Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Jim on July 01, 2011, 11:51:03 PM
-
I joined this board to be able to converse with fellow traditional Catholics on topics which are quite serious, and several ideas (for example, that the last five men claiming to be Popes are not in fact popes) My only fear in this is that I may be wrong, and in doing so, may lead others into false ideas. My thoughts on the state of Holy Mother Church, whom all of us love dearly, have changed. In less than 5 years, I went from lukewarm typical Catholic, to conservative Catholic, to reform of the reform, to FSSP Trad, and now I am of the extreme hardline SSPX leaning towards moderate sedevacantism camp. I also wish to use terms(neo trads, etc) and to actually discuss what I think, but I do not want to sin or scandalize others in doing so.
The other thing is I have not really spent much time with many different trads or just trads. My family isn't trad, most of the Masses I attend are said by a diocesan priest who resisted the NO after he was ordained, I've only been to the SSPX once, etc. I just have grave fears. What if my scruples with the new orders, sacraments, etc. are dumbfounded and I am wrong? Our priest was ordained by a valid pre-NO bishop, but in the new rite for priesthood? What if Frs. Cekada and Jenkins are right, and Michael Davies are wrong. This is quite important in re: confession and the sacraments we receive. I do not know any of the characters of traditionalism, the scandals, etc.
-
Go to a CMRI mass and tell us how it went. It might squash all your doubts knowing its a TLM from an actual old rite ordained priest...not that this can't be found at other various independent chapels around the country.
And God bless you for following truth in the Faith with traditionalism.
-
Where I live, there is no CMRI chapel. The closest sedevacantist priest is Fr. Thomas Zapp. There is also the priest who runs the Tradition website, but I do not know about going there. I am not exactly in a 100% independent condition to go to any Mass I please, as I will shock family and the friends/priest who I attend with. I feel that if I begin to tell my loved one and friends that the past five men claiming to be pope are not, that this scandal could actually harm their faith. Even if they are the Pope, what we can collectively call the "Novus Ordo" has been quite a scandal for the last 53 years. (Please note, I tend to be scrupulous. The past sentence is an example of things I want to say. Is it sinful at all when I make statements like this?) There is non-sede church around here that has a priest who was ordained by a bishop ordained in the old rite, but as I said in the sentence about my present situation, and also, like I said, what if the sedes are wrong about the new episcopal rite?
-
Lay out your real options for where to attend Mass. Some people have three or four options in their area; others may have no trouble moving to a desired Mass location. Be realistic in that unless you've moved, you probably aren't going to have the best option in your area be right in your neighborhood. If you have certainly valid sacraments anywhere near you, then go there. If it's a bit too far to go weekly, then go once or twice monthly.
Unless you have a very rare exception, going to any non-diocesan Mass is going to be better than where you are in almost every respect (sermons, spiritual advice, fellow parishioners, etc) no matter if it's SSPX, CMRI, independant, or whatever.
If you find that your EF Mass really is your only option and you don't have reason to believe that what is preached there is actually damaging to your Faith, then go and be at peace that you're doing the best you can with what you have. God isn't going to punish you for that. Pray, as we always should, that you're doing His will in the matter and have Faith that you will be steered elsewhere if He sees fit to do so.
As far as discussion on Internet forums, I'd advise that you always be open to the possibility that your own opinions regarding the Crisis are wrong. The first rule on this board:
In necessary things, unity.
In doubtful things, liberty.
In all things, charity.
Keep more focus on that which is necessary to save your soul--elimination of vice, increase in virtue, development of spiritual life--these things are the same wether or not BXVI is the Pope.
If you've convinced a dozen people that the papacy is(n't) void but have neglected to assist your spouse, children, parents, etc in their journey toward Heaven, what have you really accomplished?
-
I would not worry about scrupulosity over whether on not you sin over saying things such as 'the last X amount of popes were not popes at all', 'Novus ordo is a protestant worship service and not from a valid council', etc. .. because all these claims are not claims anymore after 50 years of evidence, research, and plain ol' observation. They are fact. The info is all over this forum, the internet, peoples' heads at CMRI, SSPV, and some SSPX churches. In these times of "spiritual chaos and meltdown" we must hold true to Tradition and Scripture, both of which the TLM and their followers proclaim in the highest percentage.
Once you go to a TLM for a few weeks, you won't be able to go back to any NO; thats for sure. Just try it out and God will tell you why in your heart. Its eerie how He does it, but He does , and it brings about peace because you are no longer in a cognitive dissonance about the faith.
And I second what MaterDominici has to say about strengthening in virtue and a prayer life. Once you are on the traditional track, those matters are of high importance (not that knowing who the pope is is not an important matter... anyways thats a whole discussion right there lol)
-
There is nothing to fear where discovering the truth is concerned. Given the wildness of the times, it is almost a given that you are, in fact, wrong about SOMETHING, and that you will, in fact, make a few mistakes as you try to find your way. No one has a magic formula to give you, so do your best, trusting that it is God leading you onward. Yes, He makes use of men, but He is the one moving your mind and heart, granting you the desire to know, love, and serve Him more perfectly.
Ask your questions, engage in interesting and sometimes-profitable discussion, and be at peace as He leads you along the path He has designed for you from all eternity.
God has already rewarded and will continue to reward your efforts. Welcome to the site :)
-
I have said this in another thread as well, but I think it bears repeating. The best thing to do first is to try and find a good pre-conciliar catechism to learn about the faith as it was taught by the Holy Fathers and Roman Pontiffs. Formation is very important.
-
leaning towards moderate sedevacantism camp
If this is your status after 5 years from being a lukewarm Novus Ordo Catholic, I would say you have a good head on your shoulders and you are responding well to grace. Keep it up, and make sure to pray a good Rosary daily, and always remember that the truth contains no contradictions.
-
I understand your fears having just gone through the process myself, going from NO to diocesan Latin Mass to SSPX. People said "Oh Boy" when we went to the Latin Mass and now with us at the SSPX we may have lost some old friends but there is just no going back.
Don't let fear run your life, if you have a SSPX chapel near you just commit to going and you won't be sorry.
-
Truth can never destroy a person's faith.
You know your friends and relatives and presenting the truth may require a certain approach, but truth is truth and will go on being obstinently true no matter what.
If you are not 100% sure of a particular chapel and you are asked about your attendance there, explain that you are seaching for the truth and this is part of your investigation. If you find the truth there, continue. This will give your friends and relatives time to get used to your attendance there. Eventually, should they ask why you are still going there, you can begin to expose them to the truth.
Always be ready to explain truth when you are asked and never stop searching.
The fact is that each and every one of us could be wrong concerning our conclusions to the present crisis. But being wrong will not condemn us to hell unless we abandon the truths of the Catholic Faith. Thus, if something was true before Vatican II it must still be true and if something was false before Vatican II it must still be false. The fact is that conciliar priests and bishops routinely pronounce doctrines that conflict with the doctrines of the Church prior to Vatican II; so those doctrines must be false and the Church has always taught the faithful to have nothing to do with such teachers. Is it remotely possible that such teachers could still, somehow, retain their authority in the Church? While I do not know how, I must accept that I haven't the authority to declare this in a way that can bind anyone else's conscience. But I must follow my own even if others hate me for it.
By the way, my relations (some of whom are Catholic, others are not) see me and my family as rather eccentric, though they tolerate us. I must admit a situation we had with a grandmother (non-Catholic) who when asked a question about something that would be answered in the affirmative replied, "Is the pope Catholic?" There was a deadening silence and I replied, that's an interesting question and then my youngest son (8 years old) said, "I say, 'No!'." She didn't want to discuss it any further and returned to the original conversation.
-
Jim, first of all I'd like to welcome you to CatholicInfo. You'll get what you're looking for regarding answers to your questions here more-so than any other forum. As for your situation, basically what people on this thread have been telling you sums it up. Look for a TLM, whether it's SSPX, CMRI, FSSP, Independant, etc. As PartyIsOver said, once you attend the TLM for a while, you can never go back to the Novus Ordo (and no it's not sinful to cut down the NO).
-
and no it's not sinful to cut down the NO.
I disagree, only because the Church disagrees with you SS. It is sinful to fault anything the Church has officially approved of in Her liturgy or laws. To avoid sin and still be able to condemn the Novus Ordo Missae, one must reject the validity of the alleged popes since Vatican II.
