Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: s2srea on June 06, 2011, 08:14:47 AM
-
I was reading parts of another thread here which related to Sede Vecantism and was thinking about the position. Is it wrong? No. As long as it remains an opinion, which for most it seems to, it can not be wrong for it is an opinion. But two opinions don't make a right, right? My personal opinion is that I'm blind, or at least naive, to think that these men aren't heretics. But thats an opinion as well.
However, I tend to see much effort put in to the previous 3 and/or 4 popes as an attempt to show why these men could not possibly hold the Seat of Peter. From extensive St. Bellarmine quotations, to archived docuмents and interviews, etc. But here's what I'm sort of thinking:
If everyone on Cathinfo was magically made a Cardinal today, then I could understand the reason for trying to proclaim wether or not these popes were indeed popes or not, and of course to proclaim all of their heresies. We would have the duty, I believe, to make it known to the world that these men, outside of a last minute conversion from God, were not Catholic, and most definitely did not act as Catholics much of the time.
However, we are not Cardinals. And as such, our only duty is to recognize what is and isn't Catholic and live a holy life attempt to get to Heaven (simplified I know). It is not within our power to proclaim what office these men did or did not hold as I hope future Cardinals will.
-
I personally think Benedict is more-so a modernist than a heretic. I agree that it is not the place of lay-people to judge the Pope, only under a circuмstance such as a Pope being a Freemason or something may we declare the Pope an anti-pope.
-
I agree that it is not the place of lay-people to judge the Pope...
It is not the place of cardinals or a council to judge him, either.
-
I agree that it is not the place of lay-people to judge the Pope...
It is not the place of cardinals or a council to judge him, either.
Thanks for the correction GV- how about 'determine legitimacy of office"?
-
I agree that it is not the place of lay-people to judge the Pope...
It is not the place of cardinals or a council to judge him, either.
Thanks for the correction GV- how about 'determine legitimacy of office"?
That doesn't work either, unless he's a public heretic.
-
I agree that it is not the place of lay-people to judge the Pope...
It is not the place of cardinals or a council to judge him, either.
Thanks for the correction GV- how about 'determine legitimacy of office"?
That doesn't work either, unless he's a public heretic.
Exactly- it would still be the place of the Cardinals to make any determinations.
-
Yesterday I had the fortune of seeing John Vennari at our chapel where he gave a very good lecture for a couple of hours. Afterwards there was a brief question period where someone asked if he would ever consider the see of peter to be vacant. He said no. Anyhow in his explanation he stated the possibility of all the bishops coming together and forming a council whereby the say to the Pope you have said X, this is the definition which declared X to be heresy, now knowing this do you still believe X to be true. and if he answers in the affirmative and dosn't renounce X then he is declared deposed. *Whereby X representing a heretical position*
Now me speaking, it is also possible to wait for another Pope to condemn him or convene a council to condemn him like Honorius.
Laymen cannot condemn a Pope, Lay cannot even condemn a Bishop, but if they utter things that contradict the magisterium then we must use our intellect to discern right from wrong and disobey that which is wrong.
-
but if they utter things that contradict the magisterium then we must use our intellect to discern right from wrong and disobey that which is wrong.
Well said LP... I don't know that you can go wrong with this. Really, I (sincerely) wonder what more reason to try to become SV or find proof of it being fact?
-
Yesterday I had the fortune of seeing John Vennari at our chapel where he gave a very good lecture for a couple of hours. Afterwards there was a brief question period where someone asked if he would ever consider the see of peter to be vacant. He said no. Anyhow in his explanation he stated the possibility of all the bishops coming together and forming a council whereby the say to the Pope you have said X, this is the definition which declared X to be heresy, now knowing this do you still believe X to be true. and if he answers in the affirmative and dosn't renounce X then he is declared deposed. *Whereby X representing a heretical position*
Now me speaking, it is also possible to wait for another Pope to condemn him or convene a council to condemn him like Honorius.
Laymen cannot condemn a Pope, Lay cannot even condemn a Bishop, but if they utter things that contradict the magisterium then we must use our intellect to discern right from wrong and disobey that which is wrong.
Vennari is wrong.
Here is a Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine:
"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.
'Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.' According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.
"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
-
Yesterday I had the fortune of seeing John Vennari at our chapel where he gave a very good lecture for a couple of hours. Afterwards there was a brief question period where someone asked if he would ever consider the see of peter to be vacant. He said no. Anyhow in his explanation he stated the possibility of all the bishops coming together and forming a council whereby the say to the Pope you have said X, this is the definition which declared X to be heresy, now knowing this do you still believe X to be true. and if he answers in the affirmative and dosn't renounce X then he is declared deposed. *Whereby X representing a heretical position*
Now me speaking, it is also possible to wait for another Pope to condemn him or convene a council to condemn him like Honorius.
Laymen cannot condemn a Pope, Lay cannot even condemn a Bishop, but if they utter things that contradict the magisterium then we must use our intellect to discern right from wrong and disobey that which is wrong.
Bishops cannot condemn a Pope...
Honorius was always Pope and the very acts of his "condemnations" are put into doubt by theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine himself.
-
Yesterday I had the fortune of seeing John Vennari at our chapel where he gave a very good lecture for a couple of hours. Afterwards there was a brief question period where someone asked if he would ever consider the see of peter to be vacant. He said no. Anyhow in his explanation he stated the possibility of all the bishops coming together and forming a council whereby the say to the Pope you have said X, this is the definition which declared X to be heresy, now knowing this do you still believe X to be true. and if he answers in the affirmative and dosn't renounce X then he is declared deposed. *Whereby X representing a heretical position*
Now me speaking, it is also possible to wait for another Pope to condemn him or convene a council to condemn him like Honorius.
Laymen cannot condemn a Pope, Lay cannot even condemn a Bishop, but if they utter things that contradict the magisterium then we must use our intellect to discern right from wrong and disobey that which is wrong.
Bishops cannot condemn a Pope...
Honorius was always Pope and the very acts of his "condemnations" are put into doubt by theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine himself.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
Modern controversies on the subject
The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal infallibility began to be doubted. Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists. Only a few typical views need here be mentioned.
Bellarmine and Baronius followed Pighius in denying that Honorius was condemned at all. Baronius argued that the Acts of the Council were falsified by Theodore, a Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the emperor, but was restored at a later date; we are to presume that the council condemned him, but that he substituted "Honorius" for "Theodorus" in the Acts. This theory has frequently been shown to be untenable.
The more famous Gallicans, such as Bossuet, Dupin, Richer, and later ones as Cardinal de la Luzerne and (at the time of the Vatican Council) Maret, Gratry, and many others, usually held with all Protestant writers that Honorius had formally defined heresy, and was condemned for so doing. They added, of course, that such a failure on the part of an individual pope did not compromise the general and habitual orthodoxy of the Roman See.
On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra. But they were not content with this amply sufficient defence. Some followed Baronius, but most, if not all, showed themselves anxious to prove that the letters of Honorius were entirely orthodox. There was indeed no difficulty in showing that Honorius was probably not a Monothelite. It would have been only just to extend the same kindly interpretation to the words of Sergius. The learned Jesuit Garnier saw clearly, however, that it was not as a Monothelite that Honorius was condemned. He was coupled with Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, the Ecthesis, and the Type. It is by no means clear that Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the Ecthesis are to be accounted as Monothelite, since they forbade the mention of "one operation"; it is quite certain that Paul and the Type were anti-Monothelite, for they prohibited "one Will" also. Garnier pointed out that the council condemned Honorius for approving Sergius and for "fomenting" the dogmas of Pyrrhus and Paul. This view was followed by many great writers, including Pagi.
A theory put forward by Pennacchi at the time of the Vatican Council attracted an unnecessary amount of attention. He agreed with the Protestants and Gallicans in proclaiming that the letter of Honorius was a definition ex cathedra; that the pope was anathematized by the council as a heretic in the strict sense; but the council, not being infallible apart from papal confirmation, fell in this case into error about a dogmatic fact (in this point Pennacchi was preceded by Turrecremata, Bellarmine, Assemani, and many others), since the letter of Honorius was not worthy of censure. Leo II, in confirming the council, expressly abrogated the censure, according to this view, and substituted a condemnation for negligence only (so also Grisar--see above). There is evidently no ground whatever for any of these assertions.
Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view that Honorius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely incorrect, and that its condemnation by an ecuмenical council was a serious difficulty against the "personal" infallibility of the popes. After his hesitating acceptance of the Vatican decrees he modified his view; he now taught that Honorius's letter was a definition ex cathedra, that it was incorrectly worded, but that the thought of the writer was orthodox (true enough; but, in a definition of faith, surely the words are of primary importance); the council judged Honorius by his words, and condemned him simply as a Monothelite; Leo II accepted and confirmed the condemnation by the council, but, in doing so, he carefully defined in what sense the condemnation was to be understood. These views of Hefele's, which he put forth with edifying modesty and submission as the best explanation he could give of what had previously seemed to him a formidable difficulty, have had a surprisingly wide influence, and have been adopted by many Catholic writers, save only his mistaken notion that a letter like that of Honorius can be supposed to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Vatican Council for an ex cathedra judgment (so Jungmann and many controversialists).
-
Well, having Bellarmine and Baronius on one side and Gallicanists, Protestants, anti-Infallibilists and Modernists on the other side...which one should we choose?
Obviously the Catholic Encyclopedia is also not always a source of perfect orthodoxy, depending on who wrote which article.
-
Well, having Bellarmine and Baronius on one side and Gallicanists, Protestants, anti-Infallibilists and Modernists on the other side...which one should we choose?
Obviously the Catholic Encyclopedia is also not always a source of perfect orthodoxy, depending on who wrote which article.
This wasn't 2 sides, that was a list of those opposed to the common view.
Pope St Leo II confirmed the Third Council of Constantinople at the council of Toledo and gave an explaination of why Honorius was condemned.
Here is the text of the council.
SESSION XVI.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)
[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]
Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!
Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!
May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecuмenical Council!
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const3.html
This council had been held in Constantinople against the Monothelites, and had been presided over by the legates of Pope Agatho. After Leo had notified the emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed by him, he proceeded to make them known to the nations of the West. The letters which he sent for this end to the king and to the bishops and nobles of Spain have come down to us. In them he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees. At the same time he was at pains to make it clear that in condemning his predecessor Honorius I, he did so, not because he taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it. In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Council of Constantinople was accepted.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09157a.htm
Pope St. Leo II, July 3
Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Biographical selection:
St. Leo II (682-683), Pope and confessor, approved the docuмents of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople) which had been convened by Pope St. Agatho, his antecessor. That Council condemned the heresy of Monothelism, and namely condemned Pope Honorius who adhered to it. Regarding Pope Honorius, St. Leo II wrote that “instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, he permitted the immaculate to be maculated by a profane treason.”
St. Leo II condemned
Pope Honorius as a heretic
Pope Honorius wrote a letter to the heretic patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, approving his thesis that Our Lord would have only one will or energy, and not two – the divine and human – and taking a clear position against St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was attacking the heretic.
Monothelism was condemned by the successors of Pope Honorius: Pope Severinus (640-640) formally condemned it, Pope John IV (640-642) and Pope Theodore I (642-649) excommunicated Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, for defending the same error. Pope Martinus (649-655) was imprisoned by the Emperor Constans II, and died a martyr because he did not accept Monothelism. Pope Eugenius I (654-657) also rejected this doctrine. The Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople (680-681) condemned Monothelism and Pope Honorius as a heretic. This condemnation was elaborated by Pope St. Agatho (678-681). The docuмents of this Council were ratified by Pope St. Leo II.
Referring to the defection of Pope Honorius and to Monothelism as a continuation of Monophysism, Dom Guéranger made this prayer to St. Leo II:
"What craft was displayed by Satan in this campaign prolonged for two centuries, noiselessly, the better to secure success. What exultation rang through the abyss when one sad day saw the representative of Him who is the essential Light appear to side for a moment with the powers of darkness! A cloud seemed to have come between Heaven and those mountains of God, where He dwells with His Vicar; it is probable that the social aid of intercession was weaker just then than it should have been.
