Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 44010 times)

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #495 on:** November 15, 2019, 01:35:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 15, 2019, 12:50:02 PM

#1) this is not Bishop Sanborn's thesis, but that of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers. This exposes you as a dishonest liar, falsely attributing this thesis to +Sanborn.

As a matter of charity, I would not attribute the theory the way Bishop Sanborn explains it to des Lauriers, without first what des Lauriers wrote myself: The way Bishop Sanborn explains it is utterly absurd.

Quote

Heiner: So then, to go back to the root, do you dispute that [Vatican II] was an ecuмenical council?

Bp. Sanborn: Yes. I don’t dispute it; I deny it because Paul VI and John XXIII were not true popes.

Heiner: At the time that they called the council?

Bp. Sanborn: Yes.

Heiner: So you dispute that John XXIII was a true Pope at the time of the calling of the council [in 1961[1]]?

Bp. Sanborn: I even deny it. I don’t dispute it. The reason I do is because of his intention, his obvious intention, to alter the fabric of the Faith through the instrument of an Ecuмenical Council. Although I don’t think that the case of heresy against him is the same as it is against Paul VI, John Paul II and so forth, nevertheless I definitely think he fails to be a true pope for the reason of his obvious intention to alter the Catholic Church in the direction of Vatican II.

Heiner: But doesn’t the Church always say we’re not supposed to judge personal intentions?

Bp. Sanborn: No, the Catholic Church does not preach that. You are presumed to have a guilty intention by the commission of an act, whatever it should be, or at least a deliberate intention. Let’s use that word, the deliberate intention by the commission of an act. If you did not have a deliberate intention for some reason the burden of proof is on you.

Heiner: I’m sorry, so let me rephrase that. So you would concede that the act of calling an ecuмenical council doesn’t betray a specific bad intention.

Bp. Sanborn: No. In hindsight, though, as we look back upon Vatican II and what happened as a result of Vatican II and look at John XXIII, it is clear that his intention was to alter the Church in the direction of Modernism and that intention vitiated his own authority.”

Bishop Sanborn says a person is presumed to have a guilty intention when he commits an act, “whatever it should be.” He doesn’t say a guilty intention is to be presumed if someone commits an evil act (e.g. robbing a bank), but any act; and the act he is referring to is not an objectively evil act, but the legitimate act of a Pope calling a council. If Bishops Sanborn were correct, every Pope who ever called a council should be presumed to have had a bad intention in doing so.

Then, he jumps to the conclusion that if a Pope has an evil intention of calling a council, it will prevent him from receiving papal authority. When has the Church or any theologian ever taught such a thing, and how would the fact of the bad intention ever be judged? Bishop Sanborn makes up his own law (i.e., the intention to undermine the faith prevents a Pope from receiving authority), and then makes himself the judge of the fact (i.e., that the Pope had such an intention), and then publicly renders his verdict that John XXIII and every Pope after him (and all 5000+ bishos alive today) all had the evil intention to undermine the faith when they were elected/appointed, and hence none of the possess the authority of the offices they legally hold.

The entire theory is utterly absurd, and if you believe you are a complete buffoon.
.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #496 on:** November 15, 2019, 01:37:14 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 15, 2019, 12:55:32 PM

Well, you have to distinguish between the spiritual office and the material office.

I agree, but PC2 just declared this distinction to be heretical.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #497 on:** November 15, 2019, 01:39:30 PM »

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 15, 2019, 01:35:38 PM

As a matter of charity, I would not attribute the theory the way Bishop Sanborn explains it to des Lauriers, without first what des Lauriers wrote myself: The way Bishop Sanborn explains it is utterly absurd.

There was little more than a mention of the "material" vs. "formal" distinction in my posts, so you immediately labeled mere mention of that as being the equivalent of whatever +Sanborn holds ... which I have not studied in any detail.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #498 on:** November 15, 2019, 01:44:43 PM »

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 15, 2019, 01:35:38 PM

The entire theory is utterly absurd, and if you believe you are a complete buffoon.
.

This is one part of his explanation and not at all at the core of the thesis. He speaks about a defect of intention to accept the papacy. But my mention of the thesis was in the context of two aspects of the office, the material and the formal, and whether in "stripping" the Pope of his office, as it were, the Church is removing the formal authority or merely the material designation that remains. So the context of my post had absolutely nothing to do with the defect of intention thesis ... and you know it.