-
No, the Church did not approve the Novus Ordo. It was approved by the Vatican II anti-church and by a man (Paul VI) who was a Freemason and an anti-pope. And I say he was an anti-pope not based on my own opinion, but on Church teachings. Anyone who joins Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is automatically excommunicated from the Church, so when I say he's an anti-pope I'm saying so according to what the Church teaches.
-
By the way, my relations (some of whom are Catholic, others are not) see me and my family as rather eccentric, though they tolerate us. I must admit a situation we had with a grandmother (non-Catholic) who when asked a question about something that would be answered in the affirmative replied, "Is the pope Catholic?" There was a deadening silence and I replied, that's an interesting question and then my youngest son (8 years old) said, "I say, 'No!'." She didn't want to discuss it any further and returned to the original conversation.
heehee
That phrase just doesn't work like it used to.
-
I almost exclusively attend the TLM.
-
and no it's not sinful to cut down the NO.
I disagree, only because the Church disagrees with you SS. It is sinful to fault anything the Church has officially approved of in Her liturgy or laws. To avoid sin and still be able to condemn the Novus Ordo Missae, one must reject the validity of the alleged popes since Vatican II.
You need a lesson on Catholic beliefs sir. There are no Catch 22's in Catholicism despite what the Neo-Cath's and some Sede's tell you.
If your Father tells you to kill your neighbour you do not sin by disobeying him, because he has told you to do something contrary to the faith and therefore lost his previously rightful authority.
Likewise if a Priest tells you to do something sinful or heretical he loses his authority over the Father, and likewise to the Bishop over the Priest and the Pope over the Bishop.
This has always and everywhere been believed.
-
Let me just note, I want to discuss these things because of the very Catholic discussions I have read on other fora (HMiS discussing with Gladius, John Lane and the Robert Bellarmine forum, etc.) I do not believe it is a dogma to hold the we do not have a Pope. It is quite a difficult thing to say, actually.
I do, however, have a question: do the majority of sedes hold that the new priestly ordinations are invalid?
-
Let me just note, I want to discuss these things because of the very Catholic discussions I have read on other fora (HMiS discussing with Gladius, John Lane and the Robert Bellarmine forum, etc.) I do not believe it is a dogma to hold the we do not have a Pope. It is quite a difficult thing to say, actually.
I do, however, have a question: do the majority of sedes hold that the new priestly ordinations are invalid?
Most of your questions to the sede's would be better posed in the Crisis section since Sede's are allowed to speak their minds in that subforum and only in that subforum.
This is an SSPX forum that allows other Trads to join with us.
Most of us in the SSPX and the non-dogmatic sede's aswell would also agree with you that it is not dogmatic whether or not the Pope is a true Pope.
We await a declaration from a future Pope and/or Council to say so.
In the meantime, knowing that what they are preaching is contarary to the faith we disobey them as is neccessary for our salvation.
To answer your immediate question, even the SSPX doubts the new ordinations and when a NO Priest realizes the errors of the V2 Anti-Church and asks to join the SSPX he is conditionally ordianed(The condition of course being that he was not legitamately ordained already in the first place, since one can only be given Holy Orders once, same with Baptism, if someone doubts the validity of their baptism for some reason SSPX will conditionally baptise them)
Hope that Helps and Welcome to the forums.
-
I do, however, have a question: do the majority of sedes hold that the new priestly ordinations are invalid?
You are relating two things here which aren't necessarily tied together. Most (all?) sedes believe it to be invalid. Some non-sedes also believe it to be invalid. I don't know if the SSPX has an official position on this, but in practice they suggest it is valid.
-
To answer your immediate question, even the SSPX doubts the new ordinations and when a NO Priest realizes the errors of the V2 Anti-Church and asks to join the SSPX he is conditionally ordianed(The condition of course being that he was not legitamately ordained already in the first place, since one can only be given Holy Orders once, same with Baptism, if someone doubts the validity of their baptism for some reason SSPX will conditionally baptise them)
LP,
Do you know if the SSPX requires conditional ordination?
At one point, they did not, but I don't know what their practice is currently.
-
To answer your immediate question, even the SSPX doubts the new ordinations and when a NO Priest realizes the errors of the V2 Anti-Church and asks to join the SSPX he is conditionally ordianed(The condition of course being that he was not legitamately ordained already in the first place, since one can only be given Holy Orders once, same with Baptism, if someone doubts the validity of their baptism for some reason SSPX will conditionally baptise them)
LP,
Do you know if the SSPX requires conditional ordination?
At one point, they did not, but I don't know what their practice is currently.
I believe they do not require it. I asked this question to my Priest awhile ago, he said most of the NO Priests ask for it. But I don't believe he said it would be required. I probably should have worded my last post better.
-
In regards to whether or not "most" sedevacantists hold that the current ordination rites are invalid, I doubt anyone here can answer that since I don't think anyone on this forum knows most sedevacantists.
I tend to believe that most sedevacantists would agree that all of the rites of the Novus Ordo are of, at least, questionable validity. It has been widely publicized that Father Michael Oswalt received a conditional ordination from Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI. That indicates that the official position of the CMRI is that the new ordination rites could possibly be valid.
One of the SSPX priests who come to my parish introduced himself during his first sermon by telling us that he was conditionally ordained by the SSPX. He said that he had no doubts that his ordination was valid, but the SSPX wanted to remove all doubt. Whether this is "official" policy of the SSPX or if they had some information specific to his ordination, I don't know.
Even as a sedevacantist, I accept the possibility that Benedict 16 may somehow be a pope that retains sufficient administrative authority to keep the organ of the Holy See running, appoint cardinals, etc., while having no actual jurisdiction over the faith and morals of the Church since he routinely denies the faith and teaches error and has done so throughout his public life. I understand completely that this is a possibility that the Church, when the crisis has been resolved, will have to rule upon. On the other hand, I also believe that when the Catholic Church truly has a new pope, he will order the bishops whom we now call "independent", sedevacantist, SSPX, etc., whose lines are undoubtedly through true pre-Vatican II bishops and whose consecrations back to those bishops were in the traditional rite to conditionally ordain and consecrate all Catholic bishops who remain in communion with him. I say "remain in communion" because many conciliar bishops will abandon a true pope who insists upon returning to the traditional faith.
-
I think the reason Fr. Oswald was ordained sub cond. was because the bishop was consecrated in the new rite. The same with FSSP priests ordained by Bp. Bruskewitz, etc. From what I have read, the problem in the new rite is the English translation of presbyterate instead of priest. If done in Latin say by JP II or Paul VI, or maybe in another language sub as Spanish or italian were it was translated better, would there be doubts? My question is should I doubt the ordination of a priest in English in the new rite, who was ordained by a a bishop consecrated in the old rite?
-
I hope that everyone can be patient and bear with me and my questions.
-
No, the Church did not approve the Novus Ordo. It was approved by the Vatican II anti-church and by a man (Paul VI) who was a Freemason and an anti-pope. And I say he was an anti-pope not based on my own opinion, but on Church teachings. Anyone who joins Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is automatically excommunicated from the Church, so when I say he's an anti-pope I'm saying so according to what the Church teaches.
I agree the Church did not approve of the Novus Ordo, because you have to have a true pope that makes that approval.
Really, the Freemason thing is a moot point since a pope is above canon law, and that excommunication is not divine law. Neither would his being a Freemason invalidate the election because Pius XII legislated to suspended all excommunications for the sake of the election. What makes Paul VI a false pope is divine law - that it is impossible the Holy Ghost would have allowed a true pope to have promulgated the things he did.
-
and no it's not sinful to cut down the NO.
I disagree, only because the Church disagrees with you SS. It is sinful to fault anything the Church has officially approved of in Her liturgy or laws. To avoid sin and still be able to condemn the Novus Ordo Missae, one must reject the validity of the alleged popes since Vatican II.
You need a lesson on Catholic beliefs sir. There are no Catch 22's in Catholicism despite what the Neo-Cath's and some Sede's tell you.
If your Father tells you to kill your neighbour you do not sin by disobeying him, because he has told you to do something contrary to the faith and therefore lost his previously rightful authority.
Likewise if a Priest tells you to do something sinful or heretical he loses his authority over the Father, and likewise to the Bishop over the Priest and the Pope over the Bishop.
This has always and everywhere been believed.
A Catch-22 is an unsolvable dilemma. I created no such thing. The Church herself ruled at Trent:
"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."
If Paul VI & Co. were true popes, one would be anathema to say the Novus Ordo Mass is anything but good and holy. It's not an unsolvable dilemma because the Church has approved of the beliefs that there can be anti-popes, that there can be false popes, and even that popes can automatically cease to be popes through heresy. I believe they are false popes, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is NOT from the Church.