"Be ever at hand, O Leo, to ward off all similarly dangerous situations. Uphold, in every age, the Pastor who rules Christ’s Church, that he may keep himself aloof from the darkening mists that earth exhales. Keep ever alive in the hearts of the faithful flock that strong prayer, which should continually be made without ceasing for him by the Church; and then Peter, were he even chained in the depths of the darkest dungeon, will be reached by the Sun of Justice and clearly see his way in the pure ray; then will the whole body of the Church be filled with light."
http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/j080sdLeoII_6-3.htm
-
Yesterday I had the fortune of seeing John Vennari at our chapel where he gave a very good lecture for a couple of hours. Afterwards there was a brief question period where someone asked if he would ever consider the see of peter to be vacant. He said no. Anyhow in his explanation he stated the possibility of all the bishops coming together and forming a council whereby the say to the Pope you have said X, this is the definition which declared X to be heresy, now knowing this do you still believe X to be true. and if he answers in the affirmative and dosn't renounce X then he is declared deposed. *Whereby X representing a heretical position*
Now me speaking, it is also possible to wait for another Pope to condemn him or convene a council to condemn him like Honorius.
Laymen cannot condemn a Pope, Lay cannot even condemn a Bishop, but if they utter things that contradict the magisterium then we must use our intellect to discern right from wrong and disobey that which is wrong.
Bishops cannot condemn a Pope...
Honorius was always Pope and the very acts of his "condemnations" are put into doubt by theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine himself.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
Modern controversies on the subject
The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal infallibility began to be doubted. Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists. Only a few typical views need here be mentioned.
Bellarmine and Baronius followed Pighius in denying that Honorius was condemned at all. Baronius argued that the Acts of the Council were falsified by Theodore, a Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the emperor, but was restored at a later date; we are to presume that the council condemned him, but that he substituted "Honorius" for "Theodorus" in the Acts. This theory has frequently been shown to be untenable.
The more famous Gallicans, such as Bossuet, Dupin, Richer, and later ones as Cardinal de la Luzerne and (at the time of the Vatican Council) Maret, Gratry, and many others, usually held with all Protestant writers that Honorius had formally defined heresy, and was condemned for so doing. They added, of course, that such a failure on the part of an individual pope did not compromise the general and habitual orthodoxy of the Roman See.
On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra. But they were not content with this amply sufficient defence. Some followed Baronius, but most, if not all, showed themselves anxious to prove that the letters of Honorius were entirely orthodox. There was indeed no difficulty in showing that Honorius was probably not a Monothelite. It would have been only just to extend the same kindly interpretation to the words of Sergius. The learned Jesuit Garnier saw clearly, however, that it was not as a Monothelite that Honorius was condemned. He was coupled with Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, the Ecthesis, and the Type. It is by no means clear that Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the Ecthesis are to be accounted as Monothelite, since they forbade the mention of "one operation"; it is quite certain that Paul and the Type were anti-Monothelite, for they prohibited "one Will" also. Garnier pointed out that the council condemned Honorius for approving Sergius and for "fomenting" the dogmas of Pyrrhus and Paul. This view was followed by many great writers, including Pagi.
A theory put forward by Pennacchi at the time of the Vatican Council attracted an unnecessary amount of attention. He agreed with the Protestants and Gallicans in proclaiming that the letter of Honorius was a definition ex cathedra; that the pope was anathematized by the council as a heretic in the strict sense; but the council, not being infallible apart from papal confirmation, fell in this case into error about a dogmatic fact (in this point Pennacchi was preceded by Turrecremata, Bellarmine, Assemani, and many others), since the letter of Honorius was not worthy of censure. Leo II, in confirming the council, expressly abrogated the censure, according to this view, and substituted a condemnation for negligence only (so also Grisar--see above). There is evidently no ground whatever for any of these assertions.
Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view that Honorius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely incorrect, and that its condemnation by an ecuмenical council was a serious difficulty against the "personal" infallibility of the popes. After his hesitating acceptance of the Vatican decrees he modified his view; he now taught that Honorius's letter was a definition ex cathedra, that it was incorrectly worded, but that the thought of the writer was orthodox (true enough; but, in a definition of faith, surely the words are of primary importance); the council judged Honorius by his words, and condemned him simply as a Monothelite; Leo II accepted and confirmed the condemnation by the council, but, in doing so, he carefully defined in what sense the condemnation was to be understood. These views of Hefele's, which he put forth with edifying modesty and submission as the best explanation he could give of what had previously seemed to him a formidable difficulty, have had a surprisingly wide influence, and have been adopted by many Catholic writers, save only his mistaken notion that a letter like that of Honorius can be supposed to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Vatican Council for an ex cathedra judgment (so Jungmann and many controversialists).
Well the only way a Pope can be judged is if he falls into public heresy (and thus loosing membership). Now, no theologian, as far as I know admits he ceased to be Pope, therefore some other explanation must be given. Bellarmine`s is, IMO quite possible. Billot himself, in defense of Honorius quotes his successor saying that he kept the faith incorruptibly.
So to sum up: if Honorius was always Pope no one could condemn him as canon 1556 points out "The Holy See can be judged by no one" for the simple reason he has no superior upon earth. If he was condemned that has to have been because of heresy and because he ceased to be Pope... now no theologian said he ceased to be Pope, therefore.
-
[Titus 3]
{3:10} Avoid a man who is a heretic, after the first and second correction,
{3:11} knowing that one who is like this has been subverted, and that he offends; for he has been condemned by his own judgment.
-
4. It is alleged of Pope Honorius I (625-38) that: (a) in two letters to Sergius, bishop of Constantinople, he taught Monotheletism † and, did so, indeed, so clearly that (b) he was afterwards for this very reason condemned as a heretic by the sixth ecuмenical council (Third Constantinople) in the year 680.
† Monotheletism (from manas "single" and thelo "I will") is the last of the great Christological heresies and an offshoot of Monophysitism. It maintained that Christ had only one will – a divine will – and consequently denied to Christ's human nature that which is connatural to it – a human will. See Parente, Dictionary, op. cit., p. 194-5.
a. The letters of Honorius do not contain any ex cathedra statement. The pope made no doctrinal decision; he approved the request of Sergius that silence should be observed in the question of "a single or double operation" in Christ, "Exhorting you that avoiding the use of the newfangled term of a single or double operation…" (Kirch 1064); and again, "It is not necessary for us to give a definitive decision on this matter of one or two operations" (Kirch 1068).
But to urge silence on a matter is just the reverse of a peremptory definition!
The letters of Honorius do not contain any doctrinal error. Even though the pope does refrain from using the term of a double will or double operation, he does teach in equivalent terms the existence of two wills and a twofold operation by asserting that Christ possesses two complete, unconfused natures, which operate and are sources of operation, and one operator.
The phrase: "We confess that there is one will of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Kirch 1073) in nowise prevents this conclusion. In the context in which the clause occurs, the meaning is simply this: In Christ's human nature there is perfect harmony between His rational will and His sensitive appetite (for the latter is perfectly subject to the former), hence there is in Christ's humanity but one will, one that is to say, not physically but morally. (17) Pope John IV (640-42) ratified this orthodox meaning in his Apologia pro Honorio coauthored, it is interesting to note, by the same John Sympon who had cosigned the letters of Honorius himself.
It must be admitted, however, that the clause "we confess one will," even though it did not have a Monotheletic meaning in Honorius' mind and does not have such a meaning objectively – provided the context be considered carefully, not casually – could be easily twisted to give it a perverted sense. (18)
b. Before anything else, this much is absolutely sure: Honorius was not condemned as guilty of preaching heresy in his official capacity (ex cathedra). Something more, he was not even condemned as being privately a heretic. Strictly speaking, he was condemned for being a helper of heresy. Whatever might have been the intention of the fathers of the sixth ecuмenical council, this much is certain: the decree of the council would be of no value except insofar as it was ratified by the Apostolic See. Now Leo II, who had succeeded Agatho as pope before the end of the council, in his ratification of the fathers' decree either explained the decree in such fashion or so mitigated it that the upshot was that Honorius was to be stigmatized not as a heretic, but as a helper of heresy.
Here are Leo's words to Constantine Pogonatus ratifying the council's decree: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodosius, Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter . . . and also Honorius who did not enlighten this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but allowed its immaculate faith to be soiled by profane betrayal" (Kirch 1085). (19) A short time later, Leo wrote to the bishops of Spain explaining the matter. Honorius was condemned along with the others: "because instead of extinguishing the incipient flame of heretical doctrine, as befits the holder of apostolic authority, he rather fanned it by his negligence."
Was, then, Honorius actually a helper of heresy? Prescinding from the question of serious subjective guilt, from which many authors excuse the pope, this much must be said: Honorius was a bit gullible in relying so readily on Sergius' advice and he acted unwisely in persuading people not to preach about the twofold operation – which he himself, nonetheless, personally admitted. He acted still more unwisely by adding that odd-sounding clause about "one will in Christ." Because of these imprudences he did (unwittingly) help to fan the rising blaze of the Monotheletic heresy. Instead, he should have combatted the heresy energetically with a clear and distinct explanation of apostolic doctrine as befitted his apostolic office. Finally, it seems probable that the only reason the Apostolic See acquiesced in this grave censure of Honorius was to prevent even further damage by making some concessions to the Greeks who were quite incensed about the condemnation of some of their leaders. (20)
All this explanation is offered on the hypothesis that both the letters of Honorius and the acts of the sixth council are completely authentic. Quite a few scholars – whose opinion has not won wide acceptance, however – have tried to show that a number of interpolations have been inserted in either the letters of Honorius or the acts of the council.
-
Anyhow in his explanation he stated the possibility of all the bishops coming together and forming a council whereby the say to the Pope you have said X, this is the definition which declared X to be heresy, now knowing this do you still believe X to be true. and if he answers in the affirmative and dosn't renounce X then he is declared deposed. *Whereby X representing a heretical position*
Vennari is wrong.
Here is a Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine:
"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.
'Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers,
"He can be judged and punished by the Church" This is what Vennari was saying. The Church judges whether or not the Pope has become a formal heretic, not Joe Sede on the street.
-
I wonder what the definition of The Church IS? Certainly not Vatican II.
The great schism, the great apostasy spoken of in the Bible.
-
Anyhow in his explanation he stated the possibility of all the bishops coming together and forming a council whereby the say to the Pope you have said X, this is the definition which declared X to be heresy, now knowing this do you still believe X to be true. and if he answers in the affirmative and dosn't renounce X then he is declared deposed. *Whereby X representing a heretical position*
Vennari is wrong.
Here is a Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine:
"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.
'Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers,
"He can be judged and punished by the Church" This is what Vennari was saying. The Church judges whether or not the Pope has become a formal heretic, not Joe Sede on the street.
Definitively you didn´t understand Bellarmine´s argument.
-
I wonder what the definition of The Church IS? Certainly not Vatican II.
The great schism, the great apostasy spoken of in the Bible.
Thats fine Myrna, however, in this case it would be a council of cardinals and bishops. Have faith that one day our Lady's Immaculate Heart will prevail and the opportunity will come forth for these men's actions to be judged in an official manner. For now, we can see they are acting stupid and wrong, be have no authority to make official the determination of the office. So the "The Church" would mean those in the church with authority to do so, not you or I.
Definitively you didn´t understand Bellarmine´s argument.
Actually, it is you and others who take this great saint out of context.
-
Here's Bellarmine's quote again. Pay close attention to the underlined part.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."
His quote says that a Pope may be judged and punished by the Church should he fall into heresy. He never said that laypeople can judge or punish the Pope.
-
Thats fine Myrna, however, in this case it would be a council of cardinals and bishops. Have faith that one day our Lady's Immaculate Heart will prevail and the opportunity will come forth for these men's actions to be judged in an official manner. For now, we can see they are acting stupid and wrong, be have no authority to make official the determination of the office. So the "The Church" would mean those in the church with authority to do so, not you or I.
I could be wrong reading your note here with my wee brain, but it sounds as if you do not believe the new church has authority at this time. Since the Church is a Divine Institution, and guided by the Holy Ghost forever as long as time exists, so too "The Church" is existing TODAY pure as always, as God has promised.
We live in the age where His words are being fulfilled, "When I return, will I find Faith upon the earth" (parphasing)
Our Lady's Immaculate Heart prevails daily, each time the Mass of All Times is offered in spite of Vatican II.
In the meantime beware of sheep in wolves clothing.
-
Here's Bellarmine's quote again. Pay close attention to the underlined part.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."
His quote says that a Pope may be judged and punished by the Church should he fall into heresy. He never said that laypeople can judge or punish the Pope.
