pontiff ONLY enjoys special protection at certain times, then the rest of the time he is...NOT enjoying special protection -- and, as a result, COULD FALL.
Did Salsa take a poll of SVs or something?
-
Man, Stevus just LOVES quoting John Salza, doesn't he? Regarding the article, I was interested to see what it had to say so I briefly took Stevus off ignore to read it. I think it has a few minor errors in it though. Like how he said that because the sedes believe JPII is an anti-pope that they follow the 1917 code. Sounds to me like he's saying most people who follow the 1917 code are sedes, or he just worded it wrong. Afterall, I'm not a sede and do not hold JPII as an anti-pope yet I follow the 1917 code and reject the 1983 one.
-
I don't think people who reduce the whole sedevacantism issue to a matter of law really understand the issue.
The present "pope" teaches Catholics things that are diametrically opposed to teachings prior to Vatican II. Either his is right now and all the popes from Peter to Piux XII were wrong or they were right then and he is wrong now. And its not simply a matter of legality. If the pre-Vatican II teachings concerning the papacy and the rest of Catholic doctrines are true, then the current claimant cannot be the pope because if he is the Catholic faith itself has changed.
The pope question is not simply and purely a legal matter. Should the Congress pass a bill and the president sign the bill into law declaring the earth to be a perfect cube, the law itself may recognize the earth to be a cube, but it would still be a sphere. Before you say that the law would never recognize what is patently false to be true, consider that in many jurisdictions a man can marry another man and a woman can marry another woman. Even though everyone must, in law, pretend that two men or two women are married to each other, they are still not married and not living in a legitimate arrangement.
The pope question is more a matter of what is rather than what the law says it is.
You rely upon the strict letter of the law in order to accuse the SSPX of disobedience, but you retreat when it is a matter of viewing reality in the concrete. Even supposing your synopsis is absolutely accurate, it doesn't follow that they have simply become non-members of the Church.
This isn't about the Society. This is about recognizing the truth that the man who claims to be pope today is not a Catholic.
-
I don't think people who reduce the whole sedevacantism issue to a matter of law really understand the issue.
The present "pope" teaches Catholics things that are diametrically opposed to teachings prior to Vatican II. Either his is right now and all the popes from Peter to Piux XII were wrong or they were right then and he is wrong now. And its not simply a matter of legality. If the pre-Vatican II teachings concerning the papacy and the rest of Catholic doctrines are true, then the current claimant cannot be the pope because if he is the Catholic faith itself has changed.
The pope question is not simply and purely a legal matter. Should the Congress pass a bill and the president sign the bill into law declaring the earth to be a perfect cube, the law itself may recognize the earth to be a cube, but it would still be a sphere. Before you say that the law would never recognize what is patently false to be true, consider that in many jurisdictions a man can marry another man and a woman can marry another woman. Even though everyone must, in law, pretend that two men or two women are married to each other, they are still not married and not living in a legitimate arrangement.
The pope question is more a matter of what is rather than what the law says it is.
You rely upon the strict letter of the law in order to accuse the SSPX of disobedience, but you retreat when it is a matter of viewing reality in the concrete. Even supposing your synopsis is absolutely accurate, it doesn't follow that they have simply become non-members of the Church.
This isn't about the Society. This is about recognizing the truth that the man who claims to be pope today is not a Catholic.
So you have decided. Now you must apply the same logic to every priest, bishop and cardinal within the Catholic Church and with greater reason.
This is nothing more than an emotional response to a serious problem. You have not sufficiently taken into account all the possibilities and facts of the matter and pretend that you can make such a remote determination. There are cases where a man acts and speaks like a non-catholic and still remains a member of the Church. There are plenty of bad Catholics who are not Catholics in the proper sense of the term, e.g. the immoral, liberals, etc. In that sense, I agree. Formally not Catholic? That's another matter.