-
and no it's not sinful to cut down the NO.
I disagree, only because the Church disagrees with you SS. It is sinful to fault anything the Church has officially approved of in Her liturgy or laws. To avoid sin and still be able to condemn the Novus Ordo Missae, one must reject the validity of the alleged popes since Vatican II.
You need a lesson on Catholic beliefs sir. There are no Catch 22's in Catholicism despite what the Neo-Cath's and some Sede's tell you.
If your Father tells you to kill your neighbour you do not sin by disobeying him, because he has told you to do something contrary to the faith and therefore lost his previously rightful authority.
Likewise if a Priest tells you to do something sinful or heretical he loses his authority over the Father, and likewise to the Bishop over the Priest and the Pope over the Bishop.
This has always and everywhere been believed.
A Catch-22 is an unsolvable dilemma. I created no such thing. The Church herself ruled at Trent:
"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."
If Paul VI & Co. were true popes, one would be anathema to say the Novus Ordo Mass is anything but good and holy. It's not an unsolvable dilemma because the Church has approved of the beliefs that there can be anti-popes, that there can be false popes, and even that popes can automatically cease to be popes through heresy. I believe they are false popes, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is NOT from the Church.
Your understanding of what that quote means is laughable. Your understanding of what constitutes the church(Magisterium) is even more ludicrous. It is not the CHURCH who promulgated the New Mass but MAN who promulgated it.
It is a fact that St. Pius V never promulgated a new mass, he codified it.
The Council of Trent was making a declaration on the Mass of All-Time, the Same Mass that had been said(With various minor changes) always and everywhere.
Whether they are False Popes or not is irrelavent, it is a fact that once elevated to the Chair of Peter no man can be his Judge on whether or not he has fallen into heresy. The ONLY way he can be judged is by the Bishops making a stand against him and putting to him a dogmatically defined truth and him denying it.(This happend before but the Pope recanted his falsehood when it is was put to him) Or a Future Pope condemns him for his beliefs or a Future Pope calls a Council and condemns the past Popes for their heretical beliefs.(This also happened at the Third Council of Constantinople *To the Heretic Honorius Anethama we say, to all heretics anethama* )
I have no problem with you believing that they could be anti-popes but the fact you said that someone who believes they might be real Popes should be oblidged to follow the Novus Ordo when you yourself have stated that you believe it is heresy is MORTAL SIN. You can NEVER tell someone to do that which is evil, nor can you cause the sin of scandal by suggesting that it would ever be licit that which you know is not.
-
And you most certainly created a catch-22 because you cannot be damned if you do and damned if you don't. That is a protestantism. You should go back and read the Catholic Epistles that teach you to never follow an unlawful command or that state a Servant must serve his master in all things that are Licit and never in anything illicit. I'd go and grab the quotes and everything but I am heading out to Mass and expect to be out all day.
-
No, the Church did not approve the Novus Ordo. It was approved by the Vatican II anti-church and by a man (Paul VI) who was a Freemason and an anti-pope. And I say he was an anti-pope not based on my own opinion, but on Church teachings. Anyone who joins Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is automatically excommunicated from the Church, so when I say he's an anti-pope I'm saying so according to what the Church teaches.
I agree the Church did not approve of the Novus Ordo, because you have to have a true pope that makes that approval.
Really, the Freemason thing is a moot point since a pope is above canon law, and that excommunication is not divine law. Neither would his being a Freemason invalidate the election because Pius XII legislated to suspended all excommunications for the sake of the election. What makes Paul VI a false pope is divine law - that it is impossible the Holy Ghost would have allowed a true pope to have promulgated the things he did.
Canon Law is dogmatic, any law that has an anethama attached to it is infallible, if it was once infallible it is always infallible, in order for an anethama to have been imposed it must be from the Chair(Ex Cathedra).
Dogmatic laws are Divine laws they are always and everywhere believed, if not always defined.
A Pope is not above Canon law, it has never been believed that he could be above a law with an anethama attached nor can a law that has an anethama attached be reprieved or abrogated. There are diciplanary laws that a Pope is above, but Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is not one of those. Freemasons are outside of the Church, they are heretics and enemies of the Church one cannot be inside the church and be her enemy, thus if one is a Freemason one is anathema.
Now Whether or Not Paul VI was a Freemason I do not know. But if he was he would be outside the Church.
Either way, my belief in whether or not these last 4 or 5 Popes were Popes or not has no bearing on my salvation, so long as i keep to the Infallible Magisterium of the Church I will find my way.
-
The Honorius Calumny has been refuted by St. Robert Bellarmine. The anti-infallibilists used this 'argument' at the First Vatican Council and it was dismissed.
-
Saint Maxim has actually written a “Dialogue” directed at Pyrrhus who had succeeded Sergius. This “Dialogue” has been preserved in the Vatican's Library. St. Maxim stages himself facing heretical Pyrrhus who cites Honorius as a witness supporting his side. And the saint personally replies that Honorius had always been Catholic. He puts forward several pieces of evidence, among which is the statement of Honorius' secretary to whom the pope had dictated his letters to Sergius. Maxim says: “The man is still alive and bears witness that Honorius has never thought of negating two willpowers in Our Lord Jesus Christ. The secretary asserts that where Honorius seems to be refusing the duality, one must understand what he means aright: he thinks of the conflicting tendencies in human nature. They are the result of sin, but have never existed in Jesus”.
Let us quote Saint Maxim directly:
“Pyrrhus: what can you answer about Honorius who, a few years ago stated in the letters he sent to Sergius that obviously there was but one will-power in Our Lord Jesus Christ?
“Maxim: Which version of these letters must be considered as the more undeniable, the more consistent with truth: either the one by the secretary who wrote under Honorius' direction, and who is all the more reliable as he is still alive after illuminating all the western countries with the splendour of religious integrity, or had we better confide in what is reported by the citizens of Constantinople who conveniently utter only what pleases them?
“Pyrrhus: the more trustworthy interpretation is afforded by the one who wrote the letters.
“Maxim: now then, this is what the latter wrote to Emperor Constantine (III) when Pope John (IV) ordered him to give his own account: ‘You may be sure that what we have said of the one, unique, will-power in Our Lord, must not be understood as describing both his natures at once, the human and the divine one. This applies only to his human nature. When Sergius announced that some people taught that there were two will-powers fighting each other in Jesus Christ, we answered that there were no conflicting inclinations in Him’.”
The saintly Doctor also proved that the council texts and the words of Pope Leo were falsified by the greeks, who were universally known for such practices. The 'Honorius case' was put forward during the First Vatican Council by those who were opposed to Papal Infallibility, and was rejected. It was nothing but an attempt of anti-roman greeks to slander the Apostolic See.
He gives an example of such text falsification.
St. Leo the Great in his “Epistle to the Palestinians” (83) already complained that, not keeping in mind his being a living witness, the Greeks had altered his “Epistle to Flavian”. Gregory (vol. V, epistle 14 to Narsis) asserted that the Constantinopolitans did corrupt the Chalcedonian Synod and that he suspected they did the same with the Ephesian Council. He adds that the Roman manuscripts are much more trustworthy than the Grecian ones, “because, as the Romans are less subtle, they are also less inclined to perfidy”.
A last example: Nicolas I in his epistle to Michael refers the Emperor to Hadrian's letter with these words:
“It is still intact, exactly as it was originally sent by the Apostolic See, in the hands of the Constantinopolitan clergy, if however, it has not been tampered with according to the Greeks' habit.” And he does not say so without a good reason. For what he quotes from Hadrian's letter to Tharasius in the epistle he himself sent to Photius, has vanished from the same letter, as it was read during the Seventh Synod. The Greeks had actually suppressed a whole passage, because it meant dishonor for Tharasius. Now if the Greeks did corrupt the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Seventh synods, is there anything extraordinary about their likewise falsifying the Sixth? All the more so, because after the council had been regularly concluded, many bishops traveled back to Constantinople to edict the so-called “canons of Trullos”. These bishops seem to have had but one purpose i.e. to blame and injure the Roman Church.