I have repeatedly stated that +Sanborn is not genuine des Laurier because he has a strong need to spin it towards sedevacantist. Bishop McKenna placed as a condition of his consecration his abandonment of sedevacantism and acceptance of sedeprivationism ... which he did reluctantly. Once he did adopt it he maintained a very strong sedevacantist slant/spin on it. You can search this forum to find where I have explained this.

King Wenceslas · « **Reply #499 on:** November 15, 2019, 02:09:05 PM »

The "Pope" is getting long in the tooth. Better hurry up to get him pope again.

Empathy.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #500 on:** November 15, 2019, 02:26:17 PM »

Quote

I agree, but PC2 just declared this distinction to be heretical.

Sorry, my post was meant to reply to the thread in general, including PC2. If +Bellarmine says that an occult/secret heretic (as defined by church law, not defined in the normal linguist meaning), still possess ALL aspects of jurisdiction (both material and spiritual), yet then argues that an occult/secret heretic pope is to be resisted and challenged in his error, this seems like a massive contradiction. I'm sure he made a distinction somewhere.

Mr G · « **Reply #501 on:** November 15, 2019, 02:44:15 PM »

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 14, 2019, 09:16:40 PM

Here’s the definition from Fr. Augustine’s book:

Fr. Augustine referenced 2195 §1 above. Here again is how that canon defines the nature of a crime, followed by Fr. Augustine’s commentary:

The underlined part above is what I mean by the sin vis-a-vis the crime of heresy. The crime of heresy is the sin of heresy combined with an external act of heresy. When the two are joined together, the heretical act meets the canonical definition of “the nature of a crime” (Canon 2195 §1). It is as simple as that.

Quote

TITLE XI

CRIMES AGAINST FAITH AND UNITY …

APOSTASY, HERESY, AND SCHISM …

The crime of apostasy, heresy, or schism must be exteriorly manifested, either in words, writings, or acts which betray defection from the Christian Church, denial of some article of faith, or separation from the unity of the Church, according to canon 2195 §1; because merely internal apostasy, heresy, or schism do not belong to the external forum and therefore are not intended here.” (Fr. Augustine, Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law).

Fr. Augustine referenced 2195 §1 above. Here again is how that canon defines the nature of a crime, followed by Fr. Augustine’s commentary:

Quote

“CIC 1917, Book V Part I defines "the nature of a crime Can. 2195. §1: A crime is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction.”

In this feature crime shares the notion of sin, for every crime is a sin, though not conversely. For a sin (e. g., mental apostasy or heresy) may be committed by the mind only, whereas a crime supposes an external act.” (Fr. Augustine, Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law).

Thanks for the quote;

If "every crime is a sin", then it appears to be by its basic nature a sin. So these quotes still do not contradict what Fr. Kramer has said about heresy by nature being a sin as "every crime is a sin".

Public heresy is a crime, all crimes are sins. Thus public heresy is a sin.
Internal heresy is a sin. Thus internal heresy is a sin.
Either way, heresy seem to be always a sin. (assuming it is willful)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #502 on:** November 15, 2019, 05:10:38 PM »

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 15, 2019, 12:51:53 PM

By "heretic", do you mean lacking the virtue of faith, while remaining externally united to the Church? If so, there is nothing in Divine Law that prevents such a person from being elected Pope.

It is true the Church has not indicated the existence of such a bar up to this point in time. But was the Immaculate Conception not part of "Divine Law" well before Ineffabilis Deus merely because it was not defined until Pius IX? Simply because prior to the definition no one would be judged a heretic for not believing it doesn't mean it wasn't part of the deposit of faith, part of Revelation.

Of course, the subject of "occult heretics" has become somewhat more relevant in my view since what we may come to know someday as the Great Apostasy.

The Church has not hitherto ruled on the question of whether they are indeed members, probably because it had not before concerned the society and community of the faithful, but only the individual and his standing with God, something between a man and his maker. Now it may be an issue concerning the Church and its governance, its divine constitution and structure; a question of import for the Church at large.

The question remains open.