What does he say about a heretic being elected a pope? Speaking of a heretic prior to election, i.e. freemason or enemy of God with the intention to destroy. Can the laypeople judge a heretic who was never qualified to be a pope?
-
Definitively you didn´t understand Bellarmine´s argument.
Actually, it is you and others who take this great saint out of context.
How?
-
Here's Bellarmine's quote again. Pay close attention to the underlined part.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."
His quote says that a Pope may be judged and punished by the Church should he fall into heresy. He never said that laypeople can judge or punish the Pope.
No, he doesn´t say that. He says that if a Pope is manifest heretic he would cease to be member of the Church and therefore he would cease to be Pope and therefore that person, who was a former Pope could be judged by the Church in the same way as the Church judges any other person. He is rebuking specially Cajetan´s argument who said that the Pope has to be deposed instead of losing the office automatically. What we, sedes, are doing is merely recognizing that BXVI cannot be the Pope since he is manifest heretic (first part of Bellarmine´s quote) and therefore he lost the office (or, to be more precise, he never had it).
We are not judging the Pope. Actually in Bellarmine´s argument the Church doesn´t judg the Pope either, but rather a former Pope.
You see the difference?
-
At least Spiritus will give a reply, while others here on this thread, and other threads just make a snide remark and leave.
In my opinion, they lost and you won, Christian.
-
I could be wrong reading your note here with my wee brain, but it sounds as if you do not believe the new church has authority at this time. Since the Church is a Divine Institution, and guided by the Holy Ghost forever as long as time exists, so too "The Church" is existing TODAY pure as always, as God has promised.
We live in the age where His words are being fulfilled, "When I return, will I find Faith upon the earth" (parphasing)
Our Lady's Immaculate Heart prevails daily, each time the Mass of All Times is offered in spite of Vatican II.
In the meantime beware of sheep in wolves clothing.
What does he say about a heretic being elected a pope? Speaking of a heretic prior to election, i.e. freemason or enemy of God with the intention to destroy. Can the laypeople judge a heretic who was never qualified to be a pope?
Myrna, you're right, we must beware of 'wolves in sheep's clothing'. I think what brings all of us together is our Catholic Faith and being aware there are wolves in sheep's clothing out there to destroy souls. But on this matter, which I know little about, it is my understanding it is a technical issue. So the Church being a Divine Institution has the ability to try (as in law, trial). That would mean, in the case of BVI, sitting him down, and asking questions- sort of like a civil court. He would be asked to account for his intent and actions. If any of what he has done would be found to be anything but Catholic, he would be made to repent, make amendments, and come back to the fold. But notice, they only way, 'officially' to declare him 'out of the fold' is through this council. So all we can do for now is hold private opinion and follow only what is Catholic.
No, he doesn´t say that. He says that if a Pope is manifest heretic he would cease to be member of the Church and therefore he would cease to be Pope and therefore that person, who was a former Pope could be judged by the Church in the same way as the Church judges any other person. He is rebuking specially Cajetan´s argument who said that the Pope has to be deposed instead of losing the office automatically. What we, sedes, are doing is merely recognizing that BXVI cannot be the Pope since he is manifest heretic (first part of Bellarmine´s quote) and therefore he lost the office (or, to be more precise, he never had it).
We are not judging the Pope. Actually in Bellarmine´s argument the Church doesn´t judg the Pope either, but rather a former Pope.
You see the difference?
Which is why I personally do not hold the opinion of sedes to be wrong or right, because it is an opinion.
-
Some of us can not be attached to the computer and respond as quickly as we'd like, unfortunately.
-
So the Church being a Divine Institution has the ability to try (as in law, trial). That would mean, in the case of BVI, sitting him down, and asking questions- sort of like a civil court. He would be asked to account for his intent and actions. If any of what he has done would be found to be anything but Catholic, he would be made to repent, make amendments, and come back to the fold. But notice, they only way, 'officially' to declare him 'out of the fold' is through this council. So all we can do for now is hold private opinion and follow only what is Catholic
How do you reconcile this with canon 1556? "The Holy See cannot be judged by anyone"
No, he doesn´t say that. He says that if a Pope is manifest heretic he would cease to be member of the Church and therefore he would cease to be Pope and therefore that person, who was a former Pope could be judged by the Church in the same way as the Church judges any other person. He is rebuking specially Cajetan´s argument who said that the Pope has to be deposed instead of losing the office automatically. What we, sedes, are doing is merely recognizing that BXVI cannot be the Pope since he is manifest heretic (first part of Bellarmine´s quote) and therefore he lost the office (or, to be more precise, he never had it).
We are not judging the Pope. Actually in Bellarmine´s argument the Church doesn´t judg the Pope either, but rather a former Pope.
You see the difference?
Which is why I personally do not hold the opinion of sedes to be wrong or right, because it is an opinion.
But opinions can be wrong or true, right?. Besides if you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope, that is, if you have serious reasons or doubts about he being the Pope, in practice, you should act as if he were not the Pope, since as the saying goes "a doubtful Pope is not Pope".
-
Some of us can not be attached to the computer and respond as quickly as we'd like, unfortunately.
Oh no problem at all, we are here on this forum to discuss charitably in order to find the truth, not to win or to lose a discussion!
:cheers:
-
No, he doesn´t say that. He says that if a Pope is manifest heretic he would cease to be member of the Church and therefore he would cease to be Pope and therefore that person, who was a former Pope could be judged by the Church in the same way as the Church judges any other person. He is rebuking specially Cajetan´s argument who said that the Pope has to be deposed instead of losing the office automatically. What we, sedes, are doing is merely recognizing that BXVI cannot be the Pope since he is manifest heretic (first part of Bellarmine´s quote) and therefore he lost the office (or, to be more precise, he never had it). We are not judging the Pope. Actually in Bellarmine´s argument the Church doesn´t judg the Pope either, but rather a former Pope.
You see the difference?
Yes, I recognize this. My point is that the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this. This would induce anarchy. It would create a burden for each lay Catholic to examine everything every Pope publicly says for heresy and then make his own private determination as to whether the Pope is Pope. So then every lay Catholic, in effect, becomes his own Pope, under the guise that the "heresy" is "obvious" and "indisputable". Prots do the same thing.
-
Yes, I recognize this. My point is that the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic.
The Church can't presume ahead of time that the Pope is the Pope otherwise it would be trying to judge the Pope. The situation of a Pope ceasing to be a Pope can only be resolved by it becoming manifest to Catholics. The "conciliar church" will never do anything about it.
-
No, he doesn´t say that. He says that if a Pope is manifest heretic he would cease to be member of the Church and therefore he would cease to be Pope and therefore that person, who was a former Pope could be judged by the Church in the same way as the Church judges any other person. He is rebuking specially Cajetan´s argument who said that the Pope has to be deposed instead of losing the office automatically. What we, sedes, are doing is merely recognizing that BXVI cannot be the Pope since he is manifest heretic (first part of Bellarmine´s quote) and therefore he lost the office (or, to be more precise, he never had it). We are not judging the Pope. Actually in Bellarmine´s argument the Church doesn´t judg the Pope either, but rather a former Pope.
You see the difference?
Yes, I recognize this. My point is that the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this. This would induce anarchy. It would create a burden for each lay Catholic to examine everything every Pope publicly says for heresy and then make his own private determination as to whether the Pope is Pope. So then every lay Catholic, in effect, becomes his own Pope, under the guise that the "heresy" is "obvious" and "indisputable". Prots do the same thing.
2 Things here:
1) Nowhere Bellarmine or other theologian said that in order for a Pope to be public heretic and therefore lose membership and the office a declaration is needed.
Actually even if you accept that a declaration is needed that means that the fact of the Pope losing the office already took place and what the Church would do is to say "X by X fact lost the office ipso facto".
2) Ad hominem. You take and choose from post Vat. II "Popes" what is in accordance with tradition and reject what is wrong. The very raison d´etre of traditionalism is to reject many things after Vat II. I mean you (and everyone else) do exactly the same thing you accuse sedes, unless you believe that each human being has the right to worship anything he wishes, or that any religion is a mean of salvation, or that we can actively participate in non-catholic worships, or that JPII is an example for all of us to go to heaven, etc. etc. etc.
-
-
How do you reconcile this with canon 1556? "The Holy See cannot be judged by anyone"
Cristian- I think I made a somatic/ vocabulary mistake.. stevus sums it up nicely:
...the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this. This would induce anarchy. It would create a burden for each lay Catholic to examine everything every Pope publicly says for heresy and then make his own private determination as to whether the Pope is Pope. So then every lay Catholic, in effect, becomes his own Pope, under the guise that the "heresy" is "obvious" and "indisputable". Prots do the same thing.[/i]
Cristian: But opinions can be wrong or true, right?. Besides if you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope, that is, if you have serious reasons or doubts about he being the Pope, in practice, you should act as if he were not the Pope, since as the saying goes "a doubtful Pope is not Pope".
Yes, and because opinions can be wrong I decide to leave the matter to a future council. And it is because opinions may be right that I do not attend NO and will reccomend no one attends NO, FSSP, Indult, or anywhere where they have a strong hold on the priests and can 'force' them to do things which are contrary to the faith... I don't think you can go wrong spiritually with that can you? But trying to judge the pope, as sede's do, I think can (lets be precise- not will, but can) get you in trouble with God imho.
So, I will quote stevus again: My point is that the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this.
-
2 Things here:
1) Nowhere Bellarmine or other theologian said that in order for a Pope to be public heretic and therefore lose membership and the office a declaration is needed.
But they also do not mention that it is not needed... now what? I believe i read somewhere on here (caminus?) something which actually refuted this point.
Actually even if you accept that a declaration is needed that means that the fact of the Pope losing the office already took place and what the Church would do is to say "X by X fact lost the office ipso facto".
Right, but this doesn't address the issue that you 'may' be wrong for you and I are not Cardinals or bishops, and technically, in normal times, we wouldn't be even discussing theological matters so openly, much less the office of the pope because ordinarily these things are left to be decided by those who have the ability to in fact decide them.
-
How do you reconcile this with canon 1556? "The Holy See cannot be judged by anyone"
Cristian- I think I made a somatic/ vocabulary mistake.. stevus sums it up nicely:
...the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this. This would induce anarchy. It would create a burden for each lay Catholic to examine everything every Pope publicly says for heresy and then make his own private determination as to whether the Pope is Pope. So then every lay Catholic, in effect, becomes his own Pope, under the guise that the "heresy" is "obvious" and "indisputable". Prots do the same thing.[/i]
I already responded to this.
Cristian: But opinions can be wrong or true, right?. Besides if you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope, that is, if you have serious reasons or doubts about he being the Pope, in practice, you should act as if he were not the Pope, since as the saying goes "a doubtful Pope is not Pope".
Yes, and because opinions can be wrong I decide to leave the matter to a future council. And it is because opinions may be right that I do not attend NO and will reccomend no one attends NO, FSSP, Indult, or anywhere where they have a strong hold on the priests and can 'force' them to do things which are contrary to the faith... I don't think you can go wrong spiritually with that can you?
No, I don´t have much problem, except for the fact that on doing so you are judging the Pope, because, do you really think those priests who "force" people to do things which are contrary to the faith are acting against BXVI?
Even if you wish to leave this matter to a future council, which is ok, yet you have to take now some measures regarding BXVI. You can´t wait that much.
But trying to judge the pope, as sede's do, I think can (lets be precise- not will, but can) get you in trouble with God imho.
.
Once again sedes do not judge the Pope. We merely see a public heresy and draw conclusions.
When you criticize Vat. II and what came after it, are you judging the Pope? If not why?
So, I will quote stevus again: My point is that the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this.
I addressed this post also.
Cristian
PS: I´m glad we can discuss calmly these things :) :cheers:
-
2 Things here:
1) Nowhere Bellarmine or other theologian said that in order for a Pope to be public heretic and therefore lose membership and the office a declaration is needed.
Actually even if you accept that a declaration is needed that means that the fact of the Pope losing the office already took place and what the Church would do is to say "X by X fact lost the office ipso facto".
That is correct. In the objective order, the Pope loses his office already, before the Church declares it. But until the Church declares it, we cannot decide for ourselves that the Pope has lost his office. This is my point.
2) Ad hominem. You take and choose from post Vat. II "Popes" what is in accordance with tradition and reject what is wrong. The very raison d´etre of traditionalism is to reject many things after Vat II. I mean you (and everyone else) do exactly the same thing you accuse sedes, unless you believe that each human being has the right to worship anything he wishes, or that any religion is a mean of salvation, or that we can actively participate in non-catholic worships, or that JPII is an example for all of us to go to heaven, etc. etc. etc.