The Council could not condemn Honorius for any heresy, unless warring against itself and Agatho`s letter by plainly asserting contradicting declarations. For in his first letter Agatho, writing as the reigning pope to the Emperor, expressed the doctrine that was read to the conciliar Fathers during the 4th session: “This is the original substance of our faith, the very one that has been maintained in either tempestuous or halcyon days by the spiritual Mother of your most serene Empire. She cannot be any other than the Church of Christ's apostles, that supported by God's grace has never wandered out of the true path of Tradition, which the years to come will clearly show; for She has never admitted the corruption of later heresy: on the contrary she has preserved the Deposit of Faith immaculate, as she received it at the beginning from Jesus' apostles who ruled Her. She will keep it unsullied to the end. Indeed She thus achieves what was divinely promised by our Lord, who said to the Prince of disciples what has been reported in the Gospels; ‘Peter, Peter, now Satan has claimed his right to sift you like wheat; but I have asked for thee that thy faith should not fail; as for thou, when you are converted, steady thy brethren’ May your Serene Majesty think that the Lord and Saviour of all, the very essence of our faith, has promised that Peter's orthodoxy could not fail and has commanded him to confirm the faith of his brothers; which every one of the Pontiffs that have preceded me, the minim among them, has always done carefully, as has been universally acknowledged.”
There you note that Agatho does not only say that Faith has never failed in St. Peter's See, and cannot fail either, so that the supreme Pontiff cannot officially decree anything contrary to the Deposit of Faith, but also that every one of his predecessors, among whom Honorius is included, has always resisted heresies and steadied his brothers in the true Faith. And, further below, after enumerating as heretical the Monothelists Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul and Theodore, he concludes: “Consequently we must use the utmost energy to rescue and liberate the Holy Divine Church from the errors of such Doctors, in order that all the members of the hierarchy, of the clergy, of the Christian population may confess and teach with us the right orthodox and apostolic doctrine which is founded upon the rock of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles of our Church, who through the grace and protection of this self-same Peter remains unsullied by any error whatsoever.”
This epistle received unanimous approbation from the Synod. Indeed the Conciliar Fathers approved Agatho enthusiastically in their acts 8 and 18: “These words are not really Agatho's: blessed Peter has spoken through him.” This is my way of arguing from these data: if Honorius had actually been a Monothelist, how does Agatho, while combating the Monothelist heresy, brazenly dare pretend:
1) that none of his predecessors has ever deviated from Truth.
2) then that other churches have been smeared by errors of their Prelates
3) and that eventually Rome alone should have remained immaculate ?
On the other hand if the Council states that Peter has expressed himself through Agatho, while the latter proclaimed that the Roman pontiffs have constantly strengthened their brothers' faith, and never succuмbed to any heresy, how then do the Conciliar Fathers dare anathematize Honorius in almost every synodal act? It is, obviously, then necessary either that the acts should have been falsified, or that Agatho's letter should have been counterfeited. In default of which the Council inflicts upon itself and Agatho a cutting contradiction, which even heretics never suggested. The second possibility has nowhere been mentioned and no trace of it has ever been found. We must then stick to the first possibility.
-
The immaculate purity of the Apostolic See in her approved doctrines and disciplines is proven in the following citations:
78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."
-
Your understanding of what that quote means is laughable. Your understanding of what constitutes the church(Magisterium) is even more ludicrous. It is not the CHURCH who promulgated the New Mass but MAN who promulgated it.
It is a fact that St. Pius V never promulgated a new mass, he codified it.
The Council of Trent was making a declaration on the Mass of All-Time, the Same Mass that had been said(With various minor changes) always and everywhere.
Whether they are False Popes or not is irrelavent, it is a fact that once elevated to the Chair of Peter no man can be his Judge on whether or not he has fallen into heresy. The ONLY way he can be judged is by the Bishops making a stand against him and putting to him a dogmatically defined truth and him denying it.(This happend before but the Pope recanted his falsehood when it is was put to him) Or a Future Pope condemns him for his beliefs or a Future Pope calls a Council and condemns the past Popes for their heretical beliefs.(This also happened at the Third Council of Constantinople *To the Heretic Honorius Anethama we say, to all heretics anethama* )
I have no problem with you believing that they could be anti-popes but the fact you said that someone who believes they might be real Popes should be oblidged to follow the Novus Ordo when you yourself have stated that you believe it is heresy is MORTAL SIN. You can NEVER tell someone to do that which is evil, nor can you cause the sin of scandal by suggesting that it would ever be licit that which you know is not.
You misunderstand me. I am not encouraging any to follow the Novus Ordo. Let me continue.
Promulgate means to officially "make known". The Church does do so often, but the Church doesn't even have to promulgate liturgical practice, she only has to silently allow them and then they are considered approved by the Church:
"It has also been confirmed either expressly or tacitly by the Apostolic See."
(Allatae Sunt, 1755)
"the liturgy of the Ruthenians can be no other than that which was either instituted by the holy fathers of the Church or ratified by the canons of synods or introduced by legitimate use, always with the express or tacit approval of the Apostolic See."
(Omnem Sollicitudinem, 1874)
"it was accordingly quite impossible that the Apostolic See should tacitly allow or tolerate such a custom."
(Apostolicae Curae, 1896)
Let's get back to the quote you think I misinterpreted, but really didn't:
“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Sess. 22, canon 7 Council of Trent)
The quote is from Pope Paul IV (not St. Pius V). The Tridentine rite was not yet codified, and this canon was a condemnation of Protestant error. It was a blanket statement pertaining to any liturgical practice the Church approved of, whether it be of the Eastern or Western rites, and even if it were by tacit approval.
It says "the Catholic Church uses". The SSPX say that the Novus Ordo Missae is the ordinary rite of the Church. Something cannot be the ordinary rite unless the Catholic Church uses it. While the SSPX say it is the ordinary rite they simultaneously say it is harmful. That plainly incurs the anathema of canon 7. There is no catch-22 because the ONLY solution is to believe these men purporting to be true popes, are really false popes. In order to avoid anathema, one is forced to that solution. There is nothing protestant about this solution because the Holy Catholic Church Herself said that there can be false popes and that true popes can automatically cease to be popes by going into heresy. If you don't choose this solution, you believe the heretical notion condemned in canon 7 - the the "holy" Catholic Church can use something harmful in the celebration of Masses.
-
Nonno, you are in-correct. The SSPX never said the Novus Ordo was the "Ordinary Rite" of the Catholic Church, that's what Benedict and all the other modernists say. Archbishop LeFebvre stated that the NO, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, "is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism...it bears within it a poison harmful to the Faith" (see my signature for the full quote).
No, you don't have to declare all the Vatican II Popes as anti-popes to be able to say the Novus Ordo is heretical. The NO was man-made and was not an act of the Church. So we have to declare all Vatican II Popes as anti-popes to cut down the NO otherwise it's sinful? That is absurd. That's like saying in order to say Vatican II was wrong we must declare Pius XII an anti-pope since he was succeeded by a modernist Pope. Not all Popes can responsible for one act. It was an act of Paul VI, not Benedict XVI or JPII. We are obliged to speak out against evil, and you're not setting a good example by telling all non-sedes that they must accept the Novus Ordo. That is an un-Catholic position to hold. It's also ridiculous to say those who don't accept these Popes as anti-popes accept a heretical notion, that has nothing to back it up and is illogical.
Regarding Paul VI being a Freemason, Padre Pio believed he was a Mason. I certainly believe Paul VI was a Freemason and was outside the Church. But that doesn't factor into this discussion very much.
-
Nonno, you are in-correct. The SSPX never said the Novus Ordo was the "Ordinary Rite" of the Catholic Church, that's what Benedict and all the other modernists say. Archbishop LeFebvre stated that the NO, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, "is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism...it bears within it a poison harmful to the Faith" (see my signature for the full quote).
No, you don't have to declare all the Vatican II Popes as anti-popes to be able to say the Novus Ordo is heretical. The NO was man-made and was not an act of the Church. So we have to declare all Vatican II Popes as anti-popes to cut down the NO otherwise it's sinful? That is absurd. That's like saying in order to say Vatican II was wrong we must declare Pius XII an anti-pope since he was succeeded by a modernist Pope. Not all Popes can responsible for one act. It was an act of Paul VI, not Benedict XVI or JPII. We are obliged to speak out against evil, and you're not setting a good example by telling all non-sedes that they must accept the Novus Ordo. That is an un-Catholic position to hold. It's also ridiculous to say those who don't accept these Popes as anti-popes accept a heretical notion, that has nothing to back it up and is illogical.
Regarding Paul VI being a Freemason, Padre Pio believed he was a Mason. I certainly believe Paul VI was a Freemason and was outside the Church. But that doesn't factor into this discussion very much.