Fr. Garrigou Lagrange observed that the nouvelle theology was leading back to modernism, it was not in itself modernist. That is why making a determination as to which nouvelle theologian is actually a dogmatic modernist or something less is rather difficult. The nouvelle theology is a complex doctrinal perversion of Catholic theology. We are not dealing with a standard heresy but something much wider and involves varying degrees and tendencies. This just scratches the surface. You are not making sufficient allowance for certain possibilities. You are not even competent to judge heresy. Reserving judgment is our only option without becoming usurpers.
-
Man, Stevus just LOVES quoting John Salza, doesn't he? Regarding the article, I was interested to see what it had to say so I briefly took Stevus off ignore to read it. I think it has a few minor errors in it though. Like how he said that because the sedes believe JPII is an anti-pope that they follow the 1917 code. Sounds to me like he's saying most people who follow the 1917 code are sedes, or he just worded it wrong. Afterall, I'm not a sede and do not hold JPII as an anti-pope yet I follow the 1917 code and reject the 1983 one.
A true Catholic would wonder why anyone would pay mind to Salza, a 32 degree freemason anyway.
-
Man, Stevus just LOVES quoting John Salza, doesn't he? Regarding the article, I was interested to see what it had to say so I briefly took Stevus off ignore to read it. I think it has a few minor errors in it though. Like how he said that because the sedes believe JPII is an anti-pope that they follow the 1917 code. Sounds to me like he's saying most people who follow the 1917 code are sedes, or he just worded it wrong. Afterall, I'm not a sede and do not hold JPII as an anti-pope yet I follow the 1917 code and reject the 1983 one.
A true Catholic would wonder why anyone would pay mind to Salza, a 32 degree freemason anyway.
That is both ridiculous and uncharitable. I suppose we should continually point out your past sins in order to negate whatever you might say. And to say it as if in the present tense is grotesque calumny, as if no one can truly convert to the Catholic faith and renounce his errors. Shame on you.
-
Myrna thinks Salza is still a secret mason, apparently. I do not think he is still involved in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Do you really think Freemasons would let someone reveal all their secrets and beliefs in the form of criticism?
-
Myrna thinks Salza is still a secret mason, apparently. I do not think he is still involved in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Do you really think Freemasons would let someone reveal all their secrets and beliefs in the form of criticism?
Your right SS, the Masons wouldn't stand for it, and many have been murdered for less than what he supposed disclosed. Of course he is still a Mason, continuing to destroy the Faith of Catholics.
The devil is very clever and will try to sway anyone they could from the sedevacantist position, because the devil hates the truth.
Salza, he discloses his own sins, he doesn't need any help from me.
-
Do you have any proof that he is still a mason? Because otherwise, it would be hard to believe he is still a mason and yet criticizes his own religion! And no offense towards you or your beliefs, but the sedevacantist position has never been proven as true. It's Traditional Catholicism that the devil tries to sway people away from. Once a person discovers Traditional Catholicism, I doubt the devil gives a flip whether or not they think we have a Pope. His main goal is to turn people away from the Church God established. Trads aren't going to be judged on whether or not they are a sedevacantist.
-
Myrna thinks Salza is still a secret mason, apparently. I do not think he is still involved in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Do you really think Freemasons would let someone reveal all their secrets and beliefs in the form of criticism?
Your right SS, the Masons wouldn't stand for it, and many have been murdered for less than what he supposed disclosed. Of course he is still a Mason, continuing to destroy the Faith of Catholics.
The devil is very clever and will try to sway anyone they could from the sedevacantist position, because the devil hates the truth.
Salza, he discloses his own sins, he doesn't need any help from me.
Ah, the internet, where the birds of all colors meet to calumniate. This from one who thought she could be considered a Successor to the Apostles. The fact that your sins are hidden makes you worse. You'll be known as the pious fraud from now on, your conversion a mere pretense. If you are free to destroy a man's reputation at your slightest whim, then you should afford others to do the same to you. It's only fair, isn't it?
-
Myrna thinks Salza is still a secret mason, apparently. I do not think he is still involved in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Do you really think Freemasons would let someone reveal all their secrets and beliefs in the form of criticism?
Your right SS, the Masons wouldn't stand for it, and many have been murdered for less than what he supposed disclosed. Of course he is still a Mason, continuing to destroy the Faith of Catholics.