I'm not sure I understand your point. I think you are trying to say that I use private judgment everytime I disagree with a Papal action, novel liturgical practice, etc. and that this is the same thing as a sede deciding for himself whether the pope has lost his office.
If so, I disagree. My view on the crisis is The Great Facade view. The true Church and dogma and liturgy is still in the current Church, as is the Pope. However, they have layed an optional regime of novelty on top of it to make it appear to be something it is not. I, as a Catholic, am not obliged to agree with or support any optional post-conciliar novelty. The post-VCII Popes have "approved" a bunch of misguided novelties claiming them to be new expressions of Faith consistent with the old Faith. Doesn't really matter to me whether their reasoning is technically correct. Even if it is, these practices have produced rotten fruit and need to go. I reject all of it and I'm allowed to do so. I'm also free to assist at a TLM and ignore the VCII circus as if it never happened and be just as Catholic as Joe-Neo-Cath in the eyes of Rome.
-
2 Things here:
1) Nowhere Bellarmine or other theologian said that in order for a Pope to be public heretic and therefore lose membership and the office a declaration is needed.
But they also do not mention that it is not needed... now what? I believe i read somewhere on here (caminus?) something which actually refuted this point.
If you read the whole chapter 30 which deals with the 5 opinions you will see he specifically says that the Pope loses the office immediately after he falls in public heresy and he rebukes Cajetan´s argument who says that an admonition is needed for a Pope to lose the office.
Second you have canon 188.4, 646 and the official interpretation of it saying expressly that no declaration is needed for the tacit renuntiation, plus Pius XII in Mystici Corporis said that heresy, apostasy and schism by its very nature, (suapte natura) puts you out of the Church.
Actually even if you accept that a declaration is needed that means that the fact of the Pope losing the office already took place and what the Church would do is to say "X by X fact lost the office ipso facto".
Right, but this doesn't address the issue that you 'may' be wrong
Even if I´m wrong, I still have reasons to reject BXVI. I think it is prudent to reject him. And if one has serious reasons about the existence of a law (or of the lawmaker himself), all theologians say we cannot accept that law, that it is as if it doesn´t exist.
It is BXVI the one who has to prove with certainty that he is the Pope. Positive and serious doubts are enough to reject him.
for you and I are not Cardinals or bishops
Are they infallible?
-
Sorry Cristian- wont have timet o respond to your first argument, but can make a quick comment on the latter.
Right, but this doesn't address the issue that you 'may' be wrong
Even if I´m wrong, I still have reasons to reject BXVI. I think it is prudent to reject him. And if one has serious reasons about the existence of a law (or of the lawmaker himself), all theologians say we cannot accept that law, that it is as if it doesn´t exist.
It is BXVI the one who has to prove with certainty that he is the Pope. Positive and serious doubts are enough to reject him.
Yes I believe I responded to this in the latter part of my last response. I'm curious about your thoughts.
for you and I are not Cardinals or bishops
Are they infallible?
[/quote]
No. Is St. Robert Bellarmine?
-
2 Things here:
1) Nowhere Bellarmine or other theologian said that in order for a Pope to be public heretic and therefore lose membership and the office a declaration is needed.
Actually even if you accept that a declaration is needed that means that the fact of the Pope losing the office already took place and what the Church would do is to say "X by X fact lost the office ipso facto".
That is correct. In the objective order, the Pope loses his office already, before the Church declares it. But until the Church declares it, we cannot decide for ourselves that the Pope has lost his office. This is my point.
If you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope you cannot accept him. This is comonly taught by thoelogians. A doubtful law is not law; a doubtful Pope is not Pope.
Besides if it happened, well it happened! Therefore that person is not longer the Pope, independently if I say it or not, if the Church says it or not, or if an angel from heaven says otherwise!
I´ve a person who says he is the Pope and tells me to worship false idols. I must act now and not wait till the Church decides about it.
2) Ad hominem. You take and choose from post Vat. II "Popes" what is in accordance with tradition and reject what is wrong. The very raison d´etre of traditionalism is to reject many things after Vat II. I mean you (and everyone else) do exactly the same thing you accuse sedes, unless you believe that each human being has the right to worship anything he wishes, or that any religion is a mean of salvation, or that we can actively participate in non-catholic worships, or that JPII is an example for all of us to go to heaven, etc. etc. etc.
I'm not sure I understand your point. I think you are trying to say that I use private judgment everytime I disagree with a Papal action, novel liturgical practice, etc. and that this is the same thing as a sede deciding for himself whether the pope has lost his office.
Yes that was my point.
If so, I disagree. My view on the crisis is The Great Facade view. The true Church and dogma and liturgy is still in the current Church, as is the Pope.
However, they have layed an optional regime of novelty on top of it to make it appear to be something it is not
No law is optional.
Doesn't really matter to me whether their reasoning is technically correct.
So you don´t care if your Pope would ask you to hate God?
Even if it is, these practices have produced rotten fruit and need to go. I reject all of it and I'm allowed to do so.
You are judging the Pope! You are despising his laws! You are making your own decisions whether or not to follow them, whether or not they are good or evil, etc.
Why you can say "this universal law is evil" and we are not allow to do so? And if you say that we are allowed to say there are universal laws that are evil, then we merely draw the conclusion that the person who promulgated them cannot be Pope.
I'm also free to assist at a TLM and ignore the VCII circus as if it never happened and be just as Catholic as Joe-Neo-Cath in the eyes of Rome.
You are not free to ignore a Universal Council, the new code, the new Mass etc. How can you say so?
-
Sorry Cristian- wont have timet o respond to your first argument, but can make a quick comment on the latter.
Right, but this doesn't address the issue that you 'may' be wrong
Even if I´m wrong, I still have reasons to reject BXVI. I think it is prudent to reject him. And if one has serious reasons about the existence of a law (or of the lawmaker himself), all theologians say we cannot accept that law, that it is as if it doesn´t exist.
It is BXVI the one who has to prove with certainty that he is the Pope. Positive and serious doubts are enough to reject him.
Yes I believe I responded to this in the latter part of my last response. I'm curious about your thoughts.
Sorry but I don´t see how you did so... could you tell me again please?
for you and I are not Cardinals or bishops
Are they infallible?
No. Is St. Robert Bellarmine?
No, but Canon Law and Pius XII are :)
Besides as Bellarmine said his teaching was commonly hold by all the Fathers and became the most common teaching among theologians in the subsequent centuries. Cajetan´s opinion was almost abandoned by XX cent.
-
Cristian,
I am not saying there is a reason to doubt that BXVI is Pope. I don't believe there is.
What I am saying is that if there were a hypothetical situation where the Pope publicly stated something questionably heretical, we should wait for the Church to make a declaration, after investigation, that the Pope lost his office due to formal heresy. Just like Vennarri said. Each individual Catholic would not be authorized to make a private judgment as to whether the Pope lost his office due to formal heresy.
And even if a particular sede did so, wouldn't they still be bound to obey their legitimate diocesan bishops if the diocesan bishop is not a formal heretic? What about their local NO parish priest?
If a Pope tells you to worship false idols you refuse to obey because it is against the 10 commandments and you leave it to the Church to decide whether he committed formal heresy.
The New Mass is optional. Ecuмenical acts are optional. One could decide not to participate in any VCII novelty, attend one's TLM, do one's Traditional devotions and still be Catholic. What does VCII require me to believe or do that I wasn't required of me pre-VCII?
You are using the term "law" ambiguously. Assisi is not a "law". The promulgation of the NO Mass is not a law I must assist at it to fulfill my Sunday obligation when other Masses are available. Pope's musings in Wednesday audiences are not "laws". These things and other novel programs and practices can have bad fruits
What "universal law" have I said is evil?
You are not free to ignore a Universal Council, the new code, the new Mass etc. How can you say so?
Sure I am. Because this Council obligated me to believe nothing different than Catholics believed pre-VCII, the new mass is not mandatory on me, the New Code mandates me to do nothing uncatholic, etc.
-
Here's Bellarmine's quote again. Pay close attention to the underlined part.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."
His quote says that a Pope may be judged and punished by the Church should he fall into heresy. He never said that laypeople can judge or punish the Pope.
What does he say about a heretic being elected a pope? Speaking of a heretic prior to election, i.e. freemason or enemy of God with the intention to destroy. Can the laypeople judge a heretic who was never qualified to be a pope?
In the case of a Freemason of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, a person would be automtically excommunicated. So when I say that Paul VI was an anti-pope due to being a mason, I'm not judging him but rather saying that since he was already excommunicated he wasn't a valid Pope.
However, Benedict is not a Freemason. There are rumors that he is gαy, but there isn't near enough evidence to prove that.
-
Christian, you said:
"If you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope you cannot accept him. This is comonly taught by thoelogians. A doubtful law is not law; a doubtful Pope is not Pope.
Besides if it happened, well it happened! Therefore that person is not longer the Pope, independently if I say it or not, if the Church says it or not, or if an angel from heaven says otherwise!
I´ve a person who says he is the Pope and tells me to worship false idols. I must act now and not wait till the Church decides about it."
That is not correct. Some people believe that Pius XII was a doubtful Pope, so using your logic we must conclude that because Pius XII did some things that are questionable, he must not be a valid Pope. Heck, there were a few nutcases here who believed both Pius V and X were anti-popes. So should we assume that they aren't Popes since other people think they aren't?
And even though it's true that it will be the laypeople that help save the Church through the Grace of God, it doesn't mean that they should judge a still-reigning Pope.
-
Cristian,
I am not saying there is a reason to doubt that BXVI is Pope. I don't believe there is.
What I am saying is that if there were a hypothetical situation where the Pope publicly stated something questionably heretical, we should wait for the Church to make a declaration, after investigation, that the Pope lost his office due to formal heresy. Just like Vennarri said. Each individual Catholic would not be authorized to make a private judgment as to whether the Pope lost his office due to formal heresy.
Ahh ok. I think though this contradicts the teaching of theologians and the Code of Canon Law.
The question is not here, as Billot points out, about material/formal heresy but rather about Public heresy vs. Internal heresy.
If a Pope tells you to worship false idols you refuse to obey because it is against the 10 commandments...
Why is it a sin? Don´t you have the right to profess any other religion? If you are using a right you cannot sin.
The New Mass is optional. Ecuмenical acts are optional. One could decide not to participate in any VCII novelty, attend one's TLM, do one's Traditional devotions and still be Catholic. What does VCII require me to believe or do that I wasn't required of me pre-VCII?
Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: "“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice without people. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…"
You are using the term "law" ambiguously. Assisi is not a "law". The promulgation of the NO Mass is not a law I must assist at it to fulfill my Sunday obligation when other Masses are available. Pope's musings in Wednesday audiences are not "laws". These things and other novel programs and practices can have bad fruits
The NO was promulgated as a law. If you would just have the NO option, what would you do and why?
What "universal law" have I said is evil?
Let´s see... do you think Catholics may lawfully receive the sacraments from non Catholic ministers and vice versa? Or to take active participation in non Catholic rites?
You are not free to ignore a Universal Council, the new code, the new Mass etc. How can you say so?
Sure I am. Because this Council obligated me to believe nothing different than Catholics believed pre-VCII, the new mass is not mandatory on me, the New Code mandates me to do nothing uncatholic, etc.
So the fact that Vat. II tells you you have the right to worship any god, the fact that tells you that the Catholic Church is not identified with the Mystical Body, that Bishops have the power of jurisdiction from the sacrament of order and not from the Papal mandate, etc. etc is not a change? According to canon law you can assist right now to a Mass said by a schismatic priest and receive the sacraments of communion, and confession... you really think nothing changed in the last 50 years?
-
Christian, you said:
"If you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope you cannot accept him. This is comonly taught by thoelogians. A doubtful law is not law; a doubtful Pope is not Pope.
Besides if it happened, well it happened! Therefore that person is not longer the Pope, independently if I say it or not, if the Church says it or not, or if an angel from heaven says otherwise!
I´ve a person who says he is the Pope and tells me to worship false idols. I must act now and not wait till the Church decides about it."
That is not correct. Some people believe that Pius XII was a doubtful Pope, so using your logic we must conclude that because Pius XII did some things that are questionable, he must not be a valid Pope. Heck, there were a few nutcases here who believed both Pius V and X were anti-popes. So should we assume that they aren't Popes since other people think they aren't?