I have seen SSPX say it was the ordinary rite. For the sake of argument, let's say they never did? That would change nothing of reality, which is - the SSPX believe the popes since Vatican II are Vicars of Christ. We know that 'where Peter is, there is the Church'. These men have explicitly approved of the Novus Ordo Mass in every way popes and the Church have always done so. I have given you quotes which you just ignore. Do you understand it is impossible for the Church to even tolerate or tacitly allow that which is bad in the liturgy?? That is what the quotes say. Don't just act like the quotes don't exist. The Catholic Church authors something when a true pope approves and the whole Church practices it. That is the Novus Ordo Mass. You can't say the Church is doing it, but not doing it - or that it is difficult to know when the Church does anything. That is like saying, "that man is my uncle, but I am not his nephew". Truths have inseparable consequences. I don't say anyone should accept the Novus Ordo. I believe it is evil and not from the Church. But you cannot say it is from a true pope, because once it is universally allowed by a true pope, it is from the Church. Otherwise you violate the quotes I gave. Does it matter to you to violate those quotes?
-
I already said Paul VI was not a true Pope, first of all. Regarding the sedevacantist thesis, it is a matter of opinion. I have respect for the sede position, but the dogmatic sede position is an absurd one to hold. I don't care if someone thinks Benedict is Pope or not, as long as they're a Traditional Catholic, that's what matters. I don't go around telling sedes "You need to believe we have a Pope" just as I feel sedes shouldn't go around telling non-sedes "You need to believe the Chair of Peter is vacant". The sedevacantist position has never been proven to be a fact. Until it is, if it ever is, we must state that believe whether or not Benedict is Pope is a matter of opinion, nothing more. And can you show me when and where the SSPX said the NO was the Ordinary Rite of the Church?
I don't need to say all the Vatican II Popes are anti-popes to be able to cut down the NO. You say that to cut down something a valid Pope does is sinful. So you're saying that St. Catherine was sinning when she told the Pope off? We are obliged to recognize and fight evil, not sit there and say "Oh, we can't say anything about what the Pope does". You need to get a proper understanding of what Papal Infallibility is, because you seem to think that if the Pope does one modernist thing he ceases to be Pope. That is not correct. I definitely think you're Father Cedaka. Your dogmatic sedevacantism seems strikingly similar to Cedaka's.
-
The falsity of the Popes since Vatican II are dogmatic facts (not dogmas). That John Paul II was not a true pope is a "truth, not revealed, but so intimately connected with revelation that it cannot be denied without imperiling some dogma". Protected most directly are the dogmas of the infallibility of the Church & that the Church is "holy". St. Athanasius stated publicly the Arians were heretics. He didn't tell people they were free to have another opinion. He simply spoke what is true, and later the Church declared it true. Before that declaration, if a person in conscience didn't personally see the truth of it (and was not guilty in cause for not seeing the truth of it) the mistaken belief would still imperil his Faith.
SS, you are plainly ignoring the quotes I gave. The Church said it is "impossible" for the Church to even "tacitly" permit something wrong in the liturgy. That means just by the Church saying nothing, it signifies approval. Do you understand that? The Church is "holy" and cannot sin by silence. You are in denial. You need to unlearn the falsehood that "papal infallibility" is what makes the Catholic Church protected by the Holy Ghost infallibly. No. Papal infallibility is not identical to the infallibility of the Church. Papal infallibility pertains to solemn acts when the pope acts alone, and they are rare, even hundreds of years can pass without them, yet the Church is still protected by infallibility in-between, for generations. The ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible, and it is not identical to papal infallibility, though it does need the head to approve, even tacitly.
We are talking here about official things pertaining to the Church proper. The liturgy is what the quotes spoke of. No Saint has ever criticized anything in the liturgy being harmful. I gave a quote showing anathema to those who do say it. What the pope "does" and what the Church "does" are not identical, unless what the pope does is a lone act fitting the definition of papal infallibility or afterward becomes obviously what the Church does. You, and the SSPX, don't have a proper understanding of infallibility and the holiness of the Church, and those dogmas are precisely imperiled by not properly rejecting the popes of Vatican II.
-
http://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html
I. Introduction
II. Visibility and Indefectibility of the Church
III. Valid ElectionsIV. Papal Sovereignty
V. The Problem of An Heretical Pope
VI. The Problem of an Evil Pope
VII. Some Practical Problems
VIII. Conclusion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction
The Holy Roman Catholic Church has for its earthly head the Sovereign Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome. So important is this office, that one of its greatest holders, the elect of God, Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” But there exist in our day many radically different opinions regarding the present Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as of his immediate few predecessors.
Among Catholics who would label themselves in any way “conservative,” “orthodox,” or “traditional” there are these two divergent assessments: One view says that the Holy Father is a living saint, he can do no wrong, and that we as Catholics should obey him in all things and not criticize anything he says or does. After all, he is infallible, and, under the direct influence of the Holy Ghost, he is leading the Church on to even greater conquests.
Another viewpoint takes the opposite stance. The Pope is not leading the Church back to her former prominence but is in fact destroying the Spouse of Christ before our very eyes! How can he do this? The Pope is infallible, but what he is doing a Pope can’t do, therefore he isn’t the Pope! The Chair of Peter is vacant!
This last view is known as the sedevacantist position and it is the subject of my present talk. (A small digression is appropriate here for an etymology lesson. The words “sede vacante form in Latin what’s called an ablative absolute. This grammatical construction functions in a sentence as if it were borrowed from another sentence. Literally, it means “the throne being vacant.” It is found in Church law, where the canons give the proper procedures for action during the vacancy of any bishopric, including a Papal interregnum, the period of time in-between the death of one pope and the election of another. Those who think that the Chair of Peter is currently in a state of sede vacante are called sedevacantists.)
How can two such vastly different viewpoints about the Pope arise? Given the present situation in the Church, rampant liberalism everywhere, perverse degeneracy in the clergy and religious life, the general decline of morals in the world, and a general increase of wickedness of all sorts, is it a surprise to anyone that the devil, the father of lies, can deceive even those who are in possession of the truth; that is, even Catholics? I say from the outset that sedevacantism would not be with us today were there not a scandalous mess in the Church caused, in large part, by the pastors whom we sinners have deserved to have over us; but I take exception with the sedevacantist position, because it is a problem, not an answer.
In doing so, I take umbrage with many fellow traditionalists who are sedevacantists. This is done in the spirit of fraternal charity.
II. Visibility and Indefectibility of the Church
At the crux of the matter is the nature of Christ’s Church. Two attributes of that nature are the Church’s Indefectibility and her perpetual Visibility. As we shall see, these two are related. The Church’s indefectibility is based on Her visibility, for Her very foundation is a visible one.
In Pastor Aeternus , the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, promulgated at Vatican I, we are taught about this Indefectibility and perpetual Visibility. Please excuse the length of the following passage, but in the interest of thoroughness, I present to you this teaching in the words of the Council:
“The Eternal Shepherd and Guardian of our souls [I Pet. 2:25], in order to render the saving work of redemption lasting, decided to establish His holy Church that in it, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful might be held together by the bond of one faith and one love. For this reason, before He was glorified, He prayed to the Father not for the Apostles only, but for those also who would believe in him on their testimony, that all might be one as the Son and the Father are one [John 17:20]. Therefore, just as He sent the Apostles, whom He had chosen for Himself out of the world, as He Himself was sent by the Father [John 20:21], so also He wished shepherds and teachers to be in His Church until the consummation of the world [Matt. 28:20]. Indeed, He placed St. Peter at the head of the other apostles that the episcopate might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a well-organized priesthood. He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two fold unity and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven. But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed.”
In this introduction we see the visible foundation of the Church directly connected to the perpetual principle of the Roman Pontiff. The visible nature of the Church is inextricably tied to the existence of the Pope as head of the Church.
The Canon following Chapter I of the same decree reads as follows:
“Therefore, if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ our Lord only a primacy of honor and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: let him be anathema.”
Chapter I and its Canon define that the Pope is the visible head of a visible Church, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her. This last phrase forms the basis of the attribute of indefectibility that the Church possesses. And, this means that the Church as a visible organization will stay a visible organization to the end of time. Consequently, she will have a visible head of the Church leading her to the end of time. This is a defined doctrine of the faith that all Christians are required to profess and to hold integrally. Chapter II of Pastor Aeternus and its Canon make this teaching ‘De Fide .’ I quote the canon:
“Therefore, if anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord Himself, that is, by divine law, that St. Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy: let him be anathema.”