Here's a very good article/discussion on "occult heretics" posted on this site, written not long before our crisis began:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/aer-fenton/

Meg · « **Reply #503 on:** November 15, 2019, 05:20:21 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on November 15, 2019, 12:30:39 PM

Both Fr. Kramer and Fr. Hesse studied at the Angelicuм (The Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome), if I am not mistaken, around the same time. Same with Fr. Gruner. Yet, it seems like it is only Fr. Kramer who gets criticized for not being a "real theologian" and being trained in the Novus Ordo. The same criticism or complement should be given to all three.

Also, some former friends and collaborators of Fr. Gruner criticizes Fr. Kramer for believing that Pope Benedict is still the Pope, but these same critics never mention that Fr. Gruner held the same belief and is the one who requested Fr. Kramer write a book about the issues being discuses here on CathInfo.

Fr. Gregory Hesse did indeed hold doctorates in Canon law and Thomistic theology from Novus Ordo institutions. I'll still take Fr. Hesse' word over that of Fr. Kramer any day.

At least Fr. Hesse didn't call people who disagreed with him "heretics."

Fr. Hesse was wise, and used his wisdom and intellectual ability to explain the Crisis in the Church; while Fr. Kramer insists that everyone must agree with him.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #504 on:** November 15, 2019, 06:13:10 PM »

Quote from: Meg on November 15, 2019, 05:20:21 PM

I'll still take Fr. Hesse' word over that of Fr. Kramer any day.

Well, of course, simply because you want to. Your confirmation bias aside, however, objectively speaking they have equivalent credentials.

Now, if you want someone with theological credentials unrivaled by any other Traditional Catholic, one would look to +Guerard des Lauriers. No other Traditional Catholic has been able to hold a candle to him in that regard.

Then you have Father Saenz Arriaga, holding Doctorates in Philosphy, Theology, and Canon Law (from Rome pre Vatican II). He was the original sedevacantist.

Then you have one Ngo Dinh Thuc, also Doctor of Philosophy, Theology, and Canon Law (from Rome pre Vatican II) ... seminary professor and lecturer at the Sorbonne.

So all the theological clout, the theological credentials, are squarely in the corner of the sedevacantists.

... since that's what everyone is arguing about.

Meg · « **Reply #505 on:** November 15, 2019, 06:22:34 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 15, 2019, 06:13:10 PM

Well, of course, simply because you want to. Your confirmation bias aside, however, objectively speaking they have equivalent credentials.

Of what use are credentials from a Novus Ordo institution really. Father Hesse was far more astute, intellectual, reasonable, and charitable than Fr. Kramer, hands down. Fr. Kramer only cares about forcing others to his view. Fr. Hesse did not do that. He strove to help us make sense of the Crisis in the Church. And he didn't make accusations of heresy against those who disagreed with him.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #506 on:** November 15, 2019, 06:49:22 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 15, 2019, 05:10:38 PM

It is true the Church has not indicated the existence of such a bar up to this point in time. But was the Immaculate Conception not part of "Divine Law" well before Ineffabilis Deus merely because it was not defined until Pius IX? Simply because prior to the definition no one would be judged a heretic for not believing it doesn't mean it wasn't part of the deposit of faith, part of Revelation.

Of course, the subject of "occult heretics" has become somewhat more relevant in my view since what we may come to know someday as the Great Apostasy.

The Church has not hitherto ruled on the question of whether they are indeed members, probably because it had not before concerned the society and community of the faithful, but only the individual and his standing with God, something between a man and his maker. Now it may be an issue concerning the Church and its governance, its divine constitution and structure; a question of import for the Church at large.

The question remains open.

Here's a very good article/discussion on "occult heretics" posted on this site, written not long before our crisis began:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/aer-fenton/

This is a terrific article. Thank you for linking to this. So, despite all the argument about inner/occult vs. external/visible bonds in the Church, the matter is highly disputed among theologians.

Some hold that occult heretics are in fact not members of the Church.

I lean towards the opinion of Sylvius that occult heretics are members only secundum quid.

And the Theologian Lawlor made the case from Mystici Corporis that occult heretics are not in fact members of the Church.

So this is a highly controverted matter ...

leaving the issue ... in doubt.

Sede-doubtism anyone?

We can not more settle the matter of sedevacantism amongst ourselves than all these theologians were able to come to a universal agreement. If these great minds could not come to an agreement, we're probably wasting our time trying to settle the matter among us relative ignorami.

As I have said so many times, what we really need to be arguing about are ecclesiological issues such as the Magisterium, the Universal Discipline of the Church, and the Church's indefectibility.