And even though it's true that it will be the laypeople that help save the Church through the Grace of God, it doesn't mean that they should judge a still-reigning Pope.
Well a distinction has to be made here. One thing is to have a subjective doubt and other different thing is if it is objective.
My point is if you have a (subjective) positive and prudent doubt whether or not BXVI is the Pope, you can´t accept him, in the same way as you can´t say "well, maybe this is a sin but I do it anyway".
The fact that someone says "X is not Pope" is not enough for everybody to have that doubt. I may disagree (in fact I do disagree) with those who accuse Pius XII of heresy. I don´t even have the least doubt about his Papacy.
You see the difference?
-
What about those who say that B16 could not have been elected but do not refer to themselves as a sedevacantist.
I´m not sure what you mean... something like G. des Lauriers´ theory?
-
What about those who say that B16 could not have been elected but do not refer to themselves as a sedevacantist.
roscoe is the only person who fits that discription that I know of.
-
Why is it a sin? Don´t you have the right to profess any other religion? If you are using a right you cannot sin.
Actually, no one has the right to profess any other religion. No one has the right to reject God and His Church, only the free will to do so.
-
s2srea,
Why do you believe the current pope is a heretic?
Do you also believe previous popes were heretics?
If so, why?
Would God allow a pope to become a heretic?
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the papacy?
Thanks!
-
Christian, you said:
"If you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope you cannot accept him. This is comonly taught by thoelogians. A doubtful law is not law; a doubtful Pope is not Pope.
Besides if it happened, well it happened! Therefore that person is not longer the Pope, independently if I say it or not, if the Church says it or not, or if an angel from heaven says otherwise!
I´ve a person who says he is the Pope and tells me to worship false idols. I must act now and not wait till the Church decides about it."
That is not correct. Some people believe that Pius XII was a doubtful Pope, so using your logic we must conclude that because Pius XII did some things that are questionable, he must not be a valid Pope. Heck, there were a few nutcases here who believed both Pius V and X were anti-popes. So should we assume that they aren't Popes since other people think they aren't?
And even though it's true that it will be the laypeople that help save the Church through the Grace of God, it doesn't mean that they should judge a still-reigning Pope.
Well a distinction has to be made here. One thing is to have a subjective doubt and other different thing is if it is objective.
My point is if you have a (subjective) positive and prudent doubt whether or not BXVI is the Pope, you can´t accept him, in the same way as you can´t say "well, maybe this is a sin but I do it anyway".
The fact that someone says "X is not Pope" is not enough for everybody to have that doubt. I may disagree (in fact I do disagree) with those who accuse Pius XII of heresy. I don´t even have the least doubt about his Papacy.
You see the difference?
One person here originally thought Pius XII was an anti-pope because of his decision to promote Bugnini or something like that. I don't think that qualifies as a heresy, though. I see the difference, but what I'm saying is that just because you have a doubt about a Pope's Papacy does not mean you must say "The Pope isn't Pope, I have doubts about his Papacy so he must be an anti-pope!".
Let me apply your logic in this sense. If someone has doubts that the Traditional Latin Mass is the True Rite of the Catholic Church, should they assume that because of those doubts the Novus Ordo must be the Rite of the Church? That does not apply as logical reasoning.
-
Would God allow a pope to become a heretic?
God allowed His Son to die an inexpressibly ignominious death...all else is small potatoes.
Why do pea-brained mortals presume to speculate about what God would or would not allow?
-
Actually, no one has the right to profess any other religion.
Dignitatis Humanae (authored by Wojtyla) and the V2 anti-religion teach otherwise...
-
Actually, no one has the right to profess any other religion.
Dignitatis Humanae (authored by Wojtyla) and the V2 anti-religion teach otherwise...
and we don't follow the v2 anti-religion so what is your point?
-
s2srea,
Why do you believe the current pope is a heretic?
Do you also believe previous popes were heretics?
If so, why?
Would God allow a pope to become a heretic?
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the papacy?
Thanks!
I'm not a sedevacantist like Christian is, but I think you can figure out why some people believe the Vatican II Popes are anti-popes. Let's start with JPII.
Ah, JPII. The man of warm, fuzzy love and ecuмenism. Or perhaps the man of modernist viewpoints? Absolutely. One cannot overlook what JPII did at Assisi I and II. He covered up all the Crosses, and did not offer Mass on Sunday "so as not to offend anyone". Now, don't you think the Vicar of Christ should be more worried about offending God than man? And to cover up the Cross is a sacreligious act of apostasy, because basically he implied that it was of little importance. Let's not forget his comment that "the Holy Spirit guides all religions". Huh? Didn't the First Vatican Council say that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church? And they want to make this man a Saint? What did he do for the Church other than modernize it?
Next, let's take a look at Paul VI's "Papacy". There is sufficient evidence that Paul VI was a Freemason. Now, surely being a Catholic Santo, you should know that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is devil worship and has been condemned by the Church. Right? I hope you know that. Paul VI went to the United Nations (the leader of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr) and gave up his Papal tierra and Cross. That should wave a red flag. Paul VI also specifically stated that the Traditional Latin Mass was "too Catholic". How could a Pope say such a horrible thing?
Bottom line is that even though I am not a sede, I greatly respect the sede position. You cannot say that such Popes deserve Canonization. Paul VI is the only one I believe to be an anti-pope due to being a mason which would have excommunicated him from the Church. You cannot deny that there is no Crisis in the Church. Our Lady of Fatima warned there would be one. Oh, but JPII tried to tell us the Third Secret was about him getting shot. Please. That Secret is false. The Secret released by the Vatican stated a Pope would be shot and killed with an arrow. JPII was not killed, and it was a bullet not an arrow. It's so clearly obvious.
-
Actually, no one has the right to profess any other religion.
Dignitatis Humanae (authored by Wojtyla) and the V2 anti-religion teach otherwise...
and we don't follow the v2 anti-religion so what is your point?
What is the seat of authority in the V2 anti-religion? What church promotes it? Who is the head of said church?
How can a man be the head of the anti-church and, at the same time, be the head of the Catholic Church? One head, two bodies?
-
s2srea,
Why do you believe the current pope is a heretic?
Do you also believe previous popes were heretics?
If so, why?
Would God allow a pope to become a heretic?
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the papacy?
Thanks!
Honorius was declared a Heretic and anethama(Excommunicated and condemned to hell) by the Third Council of Constantinople. God gave everyone Pope's included free-will. We are free to make our own choices and decisions one does not lose this right when they become Pope. But anyone who obeys an illegal command will go to hell with the one who gave the command. Be forewarned before you commit blasphemy such as touching the body of christ with your hand, wearing jeans before God, or commit heresy such as preaching that all religions are good when in fact there is only the Church of God(Catholic Church, under the universal magisterium, what was and has always been believed and no more) and the churches of Satan(plural, 'the god's of the gentiles are devils')
It did not and does not defeat the purpose of the papacy, your problem is you do not understand the catholic definition of obedience.
A Father is owed obedience from his wife and children, but if he tells them to do something that is a sin or heretical, then he forfeits that right to obedience and it now becomes a sin for them to obey him. Same with the Priests, Bishops and the Pope. The Father in turn must obey his priest unless he is told to commit a sin, or told to believe something heretical, the priest loses his authority, same with the Bishops and the Pope.
When all else fails, the magisterium that which has always and everywhere been believed is correct. Follow it and you will get to heaven, it is the job of the clergy to pass on the magisterium not change it. Any attempt to change it makes one anethama.
I was told by a Priest this line.
"In many of the lines of people heading to hell, at the end of many of them are priests because the people in front at judgement were saying 'but father said...' "
You are not guarenteed to get to heaven by following a Pope, at the Third Council of Constantinople Mennas defended himself by saying that Pope Honorius has ok'd what he was preaching, he then provided proof of this, this did not vindicate Mennas, as he was condemned and so too was Honorius based on the evidence Mennas gave them.
So when you get to final judgement and you say "But Pope JPII and V2 said..." You will not win the argument, you will be condemned and so will those who gave you your heretical beliefs.
-
Would God allow a pope to become a heretic?
God allowed His Son to die an inexpressibly ignominious death...all else is small potatoes.
Why do pea-brained mortals presume to speculate about what God would or would not allow?
Well, because, I suppose, in this instance it seems to go against what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 16. Christ told Peter he was building His Church on him, gave him the keys, the power to bind and loose, and promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. To go through all of this and to ensure the pope does not become a heretic for 1958(?) years and then to allow it, doesn't seem to correspond with Christ's intent.
It also seems to go against charity. We would expect a charitable Father to provide perpetual successors to lead the Church and not fall into error. This is mentioned in Vatican I.
The death of the Messiah was foretold in OT prophecies. True, it was not known that God would send His Son as the Messiah. However, this was a very unique event in the life of the Church, as you will agree. The ignominious death on the cross was God's act of supreme love for us, and the Resurrection allows us to enter into eternal life.
The pope becoming a heretic is an evil that seems to go against logic as well. Why found an indefectible Church with an infallible head and then allow the infallible head to fallibly fall into heresy- thereby, in effect leading the entire visible Church into heresy? It doesn't make sense on a natural level. At least not to me.
-
Lord Phan,
I don't believe Honorius was declared a heretic. I believe he was condemned for his silence/ negligence in the face of heresy.
-
Lord Phan,
I don't believe Honorius was declared a heretic. I believe he was condemned for his silence/ negligence in the face of heresy.
That is WHY he was condemned, but he was declared a Heretic
"To Honorius the heretic anethema we say" is how it was worded.
Pope St. Leo II then declared him anethama aswell and wrote about the reasons why.
He was not SILENT as you say, he took Sergius's advice and issued a letter which gave them permission to omit words in their creeds to the effect of promoting monothelite heresy and/or in the case of the Patriarch of Egypt at the time to facilitate the return of the monolelites into the church by not explicitly declaring there to be two natures of Christ, man and God.
Mennas showed the council the letters as his defence, and Honorius was condemned with him shortly thereafter. The Papal Legates were sent by Pope St. Agatho I and were the ones who decided to NOT omit the names of the condemned. The Patriarch of Constantinople had in fact at the last minute mentioned not putting names to the condemnations since they were condemning Patriarchs and a Pope. But the Legates of Rome nixed that idea and were adamant that Honorius and the rest be codemned by name. The 14th Council of Toledo was convened shortly after for the Bishops of the west and they confirmed the decision of the council which was then promulgated by Pope St. Leo II.
There was another Pope who had something he said condemned without being condemned. I forget his name. Someone will mention it.
-
Well the only way a Pope can be judged is if he falls into public heresy (and thus loosing membership). Now, no theologian, as far as I know admits he ceased to be Pope, therefore some other explanation must be given. Bellarmine`s is, IMO quite possible. Billot himself, in defense of Honorius quotes his successor saying that he kept the faith incorruptibly.
So to sum up: if Honorius was always Pope no one could condemn him as canon 1556 points out "The Holy See can be judged by no one" for the simple reason he has no superior upon earth. If he was condemned that has to have been because of heresy and because he ceased to be Pope... now no theologian said he ceased to be Pope, therefore.
I detect a fallacy due to equivocating on the term "condemnation." That one cannot condemn the Holy See in its capacity as authoritative teacher, I concede. That one cannot condemn the faults of the Pope, I deny. Since a Pope can err, both doctrinally and morally, or be culpably negligent, it necessarily follows that he can, secundum quid, in his personal faults be condemned while not touching upon or judging his office or usurping papal supremacy. Indeed, every single traditionalist Catholic, whether sede or not, presupposes this very thing. Therefore your logic doesn't hold water. Honorious was condemned not as Pope, but for the evil that he perpetuated. Indeed, he was terms an instrument of the Devil for his error.
-
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.
-
Well the only way a Pope can be judged is if he falls into public heresy (and thus loosing membership). Now, no theologian, as far as I know admits he ceased to be Pope, therefore some other explanation must be given. Bellarmine`s is, IMO quite possible. Billot himself, in defense of Honorius quotes his successor saying that he kept the faith incorruptibly.
So to sum up: if Honorius was always Pope no one could condemn him as canon 1556 points out "The Holy See can be judged by no one" for the simple reason he has no superior upon earth. If he was condemned that has to have been because of heresy and because he ceased to be Pope... now no theologian said he ceased to be Pope, therefore.