Summarizing then: The visibility of the Catholic Church is tied to the visible foundation of the Roman Pontiff. If the Pope disappears so does the Church, and therefore the gates of hell have prevailed over her. The Church has defined for our belief and adherence the dogma that the Papacy shall never fall because it is such an integral part of the nature of the Church. Therefore, any idea or suggestion that does not take this infallible premise into account is by default untenable. One aspect of sedevacantism is the belief that the Papacy has, de facto disappeared for around 39 years (depending upon which reckoning you use). Therefore, in this aspect, sedevacantism is erroneous.
III. Valid Elections
However, the claim is made: “We are still in the period of ‘sede vacante ‘; no valid pope has been elected since Pope Pius XII.”
To this statement a few things can be said. First, a question: Who has the responsibility of saying that the pope’s election was doubtful? The layman in the street? A Bishop? The College of Cardinals? A Council? There is no clear answer to this question. So, just because someone says an election is invalid, this does not make the election invalid. Have there been elections to the papacy since Pope Pius XII? Yes, there have been 4 elections to the Chair of Peter.
How can we look at these elections? Certain sedevacantists say that they are invalid because the person elected was not a legitimate candidate for the office. For argument’s sake, let us briefly entertain this possibility to show why it in no way would jeopardize the last four pontificates. I defer to the theologian Cardinal Billot, the Doctor St. Alphonsus De Liguori, and the great Benedictine Abbot, Prosper Guéranger. They give the following rule: “The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election.”
Cardinal Billot (the great Jesuit theologian of the first half of this century) states:
“Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy.” And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by “the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows.”
He continues:
“God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required.”
For example, if a Cardinal would have “bought” the papacy (by simony), and the Church accepts the election, that person would be validly pope. There is strong evidence to suggest that this, in fact, did happen with the election of Pope Alexander VI.
St. Alphonsus states that:
“It doesn’t matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected in an illegitimate fashion or has taken possession of the pontificate by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become the true pontiff.”
St. Alphonsus follows the principle that if the whole Church, and mainly the clergy of Rome accept this man as pope, the man is the pope.
Another authority to which we will refer is Dom Prosper Guéranger, the Abbot of Solemnes, and the great 19th century authority on the Papacy, whose study, Pontifical Monarchy, helped Pius IX to make the definition of Papal Infallibility. In his Liturgical Year , for the feast of Pope St. Silverius, whose election to the pontificate was doubtful, Dom Guéranger writes,
“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, 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.” (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year , Vol XII, pg. 188)
Silverius’ pontificate was doubtful because it was forced by the hand of an Arian Emperor. Abbot Guéranger holds that the Roman Clergy would have been free to reject the pope elected as an impostor, since he was thus put in office; but because Silverius was a good and worthy man, and because he was unaware of the violence and evil which brought about his election, they accepted him — and by that acceptance, he was the true Pope.
Therefore, by this principle and the doctrine of the Perpetuity of the Papacy, John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I, and John-Paul II, have been elected to the Chair of Peter, regardless of their supposed illegitimacy. Because they were accepted by the Visible Church as pontiffs, they became true popes.
IV. Papal Sovereignty
A proper understanding of Authority is of absolute necessity to our subject. This idea has lost its true meaning because of philosophies that have cropped up since the Reformation. It seems the world today has a false notion of authority, which is based upon the thinking of the Enlightenment. I don’t want to sound anti-American here (since I’m not), but the ideas inherent in our Constitutional Republic have completely changed the common thinking on what authority is. Everything from the source of that authority to how the state wields that authority has been changed. When Catholics today look at the Papacy and “see” the Pope violate canon law and scandalize the faithful, it is easy to say that he can’t be the pope because he is violating the law, and nobody is above the law!!! These Catholics base this thinking not upon a proper understanding of sovereignty and authority, but upon a modern conception of how authority operates. A true understanding of authority and sovereignty can be found in St. Thomas. I quote from the Summa:
“The sovereign is said to be ‘exempt from the law’, as to its coercive power, since, properly speaking, no man is coerced by himself, and law has no coercive power save from the authority of the sovereign. Thus then is the sovereign said to be exempt from the law, because none is competent to pass sentence on him if he acts against the law… Again, the sovereign is above the law in so far as, when it is expedient, he can change the law and dispense with it according to time and place.” (Summa Theologica , Ia IIae, Q. 96, Art. 5)
I give you the example of the Paula Jones civil case against President Clinton. The arguments presented to the Supreme Court by the plaintiff (Paula Jones) stated that the President should be liable to a lawsuit even if he is in office because he is not above the law. They argued that if he were considered so, it would be changing the essence of the Presidency to that of a Monarch. The Justices agreed and have stipulated that Paula Jones can sue the President while he sits in office. But the Pope is not the President of the United States. He is a sovereign, and therefore very much above the law.
A case in point is the promulgation of a new rite of Mass by Pope Paul VI. Some would say that, in light of Quo Primum , Pope Paul had no right to do this. They would then conclude that he was an anti-Pope. They would hold this: “Since in Quo Primum , Pope Pius V forbade Latin Rite priests to celebrate any other Missal than his, Paul VI was out of his bounds to institute a new rite.” Strictly speaking, this is not so. No pope can bind a future pope in a matter of Church Law. (This does not mean that I in any way like the Novus Ordo or encourage attendance at it. I don’t go to it. I won’t go to it.) My simple point is that the pope has the right to amend, obrogate, or downright abrogate the Bull Quo Primum . To say otherwise is to diminish his prerogatives as supreme legislator of the Church. Anyone who doubts this should realize that his stance falls under Alexander VIII’s condemnation of the third Gallican Article, which claimed that the Pope could not change previously established law.
V. The Problem of An Heretical Pope
Now let us discuss a few problem situations. We begin with the problem of an heretical pope. Regarding a pope who, while in office, may become heretical, Saint Robert Bellarmine posits five opinions for consideration:
1. The pope cannot be heretical.
2. The pope, falling into heresy, even purely internal heresy, ipso facto loses the papacy.
3. Even if the pope falls into heresy, the pope would not lose the papacy.
4. An heretical pope is not removed ipso facto , but must be declared deposed by the Church.
5. An heretical pope is deposed ipso facto at the moment that his heresy becomes manifest — that is, public and widely known.
Various theologians have chosen their favorite opinion, but no one consensus is reached by all. St. Robert prefers the fifth postulate.
For argument’s sake, let’s say that St. Robert’s opinion is the definitive teaching in the matter of a Pope falling into heresy. Have Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II exhibited a manifest, public, and formal heresy? The sedevacantist would say yes, and therefore the Pope has fallen from his office and a False Shepherd is leading the Church. Or more precisely, the whole hierarchy have lost their offices since they are heretics and were appointed by a non-pope; therefore, the Church is completely decapitated in Her government. We know by De Fide teaching (the visibility of the Church, and the primacy of Peter) that this is impossible. (If the Church is now without a visible leader, the Church then becomes invisible. We know that the very essence of the Church depends on her being a visible organization, so the idea that she can exist in the world in an invisible sense is a contradiction of defined teaching.) Therefore, the contrary must be true. That is, these popes are true popes and haven’t manifested formal heresy.
The Code of Canon Law defines a heretic as one who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Catholic, pertinaciously doubts one of the truths which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. A “truth that must be believed by divine and catholic faith” is one that has been infallibly declared by the Church to be revealed by God — a doctrine that is “de fide divina et catholica “. Pertinacity is defined as the conscious and intentional resistance to the authority of God and the Church; it is the obstinate adhesion to a particular heretical tenet. As long as one remains willing to submit to the Church’s decision he remains a Catholic Christian, and his wrong belief remains material only. If the quality of pertinacity is missing, there is no formal heresy.
So, based on this definition of a heretic then, can we say that the last four popes have manifested formal heresy? No, we cannot. Formal resistance to the teaching authority of the Church, which resides in the Pope is hardly possible when the man in question is the pope himself. I propose that the note of pertinacity is, therefore impossible in a pope (unless he’s a schizophrenic). If the note of pertinacity is impossible, then so is formal heresy.
Perhaps someone could criticize this argument as being too subtle, hinging as it does on the note of pertinacity. Even then, the judgment of formal heresy is a serious one, and one which must be established by a competent authority. To be a formal heretic, one’s will must be set against God and his Church. One must make a conscious act of the will to reject Catholic dogma. For someone to be excommunicated in public forum as a heretic the judgment must be made by a competent bishop; not even a priest can accuse a person of such a thing. All a priest can do, and all that you or I can do, is tell a person he is wrong; he is erring; and he is committing a sin against Faith. As a missionary, I can tell a person, in very strong language, “look man, you are wrong, and your error will lead you to hell.” In that respect, I can make a judgment of truth and error based on the evidence put before me. But I cannot declare a person formally excommunicated from the Church. And I thank God that it’s not within my competence to do so.