The devil is very clever and will try to sway anyone they could from the sedevacantist position, because the devil hates the truth.
Salza, he discloses his own sins, he doesn't need any help from me.
Ah, the internet, where the birds of all colors meet to calumniate. This from one who thought she could be considered a Successor to the Apostles. The fact that your sins are hidden makes you worse. You'll be known as the pious fraud from now on, your conversion a mere pretense. If you are free to destroy a man's reputation at your slightest whim, then you should afford others to do the same to you. It's only fair, isn't it?
Be my guest and destroy me!
I fear no one but God.
I am not afraid of the truth, my sins will be known to all man on Judgement Day, for this is the way God will show His true Mercy and Justice. It is the Will of God.
Yes, my sins are many. My mistakes are many also. God knows the difference.
Take your advice from a Freemason if you will, and wonder why you can't see the facts, such as a heretic can not be a Pope.
-
Do you have any proof that he is still a mason? Because otherwise, it would be hard to believe he is still a mason and yet criticizes his own religion! And no offense towards you or your beliefs, but the sedevacantist position has never been proven as true. It's Traditional Catholicism that the devil tries to sway people away from. Once a person discovers Traditional Catholicism, I doubt the devil gives a flip whether or not they think we have a Pope. His main goal is to turn people away from the Church God established. Trads aren't going to be judged on whether or not they are a sedevacantist.
The proof is the Masons let him get away with Criticizing his own religion. (Mason) The average person will think, now this guy was a Mason and speaks the truth of how they operate, therefore when he speaks out against the Sedevacantist we must believe him. The devil is very clever SS.
SS you too admited his religion is Masonic when you posted above in the bolded portion.
The sedevacantist position doesn't need to prove anything, the fact are a Modernist can not be a pope. If you or anyone prefer to believe that a Modernist can be a pope you might be sinning against the Holy Ghost. A sin much worse than the wrath of Caminus.
-
I fear no one but God.
If you truly feared God you would not so hastily break His Law. Let me make something perfectly clear, Sedevacantism is not a religion.
-
Sedevacantist is the belief that the Chair of Peter is empty at this moment in time.
The religion I profess is Roman Catholic; like it Caminus or not.
-
Sedevacantist is the belief that the Chair of Peter is empty at this moment in time.
The religion I profess is Roman Catholic; like it Caminus or not.
It's not a "belief" its an opinion. And you can't restrict it to the Chair of Peter alone, but that is another issue. I recognize the fact that you profess the Catholic religion, but you have clearly just violated the precepts of charity and justice that this same religion demands of its adherents. I'll leave it at that.
-
The proof is the Masons let him get away with Criticizing his own religion. (Mason) The average person will think, now this guy was a Mason and speaks the truth of how they operate, therefore when he speaks out against the Sedevacantist we must believe him. The devil is very clever SS.
SS you too admited his religion is Masonic when you posted above in the bolded portion.
The sedevacantist position doesn't need to prove anything, the fact are a Modernist can not be a pope. If you or anyone prefer to believe that a Modernist can be a pope you might be sinning against the Holy Ghost. A sin much worse than the wrath of Caminus.
You are acting very ignorant. I am ignorant, and am the first to say it. But suffice it to say you are acting very ignorant.
I would advise thinking a little bit longer before you post. If offense is taken, please consider I am stating an objective observation as I do not believe very few SVs would go along with your ridiculous calumnious void-of-fact comments Myrna.