I detect a fallacy due to equivocating on the term "condemnation." That one cannot condemn the Holy See in its capacity as authoritative teacher, I concede. That one cannot condemn the faults of the Pope, I deny. Since a Pope can err, both doctrinally and morally, or be culpably negligent, it necessarily follows that he can, secundum quid, in his personal faults be condemned while not touching upon or judging his office or usurping papal supremacy. Indeed, every single traditionalist Catholic, whether sede or not, presupposes this very thing. Therefore your logic doesn't hold water. Honorious was condemned not as Pope, but for the evil that he perpetuated. Indeed, he was terms an instrument of the Devil for his error.
Speaking of equivocation ... Caminus, exactly HOW can a pope err doctrinally? Can the Church err doctrinally too?
-
Why is it a sin? Don´t you have the right to profess any other religion? If you are using a right you cannot sin.
Actually, no one has the right to profess any other religion. No one has the right to reject God and His Church, only the free will to do so.
Ohh sorry I was being ironic. According to Vat II you have the right to worship any god...
Of course I agree with you SS.
-
Well the only way a Pope can be judged is if he falls into public heresy (and thus loosing membership). Now, no theologian, as far as I know admits he ceased to be Pope, therefore some other explanation must be given. Bellarmine`s is, IMO quite possible. Billot himself, in defense of Honorius quotes his successor saying that he kept the faith incorruptibly.
So to sum up: if Honorius was always Pope no one could condemn him as canon 1556 points out "The Holy See can be judged by no one" for the simple reason he has no superior upon earth. If he was condemned that has to have been because of heresy and because he ceased to be Pope... now no theologian said he ceased to be Pope, therefore.
I detect a fallacy due to equivocating on the term "condemnation." That one cannot condemn the Holy See in its capacity as authoritative teacher, I concede. That one cannot condemn the faults of the Pope, I deny. Since a Pope can err, both doctrinally and morally, or be culpably negligent, it necessarily follows that he can, secundum quid, in his personal faults be condemned while not touching upon or judging his office or usurping papal supremacy. Indeed, every single traditionalist Catholic, whether sede or not, presupposes this very thing. Therefore your logic doesn't hold water. Honorious was condemned not as Pope, but for the evil that he perpetuated. Indeed, he was terms an instrument of the Devil for his error.
Canon 1556 talks about judging canonically the Pope, saying that nobody can do it. Now if you mean that we may condemn the faults of the Pope as saying "what he did was a sin", then that´s another story.
A Pope cannot be taken into a court. Therefore having this for certain I said that Honorius could have been canonically condemned only if he ceased to be Pope through heresy.
I don´t see any fallacy here.
-
Christian, you said:
"If you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope you cannot accept him. This is comonly taught by thoelogians. A doubtful law is not law; a doubtful Pope is not Pope.
That is not correct. Some people believe that Pius XII was a doubtful Pope, so using your logic we must conclude that because Pius XII did some things that are questionable, he must not be a valid Pope. Heck, there were a few nutcases here who believed both Pius V and X were anti-popes. So should we assume that they aren't Popes since other people think they aren't?
And even though it's true that it will be the laypeople that help save the Church through the Grace of God, it doesn't mean that they should judge a still-reigning Pope.
Well a distinction has to be made here. One thing is to have a subjective doubt and other different thing is if it is objective.
My point is if you have a (subjective) positive and prudent doubt whether or not BXVI is the Pope, you can´t accept him, in the same way as you can´t say "well, maybe this is a sin but I do it anyway".
The fact that someone says "X is not Pope" is not enough for everybody to have that doubt. I may disagree (in fact I do disagree) with those who accuse Pius XII of heresy. I don´t even have the least doubt about his Papacy.
You see the difference?
One person here originally thought Pius XII was an anti-pope because of his decision to promote Bugnini or something like that. I don't think that qualifies as a heresy, though.
Neither I. That´s why I said the arguments which make you doubt have to be prudent and serious.
I see the difference, but what I'm saying is that just because you have a doubt about a Pope's Papacy does not mean you must say "The Pope isn't Pope, I have doubts about his Papacy so he must be an anti-pope!".
If you have positive, prudent doubt about a law then, in practice, is as if that law were null. Theologians say: "a morally doubtful obligation is an obligation subjectively null". If you doubt about someone´s papacy you may say whether "he was anti-pope" or "he ceased to be so by public heresy", what is certain is that you cannot follow a doubtful Pope.
Let me apply your logic in this sense. If someone has doubts that the Traditional Latin Mass is the True Rite of the Catholic Church, should they assume that because of those doubts the Novus Ordo must be the Rite of the Church? That does not apply as logical reasoning.
Yes, in conscience he must assume that, but you have to remember that we can have what is called a "wrong conscience" that is we may believe that we must do something when in fact we are not bound to do that, but if we believe we are bound and do not do that, then we sin, even if that action were not sin in itself. An example may clarify this:
Suppose it is Thursday but you believe it is Friday, and you know you cannot eat meat on Friday, but yet you eat meat, and then you realize it is Thursday. You cannot say "well I didn´t sin since it was not Friday" because you did sin in spite of your "wrong conscience", since as St. Paul says: "For all that is not of faith is sin." That is, as theologians explain, when we act against the dictates of our conscience we sin.
A bit complicated, right? :confused1:
-
s2srea,
Why do you believe the current pope is a heretic?
Hi Subito- I believe many of his writings profess heresy before and after he became pope. Most of which have to do with Jєωs, Muslims and other religions- placing them as equals with Catholicism. If you want specific quotes , please let me know.
Do you also believe previous popes were heretics?... If so, why?
"All"? No sir. If you mean those popes post Vatican II, I would say I haven't studied all of them in depth enough, and don't go out of my way to do so, but the majority of their writings and actions (spare JohnPaul I) would lead me to believe so.
Would God allow a pope to become a heretic?
Yes. The pope is human, first and foremost. This is where many (not all) Sede's and NO's are very much alike. They make their pope a God, when he is still human and can sin like the rest of us.p
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the papacy?
Yes, but that isn't the point. They're human, they can fail. And they papacy will be restored one day. They papacy is not the Church, only a part of it. If a man sins, doesn't this defeat the purpose of Christ dying on the cross for us?
Thanks!
Thank YOU for the questions. I hope you are able to respond :)
-
Therefore having this for certain I said that Honorius could have been canonically condemned only if he ceased to be Pope through heresy.
And who makes that determination? Honorius' condemnation was not canonical at any rate, it was a moral/doctrinal condemnation of his person. There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office. But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails. They don't determien that he is a non-member and then set about discerning his heresy, as if the have to "clear the way" in order to make a judgment. If that duty can devolve to the Cardinals, then a fortiori, can a future Pope and Council condemn a previous Pope for his actions or inactions, for his errors and failings without asserting canonical supremecy.
-
The pope becoming a heretic is an evil that seems to go against logic as well. Why found an indefectible Church with an infallible head and then allow the infallible head to fallibly fall into heresy- thereby, in effect leading the entire visible Church into heresy? It doesn't make sense on a natural level. At least not to me.
First of all, in the case of Paul VI, the Pope was already a heretic. A Freemason cannot be Pope. I don't know if you saw my previous post yesterday, but there is strong evidence that Paul VI was a Freemason. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is a form of devil worship. The Catholic Church was infiltrated by Freemasons. Next time you're online, look through the Crisis section for my "Article on the Infiltration of the Vatican" thread and see for yourself.
And yes, the Pope can commit heresy. Popes are human. You clearly mis-understand Papal Infallibility. It doesn't mean that everything the Pope says and does is free of error like the Novus Ordites think. The Pope is a sinner just like us.
Furthermore, just because the Pope commits heresy does not mean the Church suddenly falls into heresy. The Catholic Church is Infallible. The Vatican II church is not.
-
There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office. But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails.
What does tacit mean, Matthew?
-
There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office. But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails.
What does tacit mean, Matthew?
GV, youre back! Good to see you, buddy.
-
There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office. But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails.
What does tacit mean, Matthew?
The question is, who determines the fact?
-
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?
-
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?
Legal presumption of guilt is the necessary foundation for the determination of factual guilt. The entire process presupposes someone in an official position to deal with both the legal and factual questions.
-
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?
Yes, Caminus cannot tolerate a judgment of fact before the order of law decides, if it ever does decide. He has no problem with a judgment of fact (the NO was not promulgated properly, for example) when he sees fit. This is applied selectively, to save his position, the "true" position, in own mind.
-
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?
Legal presumption of guilt is the necessary foundation for the determination of factual guilt. The entire process presupposes someone in an official position to deal with both the legal and factual questions.
Why? It is not the "necessary foundation" in civil law.
-
There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office. But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails.
What does tacit mean, Matthew?
The question is, who determines the fact?
How do you explain for instance the penalties latae sententiae?
-
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?
Legal presumption of guilt is the necessary foundation for the determination of factual guilt. The entire process presupposes someone in an official position to deal with both the legal and factual questions.
Why? It is not the "necessary foundation" in civil law.
It certainly is, how else are people arrested, charged and hauled into court if not based upon a legal presumption of guilt? The presumption of innocence pertains to guilt in fact. The whole reason for a trial to to ascertain whether the facts and evidence support the charge. This principle is found within canon law as well.
-
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?
Yes, Caminus cannot tolerate a judgment of fact before the order of law decides, if it ever does decide. He has no problem with a judgment of fact (the NO was not promulgated properly, for example) when he sees fit. This is applied selectively, to save his position, the "true" position, in own mind.
I'm not sure what he means by an "order of fact." Determining the objective defect of a thing is an entirely different matter than determining the guilt of a man. There can also be a dispute about facts as well as how pertinent principles are applied. In the case of determing what constitutes an heretical proposition (the very matter for the charge itself, something which you simply assume) it is not always an easy task either. What you deem "fact" is oftentimes mere presumption or conclusory allegations as well. On the other hand, if you have a true fact at hand, no one can argue against it. So lets get our concepts straight before we go accusing others of intolerance or inconsitency.
-
There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office. But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails.
What does tacit mean, Matthew?
The question is, who determines the fact?
How do you explain for instance the penalties latae sententiae?
That still must be determined as to whether or not the censure was incurred. It can come down to a dispute about fact.
-
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?
Legal presumption of guilt is the necessary foundation for the determination of factual guilt. The entire process presupposes someone in an official position to deal with both the legal and factual questions.
Why? It is not the "necessary foundation" in civil law.
It certainly is, how else are people arrested, charged and hauled into court if not based upon a legal presumption of guilt? The presumption of innocence pertains to guilt in fact. The whole reason for a trial to to ascertain whether the facts and evidence support the charge. This principle is found within canon law as well.
The guilt must be proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt (morallly certain). Guilt is not presumed to make an arrest. The arrest occurs because of an action; the courts are not even involved at this point.
-
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?
Yes, Caminus cannot tolerate a judgment of fact before the order of law decides, if it ever does decide. He has no problem with a judgment of fact (the NO was not promulgated properly, for example) when he sees fit. This is applied selectively, to save his position, the "true" position, in own mind.
I'm not sure what he means by an "order of fact." Determining the objective defect of a thing is an entirely different matter than determining the guilt of a man. There can also be a dispute about facts as well as how pertinent principles are applied. In the case of determing what constitutes an heretical proposition (the very matter for the charge itself, something which you simply assume) it is not always an easy task either. What you deem "fact" is oftentimes mere presumption or conclusory allegations as well. On the other hand, if you have a true fact at hand, no one can argue against it. So lets get our concepts straight before we go accusing others of intolerance or inconsitency.
No, it's not an "easy task", yet it is possible in many cases.
-
I was reading parts of another thread here which related to Sede Vecantism and was thinking about the position. Is it wrong? No. As long as it remains an opinion, which for most it seems to, it can not be wrong for it is an opinion. But two opinions don't make a right, right? My personal opinion is that I'm blind, or at least naive, to think that these men aren't heretics. But thats an opinion as well.
However, I tend to see much effort put in to the previous 3 and/or 4 popes as an attempt to show why these men could not possibly hold the Seat of Peter. From extensive St. Bellarmine quotations, to archived docuмents and interviews, etc. But here's what I'm sort of thinking:
If everyone on Cathinfo was magically made a Cardinal today, then I could understand the reason for trying to proclaim wether or not these popes were indeed popes or not, and of course to proclaim all of their heresies. We would have the duty, I believe, to make it known to the world that these men, outside of a last minute conversion from God, were not Catholic, and most definitely did not act as Catholics much of the time.