And neither is it in the competence of anyone to so accuse the Pope of formal heresy.
Regarding the possibility of an heretical pope and his consequent loss of office, I would like to present another argument. Supposing we were to follow the opinions of certain authors that if a pope were to fall into heresy, he would then lose his office. Then suppose that we were to apply that opinion to a certain pope. At best, what we have accomplished is to establish, based upon theological speculation, the possibility that the See of Peter could be vacant. That is all we could do, given the uncertain nature of this situation. At this point, the individual Catholic is at a moral juncture: Either accept a man as the Roman Pontiff whom he thinks might not be pope, or reject him. If he realizes that the claimant to the Apostolic See might be the pope — and he has to admit that he might be — then rejecting the claimant constitutes a schismatic act.
Let me explain. This is what is known in moral theology as a “practical doubt.” About this “practical doubt” the Jesuit moralist, Father Slater, says the following. “If I eat meat with a practical doubt as to whether it is not forbidden on that day by the Church, I commit a sin of the same kind and malice as if I ate meat knowingly on a day of abstinence.” Apply this to the pontificate. If I refuse my subjection to the Roman Pontiff with a practical doubt as to whether or not he is the pope, I commit an act of schism. It’s a form of spiritual Russian Roulette.
Have these popes said things that are obviously erroneous and scandalous to the faithful? Yes, they have. Have recent popes acted in a manner opposed to the way they should be acting as supreme pastors of the Church? Yes, they have. But just because sinful and scandalous actions emanate from a priest, bishop, or pope, does not mean that they are outside of the Church! Have these Popes violated the Church’s attribute of Infallibility? No, they have not. Can the pope act in a manner which is harmful to the faithful? Yes, he can. Is he to be resisted for so acting? Absolutely! Are the faithful to pray that his “diabolical disorientation” is dispelled and he works to correct the wrong that has been done? Absolutely! “Pray for the Pope”, as Venerable Jacinta of Fatima has told us.
I would like to point out something else concerning the thinking of some Catholics on this issue. One man, after criticizing Saint Benedict Center for not being sedevacantist, and claiming that “only the sedevacantists have the courage to call a heretic a heretic” said the following: “I wonder what position Christ would have taken. Can we get a hint out of Scriptures? Maybe he should have ‘dialogued’ with the Pharisees more and ignored the moneychangers in His Father’s House — they were there with the approval of authority, after all.”
My answer, I admit, was not without sarcasm: “Yes, and we all know what our Lord did. He deposed the high priest and declared the Seat of Moses vacant! Didn’t He?” The point is simply this: If the Man-God himself had enough respect for the sovereign pontiff of the law of types and figures as to say of the heretical Jєω who was soon to murder Him, that he sat “in the seat of Moses,” how does anyone in the present law, the more perfect law, dare to do the opposite?
Let me spell this out. Our Lord was not a sedevacantist. The evil deicide heretic who had authority over the “church” of Israel, was still the head of the true Religion. The religious society of the Old Law was still intact. Anyone wishing to save his soul could look to this office for leadership. Its sacrifices were accepted by God, and despite the abusive use to which it was put, the prophetical office was even maintained by this man. What did St. John say about Caiphas’ prophesy of our Lord’s death? “And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.” No matter how you view it, the present Pope’s actions come nowhere near the iniquity of Caiphas.
VI. The Problem of an Evil Pope
Next after the problem of an heretical pope we have that of an evil pope. I’m not saying that any of these popes are “evil,” but merely for the sake of argument, let’s assume that they are (after all, it is possible for a pope to be evil, and the whole Catholic world has recognized certain historical popes — like the notoriously immoral John XII — to have been evil.) An evil pope could be one who changes canon law for the worse, thus introducing laxity and possibly poor morals. An evil pope could be one who gives scandal to people. He could be a Freemason; he could introduce new and even protestantized liturgical rites. Is he still a pope, despite these evils?
Yes! As far as changing Church law, the pope is supreme legislator of the Church and is above the law, as we mentioned before. The Pope’s infallibility is over Faith and Morals only. Law is not the proper subject of infallibility, and therefore bad laws can come into the Church.
What if a Pope is a Freemason?
May God forbid it, but it is a possibility. I don’t wish to give any credence to any of the various lists which exist — lists that incriminate this cardinal or that bishop or such-and-such a pope of having been a Mason. I certainly would not want to be guilty of either calumny or detraction leveled at the person of the pope. Just entertaining the possibility for the sake of argument is all I’m trying to do.
A Freemason or any other person is deprived of his office by due canonical process. When it comes to the Roman Pontiff, there is no such process.
Indeed the possibility of an evil pope, an unworthy or vicious pope has never been ruled out by the Church. Yet the literature of many sedevacantist partisans is filled with explicit or implicit accusations that the pope’s behavior has somehow dethroned him. If any of you are handed sedevacantist books, look at the pictures. If there are any pictures, I could probably describe to you what they will be: The pope hiking in alpine shorts, the pope making a funny face at newspaper photographers, some overweight man that looks like the pope picnicking with a family, the pope at one of his ecuмenical affairs. There are probably a dozen stock photographs that you can see in their literature. The implication, stated or unstated, is this: “Look at this picture! This man can’t be the pope! This is evil!”
Personally, I thought the mocking of irritating newspaper photographers was pretty funny, so I applaud the Holy Father’s sense of humor. But I won’t defend the syncretic ecuмenical fiascoes. These are truly scandalous, and I am very sensitive to this scandal. I have spoken with Jєωs, Pagans, and Protestants who have pointed to the Holy Father’s actions as an apologetic for why they don’t have to be Catholic. If I tell them, “you must be a Catholic to save your soul”; I am met with, “but your pope called Luther a ‘profoundly religious man,’ or “your pope is a good man, he doesn’t think like you do; he prayed with my guru” or “The Pope likes us Jєωs, He called us your ‘elder brothers in the Faith.’” I can repeat these instances ad nauseam , but I would rather not. The only reason I bring it up is to show that, while these actions are indefensible, they do not make him an anti-pope.
The Council of Constance defined against this notion of loss of papal office due to sin, even publicly manifest scandal. The heretic was John Hus, one of the precursors of Protestantism, whose ideas about the Church militant helped form the basis for Protestant ecclesiology. (I will be speaking tomorrow of the doctrine of the Mystical Body, and how the Protestants destroyed the notion of a visible, hierarchical Church. Hus paved the way for these errors.) [See this article in Issue #39 of From the Housetops. – Ed.] The council listed thirty errors of Hus, which they condemned as “Not Catholic… heretical….erroneous,…audacious and seditious, … [and] offensive to pious ears.” Number twenty of these thirty errors reads verbatim as follows:
“If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it.” (Denz . 646. See also Denz . 661)
Remember, what I have just read is infallibly condemned as an error. The authority of an ecuмenical council teaches us that even if the pope is foreknown to be a son of perdition, he is still the pope.
I refer you all to Volume 5 of Dr. Ludwig Pastor’s History of the Popes from the close of the Middle Ages (drawn from the Secret Archives of the Vatican and other original sources), pp. 381-386. Here, a detailed description of Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia’s purchasing of the Papacy is exposed. This immoral act is called simony. Regarding simony in the Church, Pope Callistus II speaking authoritatively at Lateran Council I, held about 500 hundred years previous to Borgia’s actions, stated the following in Canon I on Simony, Celibacy, Investitures and Incest:
“‘Following the examples of the Holy Fathers’ and renewing the duty of our office ‘we forbid in every way by the authority of the Apostolic See that anyone by means of money be ordained or promoted in the Church of God. But if anyone shall have acquired ordination or promotion in the Church in this way, let him be entirely deprived of his office.’” (Denz. 359)
Yet Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia was elected pope! And he became the Pontiff as Alexander VI!
Alexander VI was not alone. There have been other simoniacal popes throughout history. This shows that, no matter what canons exist about heretics or others under certain ecclesiastical censures being deprived of their offices, the rule we established from the beginning has been the operating norm throughout the Church’s history: “The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election.”
VII. Some Practical Problems
I said above that sedevacantism is a problem and not an answer. Here are a couple of reasons why. First, if we have no pope, how is one to be elected? According to most sedevacantists, there has not been a pope since Pius XII. Since this is the case, there are no valid cardinals. The College of Cardinals must be vacant too, since anti-popes have been appointing these men to their positions. It is recognized that, after the College of Cardinals, the Roman clergy have authority to elect the pope. Let’s say the whole college was blown up by some Muslim during an extraordinary meeting they were holding. In that extreme circuмstance, the Roman Clergy could elect the pope, since he is their Bishop. But alas there is another problem. You see, the Roman Clergy is also vacant. Only Bishops can lawfully appoint clergy, and if there were no valid popes, there are no bishops with jurisdiction, therefore no lawful diocesan clergy. It’s a ruthless catch-22.
There are those who answer this objection by saying that God will intervene directly and appoint a Pope. Besides the fact that this would be a first in Church history; and the fact that it contradicts God’s established order for running the Church, this presents yet another problem: Who will know if it has been accomplished? What objective criteria are there? Will the miracle of the sun accompany such a prodigious papal election? Will there be miraculous white smoke coming out of St. Peter’s? Will a choir of angels place the tiara on the new pope’s head? I don’t know how it could be done, and neither do the adherents of this position. This practical problem is best illustrated by the fact that there are some sedevacantist groups who already have their own Popes: Popes who were elected in irregular, and yes, sometimes miraculous ways. Thus we presently have the mystic, stigmatist, Pope Gregory XVII in Palmar de Troya Spain, Another Pope Gregory XVII in St. Jovite, Canada, Pope Michael, somewhere in the American Midwest, and a small host of others all of whom claim to be the divinely appointed Vicar of Christ.
Other sedevacantists have resolved this problem with a more careful, theological approach. They have said that, while the Holy See is not materially vacant, it is formally vacant. As soon as the Pope does the right thing, then he will formally assume the office. But other practical considerations enter here. How will we know? What competent authority is there to declare the Holy See once more formally occupied? And is this the same authority that was competent to declare the Pope deposed in the first place? Once more, we are down to the subjects of authority and visibility. There is no “balance of powers” in the Church as there is supposed to exist in our Republic. There is no Judicial Branch of the Church comprised of canonists who wait to see if a Pope is real or not.
Among the theologians of the past who speculated on a pope losing his office, this issue of who declares the See vacant is a point of disagreement. Some say that it would be an ecuмenical Council. They are careful to note that the ecuмenical council can neither judge nor depose the pope, but at most can examine the case, and declare to the Catholic world what has already happened, that is, that the pope has lost his office. But, there is a big problem with this position; notably, that for a council to be ecuмenical it has to be convened and ratified by the Roman Pontiff. There being no Roman Pontiff, how can the council be valid? All the bishops could do is deliver their sentence to the dubious pope and ask him to please ratify it. Others are of the opinion that the college of Cardinals can declare the See vacant. But what procedure will they take? Will a simple majority decide? Will two-thirds? And suppose a faction rises up within the College of Cardinals and declares the pope’s deposition invalid? This will set us up for another Avignon Papacy.
I would like to point out that even if an ecuмenical council had the authority to declare the pope deposed, or even if the College of Cardinals had that authority, the fact remains that neither has happened. No ecuмenical council has passed such a declaration any of the last four popes, and the College of Cardinals seems rather content with the present status quo. So we fall right back into the situation of Father so and so, declaring from his independent chapel that the Roman See is vacant and has been for x number of years. No priest has this authority. Priests aren’t part of the hierarchy. They have nothing to do with the government of the Church, except at a very limited, local level, that is, within their parish, if they are duly appointed pastors.
VIII. Conclusion
I would like to wrap things up with a brief review what has been said. The Visibility of the Church is directly linked to the Roman Pontiff. This has been taught at the Church’s highest authority, and cannot be contradicted by the opinions of any theologians, past or present, of whatever reputation for orthodoxy or holiness. And while during an interregnum the church is “Popeless,” for a short period of time, this is not a part of the ordinary constitution of the Church and must necessarily be of short duration. The longest interregnum in the Church to date is less than three years. If the sedevacantists are right, then the present interregnum is ten times greater than that one. Thus the visibility of the Church, embodied in the person of the Roman Pontiff is non-extant. In this awful scenario, the only true Church is constituted of individual priests and bishops in their respective chapels, none of whom have valid jurisdiction, and none of whom report to anyone higher than themselves as authorities. This is not a visible Church; it is a Protestant Church.
At this point, I would like to give a very brief summary of each of our major points. The Indefectibility of the Church means that the Church cannot defect in her constitution. She cannot fail in her function of leading people to heaven. No matter how you examine it, the sedevacantist idea — the idea that the Church has been decapitated for almost 40 years, thus producing invalid sacraments, a false priesthood and an ecclesiastical structure totally devoid of grace — this idea is contrary to the Church’s indefectibility.
Next, we discussed papal elections. All four of the past popes were validly elected. But even if they weren’t, according to the weighty authorities cited above, the moral unanimity of the Catholic world in recognizing in them the true Roman Pontiff is, in itself, a sound argument for their validity.
Not only were they validly elected, but, according to our next point, we established that they are sovereign in matters of Church discipline and that they are “above the law” in all matters not pertaining to the natural moral law, or the divinely revealed law. Thus, while they are capable of sinning in breaking the natural moral law or the divinely revealed law, they are monarchs in their own right when it comes to ecclesiastical discipline. Therefore, if they “break the law,” they incur no ecclesiastical censure, least of all, that of excommunication.
Then we discussed the two problems of an heretical pope and an evil pope. The practical difficulties involved here rule out a papal vacancy. The realistic impracticality of determining a pope’s formal heresy, coupled with the fact that no one is competent either to declare this sentence, or to depose him, assure us that the Roman See cannot be vacant on this account. Given the speculative nature of such a vacancy, the Catholic who refuses his submission to the pontiff is in grave danger of the mortal sin of schism.
Finally, the numerous practical problems associated with the idea that we have been popeless for forty years confirm us in our position that this alleged vacancy is an impossibility.
“Pray for the Pope!” This is what little Jacinta of Fatima told us to do. I can’t agree with her more. Will God refuse to hear our prayers? Will he turn a deaf ear to us who have been faithful to Him in his teaching Church? Let us, with confidence, approach the throne of Grace, and with the help of our Lady, humbly beg the Trinity for special graces to be shed on the Roman Pontiff, and the whole flock of the Church.
I would like to conclude with a prayer for the Holy Father. It’s an oration from the Mass for the Coronation of a pope, found in our beloved Roman Missal:
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
God, the shepherd and ruler of all the faithful, look propitiously upon Thy servant John Paul, whom Thou hast been pleased to appoint pastor over Thy Church, grant, we beseech Thee, that both by word and by example he may edify those over whom he is placed, and, together with the flock committed to his care, may attain unto life everlasting. Amen.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
St. Joseph, patron of the Universal Church, pray for us.
Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us!
-
So, based on this definition of a heretic then, can we say that the last four popes have manifested formal heresy? No, we cannot. Formal resistance to the teaching authority of the Church, which resides in the Pope is hardly possible when the man in question is the pope himself. I propose that the note of pertinacity is, therefore impossible in a pope (unless he’s a schizophrenic). If the note of pertinacity is impossible, then so is formal heresy.
This is absurd. This gives a Pope a license to say anything. Presuming it were true it would also show that it is not necessary for an ipso facto deposed Pope to be a formal heretic, just a manifest heretic.
-
So, based on this definition of a heretic then, can we say that the last four popes have manifested formal heresy? No, we cannot. Formal resistance to the teaching authority of the Church, which resides in the Pope is hardly possible when the man in question is the pope himself. I propose that the note of pertinacity is, therefore impossible in a pope (unless he’s a schizophrenic). If the note of pertinacity is impossible, then so is formal heresy.
This is absurd. This gives a Pope a license to say anything. Presuming it were true it would also show that it is not necessary for an ipso facto deposed Pope to be a formal heretic, just a manifest heretic.
To clarify, it is absurd to say a Pope cannot lose office because it is impossible for a Pope to be a formal heretic, no matter what he does. If it were true that a Pope can never be a formal heretic, then it's clear that it's not necessary for a Pope to be a formal heretic to lose his office.
-
I stopped reading when I got to the part which said that "they believe the Pope is a living saint who can do no wrong". I wish people would stop making a caricature of what the true ultramontane position is and be a little bit more honest in their writing.