-
Related to OPINION
Synonyms: BELIEF, CONVICTION, EYE, FEELING, JUDGMENT (or JUDGEMENT), MIND, NOTION, PERSUASION, SENTIMENT, VERDICT, VIEW
Related Words: SAY; IMPRESSION, PERCEPTION, TAKE; ATTITUDE; ASSUMPTION, PRESUMPTION, PRESUPPOSITION; CONCLUSION, DECISION, DETERMINATION; DELIVERANCE, ESTEEM, ESTIMATE, ESTIMATION; CREDENCE, CREDIT, FAITH; CONCEPT, CONCEPTION, IDEA, THOUGHT; POSITION, STANCE, STAND; COMMENT, OBITER DICTUM, OBSERVATION, REFLECTION, REMARK; CONJECTURE, GUESS, HUNCH, HYPOTHESIS, SURMISE, THEORY; ADVICE, INPUT, RECOMMENDATION, SUGGESTION; ANGLE, OUTLOOK, PERSPECTIVE, SHOES, SLANT, STANDPOINT, VIEWPOINT; COUNTERVIEW
Near Antonyms: FACT, TRUTH
SEE ALL SYNONYMS AND ANTONYMS
Synonym Discussion of OPINION
OPINION, VIEW, BELIEF, CONVICTION, PERSUASION, SENTIMENT mean a judgment one holds as true. OPINION implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute <each expert seemed to have a different opinion>. VIEW suggests a subjective opinion <very assertive in stating his views>. BELIEF implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent <a firm belief in her party's platform>. CONVICTION applies to a firmly and seriously held belief <the conviction that animal life is as sacred as human>. PERSUASION suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth <was of the persuasion that everything changes>. SENTIMENT suggests a settled opinion reflective of one's feelings <her feminist sentiments are well-known>.
For myself Sedevacantism is more than an opinion, it is my belief as above it is a deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent.
It is your opinion that sedevacantism is not correct, yet you can’t really bring yourself to believe that. Therefore it is not your belief.
An example of opinion/belief below:
Caminus said but you have clearly just violated the precepts of charity and justice that this same religion demands of its adherents. I'll leave it at that.
You are selective as to who you rebuke here about the violation of charity, an inconsistency based on your opnion of that persons beliefs.
-
The proof is the Masons let him get away with Criticizing his own religion. (Mason) The average person will think, now this guy was a Mason and speaks the truth of how they operate, therefore when he speaks out against the Sedevacantist we must believe him. The devil is very clever SS.
SS you too admited his religion is Masonic when you posted above in the bolded portion.
The sedevacantist position doesn't need to prove anything, the fact are a Modernist can not be a pope. If you or anyone prefer to believe that a Modernist can be a pope you might be sinning against the Holy Ghost. A sin much worse than the wrath of Caminus.
You are acting very ignorant. I am ignorant, and am the first to say it. But suffice it to say you are acting very ignorant.
I would advise thinking a little bit longer before you post. If offense is taken, please consider I am stating an objective observation as I do not believe very few SVs would go along with your ridiculous calumnious void-of-fact comments Myrna.
So this is all you can say on John Salza's defense?
-
For myself Sedevacantism is more than an opinion, it is my belief as above it is a deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent.
It is your opinion that sedevacantism is not correct, yet you can’t really bring yourself to believe that. Therefore it is not your belief.
An example of opinion/belief below:
Caminus said but you have clearly just violated the precepts of charity and justice that this same religion demands of its adherents. I'll leave it at that.
You are selective as to who you rebuke here about the violation of charity, an inconsistency based on your opnion of that persons beliefs.
Um... Myrna- maybe its because no one else was throwing out calumnious remarks with nothing to back them up except that "the proof is in the pudding." Sorry, but its a little hard to relate Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and membership of someone who has declared they are a convert from it in it to pudding... Thats just calumny and it is a sin. See, thats what Caminus was trying to say. I believe (my opinion is) that he would have told anyone one that, sv or non-sv.
-
So this is all you can say on John Salza's defense?
You really need to learn what caloumny and detraction is. Here:
Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.
An important difference between detraction and calumny is at once apparent. The calumniator says what he knows to be false, whilst the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true. Detraction in a general sense is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice. It is obvious, however, that the subject-matter of the accusation may be so inconspicuous or, everything considered, so little capable of doing serious hurt that the guilt is not assumed to be more than venial. The same judgment is to be given when, as not unfrequently happens, there has been little or no advertence to the harm that is being done.
-
The proof is the Masons let him get away with Criticizing his own religion. (Mason) The average person will think, now this guy was a Mason and speaks the truth of how they operate, therefore when he speaks out against the Sedevacantist we must believe him. The devil is very clever SS.