However, we are not Cardinals. And as such, our only duty is to recognize what is and isn't Catholic and live a holy life attempt to get to Heaven (simplified I know). It is not within our power to proclaim what office these men did or did not hold as I hope future Cardinals will.
So continuing to attend a Traditional Mass would be a matter of taste?
If the last 5 popes are not heretics and are fully valid Popes then the N.O. Mass and ordinations are valid and not attending Sacraments from the conciliar church is only a matter of preference.
?
-
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Caminus, do you think the "unity of the Body" here refers to some sort of political unity? It must be the unity of Faith, as I see it. Pius XII even makes the distinction between those who have seperated themselves and those who are excluded by legitimate authority.
(Satis Cognitum) teaches: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. 'No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic' (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)."
-
Caminus, do you think the "unity of the Body" here refers to some sort of political unity? It must be the unity of Faith, as I see it. Pius XII even makes the distinction between those who have seperated themselves and those who are excluded by legitimate authority.
Is anyone here going to tell us, those of the sedevacantist persuasion, that currently the faith of Rome and that of SSPX followers is the same?
Let us face facts, there is no unity of faith between the post-Vatican II establishment and traditional Catholics.
-
Caminus, do you think the "unity of the Body" here refers to some sort of political unity? It must be the unity of Faith, as I see it. Pius XII even makes the distinction between those who have seperated themselves and those who are excluded by legitimate authority.
Is anyone here going to tell us, those of the sedevacantist persuasion, that currently the faith of Rome and that of SSPX followers is the same?
Let us face facts, there is no unity of faith between the post-Vatican II establishment and traditional Catholics.
The conciliar postvats are schismatic.
?
-
The conciliar postvats are schismatic.
?
A period, then a question mark; is that a statement or a question? If the latter, I mean to say the current establishment is not Catholic.
-
The conciliar postvats are schismatic.
?
A period, then a question mark; is that a statement or a question? If the latter, I mean to say the current establishment is not Catholic.
It is both.
A grammatical spork.
:roll-laugh1:
I feel funny today.
-
There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office. But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails.
What does tacit mean, Matthew?
The question is, who determines the fact?
How do you explain for instance the penalties latae sententiae?
That still must be determined as to whether or not the censure was incurred. It can come down to a dispute about fact.
Any proof? Do you think the Church made a trial on any single Catholic who, for instance, became protestant and followed Luther? The whole supposition is absurd. If you wish to leave the Catholic Church you can easily do it.
The penalties latae sententiae are one of the main differences among the penal Law of any state and Canon Law, where you incur the penalties without a trial.
But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made
You can`t base your adherence to a Pope merely upon a supposition. You have to be certain he is the Pope.
-
These people who deny the truth of the crisis are in great danger, for the Bible tells us to deny even one teaching is to deny them all. That apostasy IS: someone who was once Catholic, but left for another religion.
They constantly search what was said in the past and wiggle and waggle their position, but even the Saints did not live during the great apostasy.
They quote laws that no longer apply because of our situation, meaning laws that were at one time good because they were for the good of the people but NOW authority is eclipsed, they are no longer needed for the good of the faithful, what is needed are the teachings of Christ and penance.
They believe the Holy Ghost guides the heretic, they believe the pope does not have to be Catholic, they believe a heretic can be validly elected by other heretics.
The truth is, they are so comfortable in their chapels that compromises the teachings of Christ, they don't have to guts to leave the harlot.
Some here are not even what they claim to be, but post here hoping to sway weak Catholics into continuing to keep the money into the hands of sheep in wolves clothing.
I know I am just an ignorant, old women, pay no mind to what I post, continue on your path, follow the novus ordo all the while complaining about it, defend the novus ordo anyway you can. Calling the Vatican II popes "anti-popes" is giving them too much credit, they are enemies of God with the intent to drag souls into Hell, agents of the devil.
My advice for you today, on this feast of St. Anthony would be to pray and ask him to help you find the TRUTH.
-
I was reading parts of another thread here which related to Sede Vecantism and was thinking about the position. Is it wrong? No. As long as it remains an opinion, which for most it seems to, it can not be wrong for it is an opinion. But two opinions don't make a right, right? My personal opinion is that I'm blind, or at least naive, to think that these men aren't heretics. But thats an opinion as well.
However, I tend to see much effort put in to the previous 3 and/or 4 popes as an attempt to show why these men could not possibly hold the Seat of Peter. From extensive St. Bellarmine quotations, to archived docuмents and interviews, etc. But here's what I'm sort of thinking:
If everyone on Cathinfo was magically made a Cardinal today, then I could understand the reason for trying to proclaim wether or not these popes were indeed popes or not, and of course to proclaim all of their heresies. We would have the duty, I believe, to make it known to the world that these men, outside of a last minute conversion from God, were not Catholic, and most definitely did not act as Catholics much of the time.
However, we are not Cardinals. And as such, our only duty is to recognize what is and isn't Catholic and live a holy life attempt to get to Heaven (simplified I know). It is not within our power to proclaim what office these men did or did not hold as I hope future Cardinals will.
So continuing to attend a Traditional Mass would be a matter of taste?
If the last 5 popes are not heretics and are fully valid Popes then the N.O. Mass and ordinations are valid and not attending Sacraments from the conciliar church is only a matter of preference.
?
Regarding one of those five Vatican II Popes (John Paul I) he was actually not a heretic. He was killed because he was going to correct something. So to say ALL of them are anti-popes is false.
-
Any proof? Do you think the Church made a trial on any single Catholic who, for instance, became protestant and followed Luther? The whole supposition is absurd. If you wish to leave the Catholic Church you can easily do it.
In a situation where the subject commits a crime and they do not seek recourse to legal authority, or contest the penalty, then obviously no trial or determination of fact is needed. They obviously reject the entire organization in a circuмstance such as you describe. That doesn't negate the fact that there are other circuмstances where a penalty is contested or the facts are in dispute, such as with one who ostensibly desires to retain his position or membership within the Church. You are, in fact, dealing with men who still claim legal authority, who manifest their obvious intention to remain within the Church and their positions of authority. The question then becomes whether they in fact have incurred an automatic penalty. You can assert that they have, and I'm sure many have indeed for various reasons, but that remains your opinion nevertheless.
And when it comes to a question of fact, this is where the sede position becomes quite convoluted and is ultimately exposed for what it is, a private opinion of a
Catholic layman or priest.
But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made
You can`t base your adherence to a Pope merely upon a supposition...
You're really straining here. That is obviously not what I meant by the word "supposition." I used it in the sense that it is a basic presupposition or assumption that his legal status would remain unaffected until some time in the future. But in order to make it clear, let me say that the legal presumption of validity is the controlling principle.
This is but a distraction from the fact that your syllogism contained a fatal equivocation.
-
Any proof? Do you think the Church made a trial on any single Catholic who, for instance, became protestant and followed Luther? The whole supposition is absurd. If you wish to leave the Catholic Church you can easily do it.
In a situation where the subject commits a crime and they do not seek recourse to legal authority, or contest the penalty, then obviously no trial or determination of fact is needed. They obviously reject the entire organization in a circuмstance such as you describe. That doesn't negate the fact that there are other circuмstances where a penalty is contested or the facts are in dispute, such as with one who ostensibly desires to retain his position or membership within the Church. You are, in fact, dealing with men who still claim legal authority, who manifest their obvious intention to remain within the Church and their positions of authority.
So according to you a person may believe, teach, profess anything and as long as he says "I´m Catholic" that person will be Catholic. The tacit resignation of office would be meaningless.
This contradicts history also where the Popes said that Nestorius lost the office immediately as soon as he preached his heresy.
The question then becomes whether they in fact have incurred an automatic penalty. You can assert that they have, and I'm sure many have indeed for various reasons, but that remains your opinion nevertheless.
And that of the CIC, and of all the canonists... etc
But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made
You can`t base your adherence to a Pope merely upon a supposition...
You're really straining here. That is obviously not what I meant by the word "supposition." I used it in the sense that it is a basic presupposition or assumption that his legal status would remain unaffected until some time in the future. But in order to make it clear, let me say that the legal presumption of validity is the controlling principle.
Not if you have a reasonable doubt about he being the Pope. If you say "X Pope can be taken into court and be declared heretic by a council" you are admitting the possibility he may not be the Pope, in which case presumption is not enough.
Besides you still have to explain how can you judge a Pope without contradicting Canon 1556.
Besides the official interpretation of canon 646.1 (the same as 188.4) (which says that a religious has to be considered legitimately dismissed ipso facto if he is a public apostate of the Catholic faith) says that the declaration of the fact is not necessary for having him legitimately dismissed.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS%2026%20[1934]%20-%20ocr.pdf (page 494)
At least recognize you have no author at all to quote in favor of your position...
-
Any proof? Do you think the Church made a trial on any single Catholic who, for instance, became protestant and followed Luther? The whole supposition is absurd. If you wish to leave the Catholic Church you can easily do it.
In a situation where the subject commits a crime and they do not seek recourse to legal authority, or contest the penalty, then obviously no trial or determination of fact is needed. They obviously reject the entire organization in a circuмstance such as you describe. That doesn't negate the fact that there are other circuмstances where a penalty is contested or the facts are in dispute, such as with one who ostensibly desires to retain his position or membership within the Church. You are, in fact, dealing with men who still claim legal authority, who manifest their obvious intention to remain within the Church and their positions of authority.
So according to you a person may believe, teach, profess anything and as long as he says "I´m Catholic" that person will be Catholic. The tacit resignation of office would be meaningless.
This contradicts history also where the Popes said that Nestorius lost the office immediately as soon as he preached his heresy.
The question then becomes whether they in fact have incurred an automatic penalty. You can assert that they have, and I'm sure many have indeed for various reasons, but that remains your opinion nevertheless.
And that of the CIC, and of all the canonists... etc
But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made
You can`t base your adherence to a Pope merely upon a supposition...
You're really straining here. That is obviously not what I meant by the word "supposition." I used it in the sense that it is a basic presupposition or assumption that his legal status would remain unaffected until some time in the future. But in order to make it clear, let me say that the legal presumption of validity is the controlling principle.
Not if you have a reasonable doubt about he being the Pope. If you say "X Pope can be taken into court and be declared heretic by a council" you are admitting the possibility he may not be the Pope, in which case presumption is not enough.
Besides you still have to explain how can you judge a Pope without contradicting Canon 1556.
Besides the official interpretation of canon 646.1 (the same as 188.4) (which says that a religious has to be considered legitimately dismissed ipso facto if he is a public apostate of the Catholic faith) says that the declaration of the fact is not necessary for having him legitimately dismissed.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS%2026%20[1934]%20-%20ocr.pdf (page 494)
At least recognize you have no author at all to quote in favor of your position...
Nestorius confirms his position not yours, Nestorius still held office up until he was proved to be a heretic by a council. His being subsequently deemed to have lost his office was a retroactive move. So IF a Pope is deemed to be a formal heretic he will be deemed to have lost his office retroactive to the point he became a heretic. That is not contrary to our opinion it supports it and defies your opinion because you deny a council or trial is needed.
Your last point is quite confusing in one instance you call them heretics but you qoute about apostates? Are you not aware there is a significant difference between a heretic and apostate? An Apostate is one who has lost all faith in Christ. A Heretic is someone who has faith in Christ but who contradicts a tenet of the faith which is dogmatic.
-
Yes, the case of Nestorious, and every other arch-heretic supports our position. In fact, Rome sought clarification, issued a warning and admonition, gave him time to repent, etc. But I posit that in many cases, we are not dealing with heresy anyway, but some other kind of doctrinal, intellectual or moral perversion.
And your point about automatic penalties is pretty well irrelevant. A dispute regarding facts can arise. This is not controversial.
Back to your syllogism. A Pope can be condemned in his actions or words, but not according to his office, as if another Bishop or even Council could act as his superior. This is a very basic, obvious distinction.
-
Yes, the case of Nestorious, and every other arch-heretic supports our position. In fact, Rome sought clarification, issued a warning and admonition, gave him time to repent, etc. But I posit that in many cases, we are not dealing with heresy anyway, but some other kind of doctrinal, intellectual or moral perversion.
And your point about automatic penalties is pretty well irrelevant. A dispute regarding facts can arise. This is not controversial.
