Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 43460 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #15 on:** October 18, 2019, 10:48:25 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 18, 2019, 08:55:41 AM

I am still inclined to endorse this opinion.

While having conceded the point regarding Archbishop Lefebvre and his tolerance of people privately entertaining the possibility of sedevacantism, the authority I spoke with was less certain on the matter of dogmatic facts and the pope.

I got the impression from his sudden interjection when I raised the issue that he himself had not yet internalized that issue, and when he said he would have to go back and study the manuals, it rather confirmed that opinion.

Yet, I also concede Ladislaus’s argument:

If in fact the identity of Francis (or JPII) is a dogmatic fact, and therefore binding, how could Archbishop Lefebvre say things which implied sedevacantism was a possibility here and now?

The authority I spoke with seemed to think -while still wanting to review, and not coming to a definitive judgment in the matter- that the theologians unanimously erred (ie., “they could not have foreseen the possibility of a crisis of this magnitude.”). Against this explanation is a quote from QVD in my apology/retraction thread which shows that at least one of them did.

My conclusion is that although I am persuaded by the unanimous consent argument, and cannot see how such consent could not have existed for the conciliar popes, nevertheless, I am uncomfortably trapped by Ladislaus’s observation, for which I have no good response:

If I say Francis’ papacy is not a dogmatic fact, I reject the unanimous opinion of minds much greater than mine, but if I say it is a dogmatic fact then I would appear to be at odds with Lefebvre (who I would have to acknowledge implicitly rejected a dogmatic fact by acknowledging the possibility of sedevacantism, and privately tolerating that opinion).

The only solutions I can conceive of (none of which are particularly persuasive) are:

1) There is some yet to be explained reason why the pre-conciliar popes were dogmatic facts, and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes were/are not;

2) Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong;

3) The unanimous consent of theologians was wrong.

I sense the solution lies somewhere within #1?

1) Could the solution be that, despite both the pre and post-conciliar pope’s having received universal consent, the former were not suspected of heresy (and were therefore dogmatic facts) whereas the conciliar/post conciliar popes were/are suspected of heresy (and therefore are not dogmatic facts)?

2) Moreover, the theologians did not discuss universal consent and dogmatic fact within the context of an heretical pope?

3) Moreover, that universal consent and dogmatic fact concerns the acceptance by the Church as an infallible sign regarding election only, but not as regards MAINTAINING the papacy (which would shift the conversation to the Bellarmine-Suarez-Cajetan-John of St Thomas discussion?

But then, if dogmatic fact only concerns election, and not exercise of the papacy over time, does this rule out #1 above?

Am I on the right track here?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** October 18, 2019, 10:48:35 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on October 18, 2019, 08:15:42 AM

"Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.

This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied."

So am I a heretic if I don't believe that his birthday was 3 days later?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2019, 10:53:50 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 18, 2019, 08:55:41 AM

Yet, I also concede Ladislaus’s argument:

If in fact the identity of Francis (or JPII) is a dogmatic fact, and therefore binding, how could Archbishop Lefebvre say things which implied sedevacantism was a possibility here and now?

What I draw from this is that the Archbishop did not consider their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact. I don't either. According to XavierSem's position, then, +Lefebvre was a heretic ... right alongside me. Now, you could say that he was mistaken or confused and therefore only a material heretic, but the logic of the syllogism is pretty airtight. If it's dogmatic fact, then to doubt it is heresy. So either it's not actually dogmatic fact or else +Lefebvre was a heretic (whether material or formal is entirely in God's judgment). You can't have it both ways, XavierSem.

Because of their atrocities committed against the faith, due to it being questionable that these men were even Catholic, there's positive doubt regarding their legitimacy. I feel that +Lefebvre believed this as well. That is why I have said in the past that +Lefebvre is a "sede-doubtist" like myself, or, at the very least a non-dogmatic-factist. I know that it might sound like I just make things up, but I think through every thing I write or say or think with strict logical rigor; I do not like to just pull gratuitous statements out of thin air.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:00:30 AM »

XavierSem, you at least have to state: "Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong on this matter." If you admit this, then I'll concede that at least you're being intellectually honest. If you continue to insist that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact and at the same time that +Lefebvre was not wrong, then you are exposed as being of bad will ... due to maintaining two logically-contradictory positions at the same time. Now, I have also repeatedly accused people of being bad-willed. That too is something I think through before I write it. I do not say that lightly. And I am not somehow privy to the internal forum regarding their sincerity. It's an external-forum judgment based on the fact that a person holds contradictory positions at the same time and then, when shown that they're contradictory, refuses to budge from either proposition or conclusion.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #19 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:06:39 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 18, 2019, 10:53:50 AM

What I draw from this is that the Archbishop did not consider their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact. I don't either. According to XavierSem's position, then, +Lefebvre was a heretic ... right alongside me. Now, you could say that he was mistaken or confused and therefore only a material heretic, but the logic of the syllogism is pretty airtight. If it's dogmatic fact, then to doubt it is heresy. So either it's not actually dogmatic fact or else +Lefebvre was a heretic (whether material or formal is entirely in God's judgment). You can't have it both ways, XavierSem.

Because of their atrocities committed against the faith, due to it being questionable that these men were even Catholic, there's positive doubt regarding their legitimacy. I feel that +Lefebvre believed this as well. That is why I have said in the past that +Lefebvre is a "sede-doubtist" like myself, or, at the very least a non-dogmatic-factist. I know that it might sound like I just make things up, but I think through every thing I write or say or think with strict logical rigor; I do not like to just pull gratuitous statements out of thin air.

This is another brain-boggler for me:

I think Xavier produced a quote in the old thread of Lefebvre making the universal consent argument (which might -??- be taken to show him making the dogmatic fact argument).

Yet he also permitted the entertainment of the possibility that the see was vacant (which would contradict the above).

What is the explanation?

1) Too much is made of the quote interpreted to argue he saw the conciliar popes as dogmatic facts?

2) Too much is made of the quotes permitting sedevacantist opinion?

3) Incoherence?

4) Change of opinion (practical vs systematic thinker)?

5) Other?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:13:56 AM »

My wife has chided me at times for being excessively "analytical". By nature I tend to subject everything to logical rigor. It's just the way my brain naturally. And then once I was armed with the scholastic logic I learned at seminary, well, that greatly amplified the natural tendency that was already there.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:22:30 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 18, 2019, 11:06:39 AM

This is another brain-boggler for me:

I think Xavier produced a quote in the old thread of Lefebvre making the universal consent argument (which might -??- be taken to show him making the dogmatic fact argument).

Yet he also permitted the entertainment of the possibility that the see was vacant (which would contradict the above).

What is the explanation?

1) Too much is made of the quote interpreted to argue he saw the conciliar popes as dogmatic facts?

2) Too much is made of the quotes permitting sedevacantist opinion?

3) Incoherence?

4) Change of opinion (practical vs systematic thinker)?

5) Other?

For me it's not difficult to understand. Universal Acceptance is a very real principle that has in fact been held by nearly all theologians. But the question is whether that applies in this case and whether such Universal Peaceful Acceptance exists. That is the real question, but we needn't necessarily go through it here. That's where one's mind could go back and forth.

Now, another poster brought up a great historical example, that of one Pope who was legitimately elected and universally accepted, but then hauled off and jailed by an impious emperor. After he was removed, there was the election of another, who in turn was universally accepted as the new pope. But how can that be? So perhaps the principle needs to include legitimate election + universal acceptance. Let's say the Cardinal Siri incident actually happened as theorized. Siri was legitimately elected, then pushed aside by the conclave, illegitimately, and the conclave then trots out an illegitimately elected person. In that case, the Church would have universally accepted him. Does that acceptance overrule or overturn an illegitimate election? I don't think it can. To your point, I doubt that any of the universal acceptance proponents among the theologians could possibly have envisioned this type of crisis.

So, to the point, this is an extremely difficult and confusing time in the history of the Church, and it's easy to see how one might be conflicted and have their mind go back and forth from, at one time, considering one probability to be more likely, and, at another time, another one more probable. That's what we saw with the Archbishop. When Wojtyla was elected, he was more hopeful. But then Assisi happened, and that atrocity against the faith caused +Lefebvre to consider it more and more likely that the man was not even a Catholic. It was around the time of that blasphemy that he came a hair's breadth from himself openly coming out as sedevacantist. Bishop de Castro Mayer did in fact become a sedevacantist.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:30:37 AM »

To imagine the notion of Universal Acceptance, I pretend that I'm a Catholic during the reign of Pius XII. It has not entered anyone's wildest fancy that Pius XII might not be the pope. As far as everyone is concerned, it's as sure as the dogma he defined. Now THAT is true universal peaceful acceptance.

Once I imagine that for a while, is today's situation anywhere NEAR the same thing? There's nothing but confusion and doubt among TRUE Catholics, those who still hold the faith (mostly to be equated with Traditional Catholics), as to ... just who ARE these men? and what is this thing called Vatican II and the New Mass? We do not recognize these as Catholic. Do we recognize these V2 papal claimants as a rule of faith? Not even close; we might even call them an anti-rule. Theologians derived universal acceptance from the proposition that the Church cannot accept a false rule of faith. But we do not accept these men as rules of faith ... even if we might quibble about the technicalities of what their legal status might be.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #23 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:38:37 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 18, 2019, 11:22:30 AM

Now, another poster brought up a great historical example, that of one Pope who was legitimately elected and universally accepted, but then hauled off and jailed by an impious emperor. After he was removed, there was the election of another, who in turn was universally accepted as the new pope. But how can that be?