SS you too admited his religion is Masonic when you posted above in the bolded portion.
The sedevacantist position doesn't need to prove anything, the fact are a Modernist can not be a pope. If you or anyone prefer to believe that a Modernist can be a pope you might be sinning against the Holy Ghost. A sin much worse than the wrath of Caminus.
You are acting very ignorant. I am ignorant, and am the first to say it. But suffice it to say you are acting very ignorant.
I would advise thinking a little bit longer before you post. If offense is taken, please consider I am stating an objective observation as I do not believe very few SVs would go along with your ridiculous calumnious void-of-fact comments Myrna.
So this is all you can say on John Salza's defense?
Unbelievable. You completely fabricate a claim about someone, pulled out of thin air, without the slightest shred of evidence except because you say so, and then you demand proof that it is not the case when someone challenges your malicious absolutely baseless accusation. You need your head (and heart) checked.
And you shouldn't rely on loose synonyms when dealing with precise Catholic terminology.
-
Do you have any proof that he is still a mason? Because otherwise, it would be hard to believe he is still a mason and yet criticizes his own religion! And no offense towards you or your beliefs, but the sedevacantist position has never been proven as true. It's Traditional Catholicism that the devil tries to sway people away from. Once a person discovers Traditional Catholicism, I doubt the devil gives a flip whether or not they think we have a Pope. His main goal is to turn people away from the Church God established. Trads aren't going to be judged on whether or not they are a sedevacantist.
The proof is the Masons let him get away with Criticizing his own religion. (Mason) The average person will think, now this guy was a Mason and speaks the truth of how they operate, therefore when he speaks out against the Sedevacantist we must believe him. The devil is very clever SS.
SS you too admited his religion is Masonic when you posted above in the bolded portion.
The sedevacantist position doesn't need to prove anything, the fact are a Modernist can not be a pope. If you or anyone prefer to believe that a Modernist can be a pope you might be sinning against the Holy Ghost. A sin much worse than the wrath of Caminus.
No, I did not admit his religion is Masonic. I said if he was still a Mason then why would he criticize his own religion? Masons do not allow that. What makes you think that because he cuts down sedevacantism he must still be a Mason? The logic in that statement is way off.
Regarding the sedevacantist position, a modernist can in fact be a valid Pope. Now, I'm well are that neither a Freemason nor a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ can be Pope, although you must make sure you have enough evidence to declare them as anti-pope for being Masonic or gαy. But I've never seen any proof that you can't be Pope if you're a modernist. And you say I MIGHT be sinning against God if I don't take the sede position. I have never in my life heard of someone being condemned because they thought a modernist was Pope. What matters is that you are a Traditional Catholic.
-
SS, a Modernist is the mother of all heresies. Think about that!
I know Masons don't allow their members to disclose their religion, but John does it and gets away with it. Have you ever wondered why! Others have been found dead for that.
To the others here, just a note. A person does not become a 32 degree Mason just because he has the best smile at his lodge.
Trust him not!
Unbelievable. You completely fabricate a claim about someone, pulled out of thin air, without the slightest shred of evidence except because you say so, and then you demand proof that it is not the case when someone challenges your malicious absolutely baseless accusation. You need your head (and heart) checked.
And you shouldn't rely on loose synonyms when dealing with precise Catholic terminology.
You should read my note before you post, where am I demanding any proof, all I said was, is this all you can offer in Johns defense? Waiting .... :geezer:
At least you admit that sedevacantist is precise Catholic terminology, since this was the word in question about opinion vs belief.
-
Again Myrna, I fail to see how he is still a Mason. If he was, there's no way they'd let him get away with cutting down Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. The reason he gets away with it is because he's not a member of Masonry anymore!
-
SS, this isn't the first time you and I disagree, and it probably won't be the last time either.
I too fail to see, how a Modernist can be a pope.
Carry on!
-
Well, even if we were both sede we wouldn't agree on everything. No one would. Everyone's different. :farmer: