Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 43564 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** October 21, 2019, 08:30:05 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on October 21, 2019, 04:53:41 AM

Universal acceptance of a pope-elect while the chair is occupied does not unseat a reigning pontiff.

See, I agree with this. It cannot ... without entailing the error of Conciliarism. This speaks to the examples brought up by Clemens where this kind of thing happened in the past.

But what's interesting is that the theologians who promote the notion of Universal Acceptance claim that the principle derives from the notion that the Universal Church cannot accept a false rule of faith. Yet in this case, if there were Universal Acceptance of a non-pope as pope, well, that would seem to completely undermine this argument. I would have to say that MATERIAL error on the part of the Universal Church might be possible, even if formal error is not.

What do you say to that, Father?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #61 on:** October 21, 2019, 08:35:55 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on October 20, 2019, 04:15:10 PM

The words of Benedict XVI in his Declaratio of renunciation have been very carefully analyzed by Canon Law professor Stefano Violi, and have been demonstrated to be defective in manifesting the intention to renounce the Petrine munus, as I have amply explained in my book.

Sorry, but this sounds like technicalities, semantics, and word-smithing. Popes can't play these mind games where they say one thing, almost as if it were a mental reservation, allow the entire Church to think he's resigned, and then come out and say, "ah, I tricked you." Either that is what's happening or the alleged misuse of language by Benedict is nothing but a technicality that does not reflect his actual intention. In another context, he stated that the function he wished to hold on to was simply that of praying for the Pope and the Church. I don't see any real, concrete indication that he intended to remain Pope while merely delegating away some of his functions.

Besides that, if Bergoglio cannot be Pope due to manifest heresy, then the same thing holds for Ratzinger, who's only marginally less hereticaler than Bergoglio. Have you even studied the manifest heresy present in his books, heresies that he has never renounced?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #62 on:** October 21, 2019, 08:45:23 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2019, 08:26:05 AM

One of the typical arguments has been that Paul VI never intended to bind, but +Williamson takes that one off the table. Paul VI was clearly intending and attempting to bind the Church to V2 and the New Mass.

Oh, yes, I think there is no doubt at all on that issue, in light of Paul VI’s concluding speech at Vatican II:

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]“We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.“[/color]

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6closin.htm

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #63 on:** October 21, 2019, 08:52:12 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2019, 08:35:55 AM

Sorry, but this sounds like technicalities, semantics, and word-smithing. Popes can't play these mind games where they say one thing, almost as if it were a mental reservation, allow the entire Church to think he's resigned, and then come out and say, "ah, I tricked you."

This.^^^

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #64 on:** October 21, 2019, 09:00:45 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on October 20, 2019, 07:51:59 AM

Secondly, under certain specified conditions the universal acceptance of a claimant establishes the dogmatic fact that the individual in question is the valid pope.

Greetings Fr Kramer-

Could you please explain what, precisely, those specified conditions are?

I think this brings us to the heart of the universal acceptance issue (ie., when it applies, and when it does not apply).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #65 on:** October 21, 2019, 09:18:05 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 21, 2019, 08:45:23 AM

Oh, yes, I think there is no doubt at all on that issue, in light of Paul VI’s concluding speech at Vatican II:

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]“We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.“[/color]

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6closin.htm

Incidentally, this is one of my objections to the SSPX ralliement, which attempts to calm nerves every so often by declaring that not all conciliar docuмents are binding:

Paul VI says otherwise.

The real problem with this whole line of argumentation is that it implies some of the docuмents ARE binding (so it is a double error).

Of course, as stated above, none of it is binding (except insofar as it achieved binding status by repeating some previously defined or traditional doctrine).

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #66 on:** October 21, 2019, 09:36:21 AM »

If we read Cardinal Billot, we see that there is no doubt that it excludes a universally accepted Pope from being a heretic. "But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope ever becoming a heretic], at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself." https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/ Thus, we know with absolute certainty His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI was truly elected Pope in April 2005, and therefore is not a heretic.

But I don't think Cardinal Billot speaks about the possibility of a "second man being while elected while the reigning Pope sits. That is admittedly a little more complicated. But here's the thing for sede-doubtists, sede-impedists, sede-privationsts, or Bene-vacantists. Can you show us at least 1% of the Bishops, like just some 50 out of 5000, who believe and profess Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope.

In Ex Quo, Pope Benedict XIV says "it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter" https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm As far as I know, there are hardly even 10 Bishops with jurisdiction who do not do name the Pope as Pope in the canon. Can anyone show evidence to the contrary?

Fr. Hunter is clear that when Bishops all recognize the Pope, he is certainly Pope. Van Noort says this is an example of the OUM making a judgment on a dogmatic fact. If someone wants to make a case that Pope Francis is not the Pope, can he show at least 50 Bishops wit jurisdiction who are still "una cuм" Pope Benedict XVI? The same would be needed to be shown by any competing sede-theorists. It is the acceptance of the Bishops of the Teaching Church that declares it infallibly; Fr. Connell also makes this plain in a 1965 AER article.

Stubborn · « **Reply #67 on:** October 21, 2019, 09:45:10 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 21, 2019, 08:45:23 AM

Oh, yes, I think there is no doubt at all on that issue, in light of Paul VI’s concluding speech at Vatican II:

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]“We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.“[/color]

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6closin.htm

I disagree. There is only doubt on that issue.

Pope Paul VI is saying they decided that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by the faithful. The only way to say that that is binding us, is if you read into it what he does not say. Reading what he actually says, he is not binding us to anything at all.

If one believes that his decree is binding us, then they must believe that it only binds "those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future", whatever that means.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #68 on:** October 21, 2019, 09:48:46 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on October 21, 2019, 09:36:21 AM

If we read Cardinal Billot, we see that there is no doubt that it excludes a universally accepted Pope from being a heretic. "But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope ever becoming a heretic], at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself." https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/ Thus, we know with absolute certainty His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI was truly elected Pope in April 2005, and therefore is not a heretic.

But I don't think Cardinal Billot speaks about the possibility of a "second man being while elected while the reigning Pope sits. That is admittedly a little more complicated. But here's the thing for sede-doubtists, sede-impedists, sede-privationsts, or Bene-vacantists. Can you show us at least 1% of the Bishops, like just some 50 out of 5000, who believe and profess Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope.

In Ex Quo, Pope Benedict XIV says "it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter" https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm As far as I know, there are hardly even 10 Bishops with jurisdiction who do not do name the Pope as Pope in the canon. Can anyone show evidence to the contrary?

Fr. Hunter is clear that when Bishops all recognize the Pope, he is certainly Pope. Van Noort says this is an example of the OUM making a judgment on a dogmatic fact. If someone wants to make a case that Pope Francis is not the Pope, can he show at least 50 Bishops wit jurisdiction who are still "una cuм" Pope Benedict XVI? The same would be needed to be shown by any competing sede-theorists. It is the acceptance of the Bishops of the Teaching Church that declares it infallibly; Fr. Connell also makes this plain in a 1965 AER article.

I don’t think Billot’s (et al) argument is impeded by Fr. Kramer’s argument regarding universal acceptance being unable to unseat a reigning pope, because such a situation does not exist (for the reason Ladislaus adduced: Fr. Kramer has gotten to far down into the weeds regarding the minutiae and wording of BXVI’s resignation, and, with all respect, lost his common sense: Fr. Kramer is making more of the words than are there. Popes cannot partially resign in a way which leads the whole Church to follow an antipope).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #69 on:** October 21, 2019, 09:51:09 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 21, 2019, 09:45:10 AM

I disagree. There is only doubt on that issue.

Pope Paul VI is saying they decided that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by the faithful. The only way to say that that is binding us, is if you read into it what he does not say. Reading what he actually says, he is not binding us to anything at all.

If one believes that his decree is binding us, then they must believe that it only binds "those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future", whatever that means.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but as my follow-up post mentioned, I DO NOT believe it is binding. I only meant that Paul VI considered it binding.

Stubborn · « **Reply #70 on:** October 21, 2019, 10:02:47 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 21, 2019, 09:51:09 AM

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but as my follow-up post mentioned, I DO NOT believe it is binding. I only meant that Paul VI considered it binding.

Good then. Just reading that paragraph a few times in the last few days gives me a headache.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #71 on:** October 21, 2019, 10:14:49 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 21, 2019, 08:04:00 AM

Is that because the author, as a sedevacantist, considers there is no heirarchy to render consent (ecclesiavacantism)?

No , I think he said there was a remnant of the hierarchy in his response:
they must do it soon, while there is still a handful of valid (and possibly lawful) Catholic bishops left in the world who could consecrate a new Pope, if necessary. Perhaps our information put out through I.S.O.C. will create an international awareness that will motivate the octogenarian clergy in Rome in a way not seen before.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #72 on:** October 21, 2019, 10:34:46 AM »

The evidence of history seems to indicate that material errors in the realm of opinions on open questions have at times gained widespread, and even general acceptance; but the whole Church has certainly never unanimously professed such errors to be Church doctrine, nor in matters of doctrine on closed questions decided by the universal magisterium, has the whole Church erred by holding a contrary opinion on such questions. This point merits further study IMHO.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #73 on:** October 27, 2019, 05:12:23 PM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on October 21, 2019, 04:53:41 AM

Secondly, under certain specified conditions the universal acceptance of a claimant establishes the dogmatic fact that the individual in question is the valid pope. Such a dogmatic fact is a matter of divine law, which cannot be nullified by the mere legislation of any human power. (If it did not pertain to divine law, it could not establish a dogmatic fact.) Therefore, the ruling of Paul IV (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio), confirmed by Pius V (Inter Multiplices), which sets forth the nullity of an election of a pope who is subsequently discovered to be a heretic, even if he receives universal acceptance (adorationem, seu ei praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam), is not a nerely ecclesiastical law enacted by a pope, but is an application of divine law which establishes that universal acceptance does not heal at the root the invalid election of a heretic.

Yes (de jure). But he’s still, de facto, occupying the seat in Rome and the one selected by the cardinals to be pope. Neither our minds nor eyes are wrong here - putting aside the current two pope situation and not touching that; let us say the situation of, for example, JPII.

Which is why I allow the opinions of both Sedevacantists and R & R and and consider them both brothers united in the true, saving faith, and am not dogmatic about it.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #74 on:** October 28, 2019, 04:40:17 AM »

Matthew says, 《Gajewski? He's a complete nobody!》 But what about Matthew? (Matthew WHO???) There is something of an incongruity here, in that a complete nobody says someone else is a "complete nobody".

Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 43564 times)

Ladislaus

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

Ladislaus

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

SeanJohnson

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

SeanJohnson

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

SeanJohnson

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

SeanJohnson

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

Nishant Xavier

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

Stubborn

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

SeanJohnson

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

SeanJohnson

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

Stubborn

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

josefamenendez

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

Don Paolo

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

DecemRationis

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

Don Paolo

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