When I read Billot and others on universal acceptance, they seem not to care that a pope could gain office by unsavory means (simony, etc), but are only concerned that he gained that universal consent.

IF that is true, then it would seem not to matter if a reigning pope were hauled off and jailed, and a usurper put in place:

If that usurper has gained universal consent, he becomes a legitimate pope, despite the intrigue, they seem to say.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #24 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:41:17 AM »

Again, I encourage everyone interested in the question to read or re-read Apologia Pro Marcel +Lefebvre fully for themselves. Cekada openly rebelled against +ABL in 1983, and admitted he would have done so again 1988, if he had not already done so in 1983. Cekada also admitted he used to play this game of trying to pit the Archbishop's own words against himself, while the Archbishop was still alive. So why are we taking Cekada's word for it again, or relying on a few out of context quotes he strung together, to discern +ABL's view? Read as many of Archbishop Lefebvre's own words, in their full context, and then try to come to a balanced outlook on the matter.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/index.htm Here are some of the statements, among many others, that I base my understanding of +ABL's approach on:

I. "I may make so bold as to reaffirm my consistent position.1. I have no reservation whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness." http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_41.htm

II. Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.

III. The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? ... Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid." http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

IV. Also, "Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight ...It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable." http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_41.htm

Most of these statements were in the late 70s and early 80s. The last one was in 1983. In the other thread, Sean showed about 5 statements, mostly in 88-91 I believe, where +ABL again said sede-vacantism was not a solution.

In the middle years, especially near the Assisi events, you will find a few statements where Archbishop Lefebvre (1) wonders if the Pope may have lost his office, or if (2) it is incuмbent on H.G. and his brother Bishops to declare it. But ultimately, +ABL decided against it.

I believe Archbishop Lefebvre was a Saint, and specially raised up by God in His Merciful Providence to help us deal with this crisis. Of course, even a Saint need not be infallible, but generally speaking, a Saint is a safe guide in the right approach like 99% of the time.

I believe the way to solve it as follows (1) The validity and legitimacy of the election itself (as evinced by quote 1 above) is certainly a fact established beyond doubt, otherwise His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre would not have said that, he himself, personally had no doubt on the matter of the election. (2) The possibility of a Pope validly elected later losing his pontificate cannot a priori be ruled out. It may even have to be judged on by the Bishops, such as Archbishop Lefebvre was. We are not Bishops, so we don't have to concern ourselves with it, unless, at the least, like 1% of Bishops at least say it is time to declare the Pope deposed for heresy. (3) The question of Archbishop Lefebvre privately tolerating, or even less, making allowance for limited subjective culpability and possible good faith on the part of some non-dogmatic sedevacantists, seems even less of an issue. Even Bishop Fellay told an Svist, he didn't agree with him on that, but he understood why he was one, yet I don't think anyone would accuse His Excellency of being a Sedevacantist. With the above 3 principles, I believe, most of the statements of +ABL are explained. I also want to point out PBXVI's status in 2005 has naught to do with +ABL. The simple question before us is, was Pope Benedict XVI's valid election in 2005 a dogmatic fact? +ABL wasn't alive then. So why the appeal then? My answer is, yes it was. So, then, is everyone who says otherwise automatically a heretic? I didn't say that. I said it is an objective mortal sin against the Faith to deny that Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected in 2005, and I stand by it. Subjective culpability we leave to God.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #25 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:44:53 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 18, 2019, 11:38:37 AM

When I read Billot and others on universal acceptance, they seem not to care that a pope could gain office by unsavory means (simony, etc), but are only concerned that he gained that universal consent.

IF that is true, then it would seem not to matter if a reigning pope were hauled off and jailed, and a usurper put in place:

If that usurper has gained universal consent, he becomes a legitimate pope, despite the intrigue, they seem to say.

I have a bit of a problem with that, since it seems to savor of Conciliarism. Everybody concedes the principles that ...

1) a man who's legitimately accepted becomes pope immediately after he accepts the election
2) no human power can strip the pope of his papacy once he has it

So, once he HAS it, how can he have it taken from him by any human agency? ... well, apart from actually killing him.

This just doesn't seem right.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #26 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:45:12 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 18, 2019, 11:30:37 AM

To imagine the notion of Universal Acceptance, I pretend that I'm a Catholic during the reign of Pius XII. It has not entered anyone's wildest fancy that Pius XII might not be the pope. As far as everyone is concerned, it's as sure as the dogma he defined. Now THAT is true universal peaceful acceptance.

