Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 46971 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #210 on:** November 11, 2019, 12:54:40 PM »

PaxChristi2, these quotes have been posted so many times, yet they are consistently and willfully ignored. You might as well save your time. Most people in this debate have their “favorite quotes” memorized, like mindless Protestants, and refuse (or are intellectually unable) to acknowledge any facts to the contrary. They are defending an agenda and aren’t open to challenges of their small-minded worldview.
.
I’m not saying that this quote stops the debate but it does give credence to the fact that a council is not a crazy idea.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #211 on:** November 11, 2019, 12:56:19 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on November 11, 2019, 12:51:10 PM

Well, Ladislaus, you quoted me, so I'm answering, but I think my opinion differs slightly from Salza's and Siscoe's on this. At least, I'm not sure if they see it in the same way I see it. The way I perceive the sequence of events to unfold is as I gave above. So, in (2) itself, we have the Pope, after the fact of his pertinacity is now publicly manifest, losing the office. Only in (4), we have the Church declaring the Pope deposed, after which it becomes binding. And after it has become binding, the Church can act on the fact, for e.g. by electing a new Pope. That's my opinion. Your thoughts?

I don't disagree with you. In fact, what you're enunciating is similar to some of the principles behind sedeprivationism.

But Salza and Siscoe hold that the pope continues to have full papal authority even after his heresy becomes public. Consequently, he would have the right to forbid and to immediately shut down any such Council, and he would have the right to replace every single bishop in the Church if he so desire.

Kelley · « **Reply #212 on:** November 11, 2019, 01:00:25 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on November 11, 2019, 07:05:46 AM

Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal say Fr. Kramer's original ordination is valid and is not in need of re-ordination. Fr. Kramer use to assist the SSPX back in the old days in the Philippines and just a couple of years ago offered mass at Fr. Chazel's "bamboo seminary."

Thank you for this information.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #213 on:** November 11, 2019, 01:07:53 PM »

Quote

As I mentioned before, this is about testing the principle, and the PRINCIPLE fails due to argumentum ad absurdum.

Not every principle can be tested (and ruled a failure) by the “absurdity” test. The principle in play is of a governmental, TEMPORAL jurisdiction, and a practical question. This has nothing to do with morality or faith or spiritual jurisdiction. This is part of the Church’s governmental/human law, not the Divine/spiritual law. Hence, there is not necessarily a right answer (being that we don’t live in a perfect world). There is only a “best case” answer. Nothing in government or of human origins is perfect, and this applies to the Church as well.
.
This situation is akin to a war zone. The Church is faced with a decision on how to act in an imperfect scenario. The ONLY perfect, 100% pure solution to the crisis is to pray and wait for God to remove the heretic pope by death. All other solutions are of human means, therefore they aren’t perfect and can’t be tested as such.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #214 on:** November 11, 2019, 01:24:26 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on November 11, 2019, 11:42:29 AM

Cardinal Billot: "And let this be an incidental remark against those who want to join in giving a respectable appearance to the undoubted schismatic efforts made in the time of Alexander VI on the ground that they were made by one who persisted in saying that the most certain evidence in the matter of the heretical state of Alexander VI had to be disclosed in a general Council. However, so as to forego at the present moment other arguments whereby this opinion of his could be easily refuted, this one [argument] alone is sufficient: It is certainly well known that in the time in which Savanarola was writing his letters to princes, all Christendom adhered to and obeyed Alexander as the true pontiff. Therefore, by that fact, Alexander was not a false pontiff. Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever." https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/ The determination must come from the Church, both of the heresy and of public pertinacity in it: private judgment of public pertinacity most certainly doesn't suffice here

That's not the case today. Not even the SSPX clerics obey Frank. But neither do the liberal clerics in the Conciliar sect. Nor do Resistance clerics. Nor do sede vacantist clerics. Frank and his post V2 predecessors have been among the least obeyed "popes" in history. Cardinal Billot doesn't condemn St. Vincent Ferrer, does he? Therefore your argument falls apart.

forlorn · « **Reply #215 on:** November 11, 2019, 01:24:36 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 11, 2019, 09:15:43 AM

"Private interpretation" is a loaded term. It has bad connotations. And I think it is being used in the wrong context here. To see why, consider the Great Western Schism. Was St. Catherine of Siena using private interpretation when she submitted to Pope Urban VI? At the same time, was St. Vincent Ferrer using private interpretation when he submitted to Clement VII? If you read about the circuмstances you will understand why it was difficult to know at the time who was the true Roman Pontiff. We are all responsible for identifying where the Church is. If some man wearing a roman collar opens a church in your neighborhood and claims to be the Catholic Church, you are responsible for knowing whether his claim is true or not. Sometimes it will be very easy to know and other times it will be more difficult. We happen to be living in a time when it is more difficult. But it was also difficult during the Great Western Schism and we had multiple saints who chose the wrong guy and were still canonized afterwards. But in the GWS case, at least both claimants actually professed the Catholic faith. Today, the guy wearing the white cassock is worshipping demons and yet still Catholics are calling him the pope. I'm not expecting those Catholics to be canonized when the smoke clears.

Well that's kinda the point. The fact that even learned and holy saints guessed wrong proves the peril of private interpretation, and the fact that people were left to private interpretation as to who the pope was is largely why the Schism lasted so long. Most likely not even the popes themselves were sure who the real pope was. My point is that any General Council to depose a heretical pope would lead us to a situation just as bad as the GWS at the very least by virtue of the fact it'd split the Church in two, with Catholics forced to use private interpretation to decide which side is correct.

forlorn · « **Reply #216 on:** November 11, 2019, 01:28:49 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 11, 2019, 12:54:40 PM

PaxChristi2, these quotes have been posted so many times, yet they are consistently and willfully ignored. You might as well save your time. Most people in this debate have their “favorite quotes” memorized, like mindless Protestants, and refuse (or are intellectually unable) to acknowledge any facts to the contrary. They are defending an agenda and aren’t open to challenges of their small-minded worldview.
.
I’m not saying that this quote stops the debate but it does give credence to the fact that a council is not a crazy idea.

St. Bellarmine saying that the pope doesn't need to call the council doesn't address the fact that (a) we can't be sure of its legitimacy if it lacks papal approval, and (b) if you believe the S&S theory(as opposed to the material-formal version), the pope still has the power to close the council and depose all the bishops who were part of it before they're able to depose him.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #217 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:10:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I don't disagree with you. In fact, what you're enunciating is similar to some of the principles behind sedeprivationism.

Right. If we mostly agree on the principles, the next question becomes, how do we proceed? And even more fundamentally, have even 1% of the Bishops of the Teaching Church today (whom we both agree must pronounce the declaratory sentence, right?) agreed to proceed to making such a declaration. The two Bishops, imho, who are the most likely to consider it, would probably be Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Raymond Burke. Cardinal Burke has said, loss of office would be automatic, but H.E. obviously doesn't believe it has happened yet, and continues to refer to the Pope as Pope, even while criticizing many of his actions and statements. And Bp. Athanasius seems to be of the view that a heretic-Pope is a rare event to which the Church has no other defense than to "last it out" and of course to contradict the Pope, as H.E. did in the Abu Dhabi falsehood, the pachamama idolatry, and other such things. But, what about the other 5000+ Bishops in the Church? So, it doesn't seem to me, Ladislaus, that this kind of thing can even get off the ground until we have at least 50 Bishops who are ready to consider declaring loss of office. What do you think about that?

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Cardinal Billot doesn't condemn St. Vincent Ferrer, does he?

No, Clemens Maria. He doesn't. But he explains why Savonarola was wrong. Savonarola was convinced the Pope was a heretic. There may seem to be grounds for us to presume pertinacity (as there seemed to be to Savonarola also), but it's ultimately not up to us to decide imho.

Quote from: Pax Vobis

The Church is faced with a decision on how to act in an imperfect scenario. The ONLY perfect, 100% pure solution to the crisis is to pray and wait for God to remove the heretic pope by death.

That could be a temporary solution, perhaps, Pax. But what happens when the next Pope is elected, if he also is a flaming liberal Catholic? The only long term solution imho is for the Pope to become the Saint that God Wills him to be, but which his own free-will prevents him from becoming or even wanting to be. God calls us all to strive for a high degree of sanctity amidst the responsibilities of our own state in life. The best contribution each and all of us in our own small measure can make toward Church Restoration and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart is to strive in our own lives to attain that level of sanctity that God Wills for each of us. St. Leonard said, "take my advice and in every Holy Mass ask God to make you a great saint. Does this seem too much? It is not too much. Is it not our good Master who proclaims in the Gospel that, for a cup of cold water given out of love of him, he will, in return, give paradise? How, then, while offering to God the blood of his most blessed Son, should he not give you a hundred heavens, were there so many?" Let us begin right away and start praying every day both for ourselves to become so, and for Pope Francis, or the Cardinal or Bishop whom God has foreknown and predestined to succeed him, to become the saints that God and the Church needs them to be. That's the only solution imo.

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #218 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:24:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 11, 2019, 11:54:37 AM

Some of what John of St. Thomas taught came to be heretical after Vatican I.

What dogma did Vatican I define that contradicted anything John of St. Thomas wrote?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #219 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:30:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 11, 2019, 12:44:44 PM

You may think you don't believe it, but the way your draw our your thesis, that's effectively what you're doing ... subjecting the Pope to the Council.

Decrees of the First Vatican Council
SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
Para 8
"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff."

I see no distinction between a coercive and discretionary judgement. Also, PaxChristi2 (Salza & Siscoe) is falsely assuming (just as XavierSem does) that there is in fact peaceful acceptance of the Conciliar popes. But that is now manifestly false and even now the man whom they claim to be pope is worshipping demons in the Vatican Gardens. Even the conservative Novus Ordo folks are coming to the realization that this man cannot be the pope. And even Salza & Siscoe admit that a pope who publicly severs the external bonds of unity with the Church would immediately and without a declaration fall from the papacy. So now the only question is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Frank has publicly severed the bonds of unity. But there is no guidance from the theologians that only if a pope says, "I quit the Catholic Church" that then and only then could we conclude that he has fallen. I guarantee that S&S will fall into line with the SSPX clerics if ever they finally decide enough is enough and switch over to supporting the idea that Frank publicly and at least tacitly resigned his claim to the papacy. I think Salza and Siscoe are not principled in this regard. They are just going along with whatever the SSPX clerics decide and the SSPX clerics are nothing if not pragmatic. If they see the wind blowing towards the tacit resignation opinion, they will go along with it.

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #220 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:42:24 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on November 11, 2019, 01:40:02 PM

Ladislaus: "But Salza and Siscoe hold that the pope continues to have full papal authority even after his heresy becomes public. Consequently, he would have the right to forbid and to immediately shut down any such Council, and he would have the right to replace every single bishop in the Church if he so desire.

Siscoe and Salza believe if there are multiple doubtful Popes (such as during the Great Western Schism), or a pope who is suspected from heresy, the true Pope amongst the doubtful ones, and the true Pope who is suspected of heresy, lack the authority to prevent a council from convening to resolve the matter, and lacks the authority to dissolve the council while it is considering the matter.

Quote

Bellator Dei: "This ^^ is the main problem with Salza and Siscoe.

From what I understand, they (Salza and Siscoe) don't believe one can be considered a heretic without a formal declaration from the Church...which is absurd, if that's true.

Nope, that's not what they believe.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #221 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:54:23 PM »

If it is metaphysically impossible for an inferior to accept the resignation of a superior, it must also be metaphysically impossible for an inferior to make a discretionary judgement on a superior. I think Ladislaus has it right when he says that any discretionary judgement being made by the Cardinals or a Council is not being made on the pope (the superior) but on the man's claim to the papacy. And that discretionary judgement presupposes that there is NOT universal peaceful acceptance of the claim. So S&S can't have their cake and eat it too. They can't claim UPA and then also claim that Cardinals could make a discretionary judgement on the man that everyone obeys as the true pope. So which is it? Is their UPA or not? If there is UPA then you have no business rejecting the magisterium of the man who is peacefully accepted as the true pope. Or if there isn't UPA, then you have no business criticizing people for rejecting Frank the demon-worshipping heretic's claim to the papacy.

forlorn · « **Reply #222 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:58:15 PM »

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 11, 2019, 02:42:24 PM

Siscoe and Salza believe if there are multiple doubtful Popes (such as during the Great Western Schism), or a pope who is suspected from heresy, the true Pope amongst the doubtful ones, and the true Pope who is suspected of heresy, lack the authority to prevent a council from convening to resolve the matter, and lacks the authority to dissolve the council while it is considering the matter.

Nope, that's not what they believe.

And how are we to know that the council is a true council? Even true councils can act and teach in error when they are not doing so in union with the pope. The Council of Constance, the one which ended the GWS and elected Martin V, taught in error regarding conciliar infallibility during its period of sede vacante. And even for centuries after Constance it was disputed which popes of the GWS were true popes and which were anti-popes(for example, Alexander V reigned in opposition to the Roman line who we recognise as popes today, yet Pope Alexander VI numbered himself after him, and Alexander V was included in most lists of popes).

Point is, councils without the direction of a pope really aren't much help. Constance only worked out because the two claimants who the vast majority of Christendom backed both agreed to step down to elect a new pope, and any remaining doubt was removed by the anti-pope of Avignon agreeing to step down just a few years thereafter. Had it not been for the good wills of those men, Constance would've been powerless. Indeed, the first council that attempted to resolve the schism, the Council of Pisa, just made matters worse by creating a third papal claimant.

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #223 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:59:13 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 11, 2019, 02:30:23 PM

Also, PaxChristi2 (Salza & Siscoe) is falsely assuming (just as XavierSem does) that there is in fact peaceful acceptance of the Conciliar popes.

What do the theologians say is required for the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #224 on:** November 11, 2019, 03:06:23 PM »

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 11, 2019, 02:59:13 PM

What do the theologians say is required for the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope?

http://sedevacantist.com/believe.html

Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 46971 times)

Pax Vobis

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

Ladislaus

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

Kelley

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

Pax Vobis

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

Clemens Maria

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

forlorn

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

forlorn

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

Nishant Xavier

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

PaxChristi2

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

Clemens Maria

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

PaxChristi2

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

Clemens Maria

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

forlorn

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

PaxChristi2

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

Clemens Maria

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