Once we focus on that, we'll realized that there is absolutely ZERO theological support for the R&R position.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #507 on:** November 15, 2019, 06:56:21 PM »

Stubborn,

Based on this article, I must retract my earlier statement (now shown to be mistaken) that no theologian ever held that the Baptismal character alone suffices for membership in the Church. Evidently Cajetan held that opinion. It was not held by many and has long been abandoned ... but it is not true that no theologian ever held this. Now, he did nevertheless believe that a Pope could fall into heresy and thereby lose his office ... but, then, presumably, he would still be a member of the Church even though deposed from office.

Father Wathen evidently tried to revive this theory, which to my knowledge no other Traditional Catholic priest has held.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #508 on:** November 16, 2019, 02:25:41 AM »

Meg said: "Fr. Kramer insists that everyone must agree with him."

What a load of codswallop. On truly open questions I respect the rights of others to disagree. Salza & Siscoe are in heresy as I have proven. A true pope may never be judged by anyone. For so long as he retains the office, he has the "fullness of absolute power"; even if the majority rashly judge him a heretic. If a putative pope becomes suspect of heresy to the degree in which the see must be presumed vacant; then the man can be judged and the vacancy filled. The indicia of heresy must be evaluated strictly according to the canonical tradition and jurisprudence of the Roman Church. No pope loses office when the Church judges him a heretic. The Church can only judge that the heretic, is not a valid pope; and that if he was pope, he is pope no longer. If the judgment is objectively correct, then the see is de jure vacant. Pope Gregory XVI and don Pietro Ballerini based this position of theirs primarily on the ruling of Session 37 of the Council of Constance. It is not mere theologians' speculations, such as the opinions of Cajetan or Suárez, which were thoroughly refuted by Bordoni. Even Bellarmine errs on some points, such as on the question of Liberius. He never was deposed or fell from office. If ever a true pope were falsely convicted of heresy, he would retain the primacy. It would be his duty as pope to defend the right of the primacy, as Ballerini teaches. I have quoted verbatim in my book the authors I cite here, along with many others. I do not here express a mere personal opimion. A true pope may never be judged by anyone, as St. Gregory VII taught. If a putative pope is rightly judged a heretic, the see is presumed to be vacant. In such a case, before the Church judges, if there exists positive and probable doubt about the validity of a putative pope; the faithful have the right to withdraw obedience and recognition. It will be objected that this is a sedevacantist opinion. I answer: If the see is rightly presumed vacant, then in that instance the sedevacantist position is right. If the see is erroneously presumed vacant, then, in that instance, the sedevacantist position is wrong. If I err in my opinion, I err in good company, because I follow St. Alphonsus, Pope Gregory XVI, and don Pietro Ballerini, whose teachings on this question I have examined carefully.

Stubborn · « **Reply #509 on:** November 16, 2019, 05:13:24 AM »

Quote from: Meg on November 15, 2019, 05:20:21 PM

Fr. Gregory Hesse did indeed hold doctorates in Canon law and Thomistic theology from Novus Ordo institutions. I'll still take Fr. Hesse' word over that of Fr. Kramer any day.

At least Fr. Hesse didn't call people who disagreed with him "heretics."

Fr. Hesse was wise, and used his wisdom and intellectual ability to explain the Crisis in the Church; while Fr. Kramer insists that everyone must agree with him.

Yes, this is well stated Meg. I am still awaiting an understandable answer from Fr. Kramer but expect to be verbally pummeled, without an answer, if he ever does reply.

Fr. Kramer says the Church has a divine right to judge the papal claimant - who is this, "the Church"? By what "divine right"? If "the Church" finds the claimant to be the legitimate pope, then the "The Church" will have judged the pope - which the only Church I know of and I belong to does not allow, and the idea itself has been officially and explicitly condemned.

We must admit that "The Church" cannot be mistaken on this judgement, yet he states that it is the opinion of someone named Ballerini that "The Church's" judgement is infallible because divine providence is the safeguard that prevents "The Church" from ruling against a valid pope. I mean, really?

Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 44010 times)

PaxChristi2

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Ladislaus

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Ladislaus

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Ladislaus

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

King Wenceslas

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Pax Vobis

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Mr G

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

DecemRationis

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Meg

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Ladislaus

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Meg

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Ladislaus

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Ladislaus

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Don Paolo

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Stubborn

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!