Once I imagine that for a while, is today's situation anywhere NEAR the same thing? There's nothing but confusion and doubt among TRUE Catholics, those who still hold the faith (mostly to be equated with Traditional Catholics), as to ... just who ARE these men? and what is this thing called Vatican II and the New Mass? We do not recognize these as Catholic. Do we recognize these V2 papal claimants as a rule of faith? Not even close; we might even call them an anti-rule. Theologians derived universal acceptance from the proposition that the Church cannot accept a false rule of faith. But we do not accept these men as rules of faith ... even if we might quibble about the technicalities of what their legal status might be.

I think I am starting to agree with this.

It seems also to coincide with my question earlier about how to explain why pre-conciliar papacies could be dogmatic facts, but conciliar papacies not be (ie., because pre-conciliar papacies we’re not suspect of heresy, but the conciliar papacies are).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #27 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:49:34 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 18, 2019, 11:44:53 AM

I have a bit of a problem with that, since it seems to savor of Conciliarism. Everybody concedes the principles that ...

1) a man who's legitimately accepted becomes pope immediately after he accepts the election
2) no human power can strip the pope of his papacy once he has it

So, once he HAS it, how can he have it taken from him by any human agency? ... well, apart from actually killing him.

This just doesn't seem right.

Well, I’m still thinking it all through, but my initial thought would be the Cajetan/JST explanation (ie., the bishops cannot depose the pope, but they can declare the fact of his heresy, and if Bellarmine is correct that an heretical pope is ipso facto deposed -by Christ- then a 2nd declaration by the bishops could declare that fact as well. This would rid us of the heretical pope).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** October 18, 2019, 11:53:48 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 18, 2019, 11:45:12 AM

I think I am starting to agree with this.
It seems also to coincide with my question earlier about how to explain why pre-conciliar papacies could be dogmatic facts, but conciliar papacies not be (ie., because pre-conciliar papacies we’re not suspect of heresy, but the conciliar papacies are).

Yes, this is where I've landed also. Let's say that a hypothetical man is elected pope. He has universal acceptance ... for a time. But then he starts blurting out all kinds of heretical things. Soon a handful of people start questioning him. What if, then, a significant number of Catholics start questioning him. At what point is that acceptance no longer universal? I believe that the process of the Church becoming aware of a man being a non-Catholic could be very progressive and gradual ... especially where 95%+ of the material Church hold the very same errors that the man in question does. When 95%+ of Novus Ordo Catholics have wholeheartedly embraced, say, religious indifferentism, then what does their judgment of Francis' orthodoxy even mean? Traditional Catholics have been questioning their orthodoxy for a very long time now, but they are merely outnumbered by heretics. But at one point the Arians greatly outnumbered orthodox Catholics. What would their opinion have meant if they had "accepted" some Arian pope as a true Catholic? Nothing, IMO. So I do not consider the opinion of the Conciliar establishment as having a great deal of weight when it comes to defining "universal acceptance". I look at Traditional Catholics, and the vast majority of them have serious questions in their minds about who these men are, because we do not recognize them, in the final analysis, as fellow Catholics but as being alien to us. That to me is more what Universal Acceptance means, recognizing the man as Catholic, as a rule of faith and not just saying, "well, I don't really think these guys are Catholic, or at the most they're barely Catholic, but they were elected, you know." Resignation to their material occupancy of the positions of authority does not constitute true acceptance.

So long as we're in a position that we're asking these exact questions, as +Lefebvre did, we are most certainly not dogmatic about their legitimacy by any stretch, and don't even come close to the condition of acceptance had by the pre-Conciliar popes.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #29 on:** October 18, 2019, 12:01:15 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 18, 2019, 11:49:34 AM

Well, I’m still thinking it all through, but my initial thought would be the Cajetan/JST explanation (ie., the bishops cannot depose the pope, but they can declare the fact of his heresy, and if Bellarmine is correct that an heretical pope is ipso facto deposed -by Christ- then a 2nd declaration by the bishops could declare that fact as well. This would rid us of the heretical pope).

I'm undecided. And the good thing is that I, as a layman, will never be called upon God to make this decision. I can only go about the business of trying to save my own soul. Now, the only reason I care about their status is to inform my own conscience, to determine whether my resistance to the V2 hierarchy is justified before God.

Here's the thing, if it weren't for Vatican II and the New Mass, and all these other abominations, if we had a Pope still offering the Traditional Mass, not teaching error to the Church, but just blurting out heretical things in private, I could hardly care less and would consider it "not my problem". Let the Cardinals and hierarchy sort that out. The ONLY reason I care is because they have taught things and promulgated disciplines that seem to militate against the salvation of my soul and which, in my judgment, displease and offend God.

Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 43460 times)

SeanJohnson

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!

SeanJohnson

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!

SeanJohnson

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

Nishant Xavier

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!

Ladislaus

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

Ladislaus

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