Back to your syllogism. A Pope can be condemned in his actions or words, but not according to his office, as if another Bishop or even Council could act as his superior. This is a very basic, obvious distinction.
Caminus, this is precisely why Bellarmine says the heretic-pope can be judged by the Church. His heresy is MANIFEST. It is PUBLIC. That does not require a trial to determine. The very fact of the heresy (and pertinacity) being MANIFEST is what allows deposition.
In fact, Rome sought clarification, issued a warning and admonition, gave him time to repent, etc.
I see. When did this happen? Why hasn't it happened?
-
Nestorius confirms his position not yours, Nestorius still held office up until he was proved to be a heretic by a council. His being subsequently deemed to have lost his office was a retroactive move. So IF a Pope is deemed to be a formal heretic he will be deemed to have lost his office retroactive to the point he became a heretic. That is not contrary to our opinion it supports it and defies your opinion because you deny a council or trial is needed.
I`ll respond to this later when I have time. :)
Your last point is quite confusing in one instance you call them heretics but you qoute about apostates? Are you not aware there is a significant difference between a heretic and apostate? An Apostate is one who has lost all faith in Christ. A Heretic is someone who has faith in Christ but who contradicts a tenet of the faith which is dogmatic.
Apostasy and heresy differs only accidentally, this is something so very well known I`m surprised what I just read. Again when I`ve more time I`ll quote some theologians.
Have a nice day!
-
Ok, let`s try this Caminus. Could you explain to us how the things work when you have a Pope saying manifest heresies? What are the procedure? the consequences, etc?
Because I tell you the options, if you see another one please let us know.
1) The Council, while recognizing X as Pope, meets and call the Pope into a trial to explain his heresies, to admonish him. If he retracts he continues to be Pope, if he doesn`t retract then he ceases to be Pope.
Sed contra: canon 1556. Nobody can judge the Pope since he has no superior upon earth.
2) The council, while considering him no longer Pope, meets and call the Pope into a trial to explain his heresies.
In this case the Council would regard X as non-Pope even before the trial, which is exactly our position.
3) If I`m not mistaken you accept the possibility X ceases to be Pope but the fact of the declaration belongs to the council. Now let`s suppose this happens and X is called into trial and the council says: "X is not guilty" (since the council is not infallible is it?). So what will happen? X will suddenly be Pope again? Was always Pope? Will not be Pope and the Church will accept him as such...? What?
In the first case the trial is absurd and against canon law.
In the third case you can face a very absurd situation.
So... I think you just have the second one... which is the common teaching of canonists and theologians...
-
Nestorius confirms his position not yours, Nestorius still held office up until he was proved to be a heretic by a council. His being subsequently deemed to have lost his office was a retroactive move...
MANY acted, from the start, as if Nestorius had, in fact, already lost his office. Yes, it took three years for this to be reflected within the order of law, but that is the way these things work. The order of law ALWAYS lags behind the order of fact.
Nestorius was a heretic well before the law recognized the fact of his heresy and did something about it. In such a case, the law's recognition does not make something so; the law, in a very real sense, catches up to reality (which is what it is, regardless of the minds and laws of men) and more accurately reflects it.
FWIW, those priests and laymen who 'jumped the gun' were not only correct, they were correct in how they handled the situation.
-
It certainly is, how else are people arrested, charged and hauled into court if not based upon a legal presumption of guilt?
Not only does this idea not gel with the entire history of Western jurisprudence, it does not even gel with your very next sentence...
The presumption of innocence pertains to guilt in fact.
If you have the time, please clarify your meaning, amigo.
-
MANY acted, from the start, as if Nestorius had, in fact, already lost his office. Yes, it took three years for this to be reflected within the order of law, but that is the way these things work. The order of law ALWAYS lags behind the order of fact.
I think this story about the Nestorius case is the only (possible?) precedent for a comparison with the current situation. In my humble opinion, tough being sedevacantist, I think this is a rather weak argument.
The distinction between a real fact and the legal recognition of a real fact is, in my opinion, necessary for the unity of any moral body and is and was always practiced in civil ("no guilt before the judgment") and ecclesiastical society (well, lets set Nestorius apart).
We can draw many examples from the practice of the Church, as in matrimony: a spouse simulates consent. So in reality, there is not a bond of matrimony, but before the Church the marriage is still valid. Should a priest discover in the confessional that the marriage was simulated, he has to forbid any use of it. But still for the Church the bond exists until legal declaration.
And in Nestorius case, why didn´t the Pope appoint a successor before the judgment of the Council if this judgement was not necessary?
Without unity in the Church as a moral body by legal recognition of facts we place a huge danger for getting rid of this important mark of the Church.
-
And in Nestorius case, why didn´t the Pope appoint a successor before the judgment of the Council if this judgement was not necessary?
I am not positing, nor have I ever seen anyone posit, the idea that the judgment was not necessary.
As for the fitness of the precedent, nothing in Church history approximates these wild times. Comparisons to the GWS, etc., fail because this crisis is different in kind, not just degree.
-
I am not positing, nor have I ever seen anyone posit, the idea that the judgment was not necessary.
Exactly. I just wanted to stress that the sedevacantist side, a least the sedevacantist simpliciter, tend to belittle the importance of juridical acts, lastly close to destroying the unity and apostolicity of the Church.
As for the fitness of the precedent, nothing in Church history approximates these wild times. Comparisons to the GWS, etc., fail because this crisis is different in kind, not just degree.
I completely agree.
-
Nestorius confirms his position not yours, Nestorius still held office up until he was proved to be a heretic by a council. His being subsequently deemed to have lost his office was a retroactive move...
MANY acted, from the start, as if Nestorius had, in fact, already lost his office.
"MANY" = who?
Bishops or the laity?
-
"The deposit of the Catholic Faith doesn't belong to the Pope"
-
"The deposit of the Catholic Faith doesn't belong to the Pope"
Who said this?
-
"The deposit of the Catholic Faith doesn't belong to the Pope"
Who said this?
Hello my good friend.. I remember hearing it somewhere, so they're not my words, however do not know to whom they originally belong. But I don't' think one can argue they are untrue. I believe Vatican I backs this up as well.
-
"The deposit of the Catholic Faith doesn't belong to the Pope"
Who said this?
Hello my good friend.. I remember hearing it somewhere, so they're not my words, however do not know to whom they originally belong. But I don't' think one can argue they are untrue. I believe Vatican I backs this up as well.
The deposit of Faith however, does belong to the the Church, and the Pope is the head of the Body of the Church.
Here's another quote for you:
Moreover, the object of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Infallibility of the Church being the same, their extent must also coincide.
-
You're confusing the object with the subject again.
-
You're confusing the object with the subject again.
You are confusing.
-
You're confusing the object with the subject again.
You are confusing.
If you can not handle the topics and arguments on the subject, you should really stop acting as if you know what you're speaking about. It seems to me to say you can not argue or understand both sides of argument, yet have come to a conclusion on this matter? You believe that is safe?
-
Nestorius confirms his position not yours, Nestorius still held office up until he was proved to be a heretic by a council. His being subsequently deemed to have lost his office was a retroactive move...
MANY acted, from the start, as if Nestorius had, in fact, already lost his office.
"MANY" = who?
Bishops or the laity?
Some -- not ALL, but some -- clerics AND laymen treated Nestorius as if he was a heretic and had lost his office, even before any kind of juridical decision upon the matter. Some priests dropped him from being mentioned in the diptychs of the Canon. The diptychs include the 'una cuм' section which you may have read trad priests discussing in relation to the V2 popes.
If you want some specific names, I suppose I could look it all up.
-
You're confusing the object with the subject again.
You are confusing.
If you can not handle the topics and arguments on the subject, you should really stop acting as if you know what you're speaking about.
SJB can handle the topics, etc., just fine, s2s. He has proved so during years of public discussion. There is no need to presume otherwise at this time.
It seems to me to say you can not argue or understand both sides of argument, yet have come to a conclusion on this matter?
Perhaps it is your understanding of SJB that is faulty, s2s? SJB not only understands the arguments (better than most in Traddieland), he steadfastly gives the benefit of the doubt to those with whom he disagrees. He is the contrary of dogmatic about his understanding of the present crisis, which is not true of many on both sides of the proverbial fence (including some on this site).
-
You're confusing the object with the subject again.
Saying so does not make it so. Demonstrate it for the benefit of the local not-so-intelligentsia...
-
1) The Council, while recognizing X as Pope, meets and call the Pope into a trial to explain his heresies, to admonish him. If he retracts he continues to be Pope, if he doesn`t retract then he ceases to be Pope.
Review the case of John XXII. They didn't call him to trial, yet that did not prevent them from determining amongst themselves what were the facts of the case and the nature of the offensive statement. They didn't pretend to canonically admonish him, but certainly he was admonished outside of his capacity as Pope. Those in authority who might ascertain that such a statement was certainly heretical and the ostensible man who occupied the office of the papacy persisted in his private capacity to maintain the proposition, it would consequently be determined that he did not desire to hold the Catholic faith any longer. At that point, if he persisted in maintaining his office, refusing to leave the Church, my opinion is that he would require to be forcefully removed from his office.
The case of tacit resignation entails a certain evident nature, such as a priest marrying. But we are not dealing with your average heretic here my friend, your mere say so doesn't make it so. One of the most notable features is their distinct unwillingness to pertinaciously adhere to anything at all that could be construed as heretical. But the sede hasn't really left first base until he can determine with certitude that a proposition is heretical. What if these men don't deal in propositions at all, but use their imaginations as a way to theologize? What if they employ a false mysticism or philosophy in an attempt to explain the faith? What of mere theological errors? Have you ever studied their writings? The manner in which they speak? We are dealing with a different animal here.
2) The council, while considering him no longer Pope, meets and call the Pope into a trial to explain his heresies.
Was this knowledge simultaneously infused into their minds? Did they have no contact with the Pope to ascertain what he meant by a proposition? Have you had recourse to the Pope to ascertain what he meant by a controversial statement?
3) If I`m not mistaken you accept the possibility X ceases to be Pope but the fact of the declaration belongs to the council. Now let`s suppose this happens and X is called into trial and the council says: "X is not guilty" (since the council is not infallible is it?). So what will happen? X will suddenly be Pope again? Was always Pope? Will not be Pope and the Church will accept him as such...? What?
As I said, they wouldn't attempt to "call him into trial." But that doesn't negate the possibility that the facts be ascertained without first necessarily denying he is Pope. That is an absurd procedure.
You're simply not allowing anything between total inaction and formal canonical proceedings.
Really, this restricting of the matter to a single Pope is irrelevant. The sede has a much larger problem to deal with regarding the very divine constitution of the Church. It is impossible, except by force of will, to restrict this question to a single line of Popes. Logic and consistency necessitates this judgment be applied to all cardinals, bishops and priests of the novus ordo who accept these "heresies" in short, the entire juridical structure of the Church, devoid of ordinary jurisdiction. A but Christ's Church has possessed and will always possess ordinary jurisdiction, otherwise it would be impotent to fulfull its mission, it would become something it was not before, it would simply vanish and become one sect among many. Unless you assert that traditional priests and bishops form this juridical structure, a formally separate Church, with its nature perfectly remaining, then you've got a serious problem on your hands.
-
The sede has a much larger problem to deal with regarding the very divine constitution of the Church.
This is not a "sede" problem, Matthew -- it is THE bigger issue that ALL trads must face. Few realize this and even fewer want to touch it, but there it is.
There is a new, non-Catholic entity, with its own doctrine, worship, and discipline, that has more or less supplanted the Catholic Church. This is why all of us, including those who recognize-but-resist, use a different name when speaking of this alien body.
The enemies have used the material element of the Church to annihilate the faith of hundreds of millions.
What good is the structure, authority, etc., of the Church if they are being/can be used to ruin the faith of the members thereof? Or do you deny that this has, in fact, occurred?
-
The case of tacit resignation entails a certain evident nature, such as a priest marrying. But we are not dealing with your average heretic here my friend, your mere say so doesn't make it so. One of the most notable features is their distinct unwillingness to pertinaciously adhere to anything at all that could be construed as heretical.
So, they have NOT said ANYTHING that could even be construed as heretical, yet Bp W (among others) says they have clearly uttered heresy? Who is wrong, Matthew -- you or Bp W (et alii)?
Are you fine with a man going to Africa and, according to his own testimony, actively participating in the worship of animists? Nothing clear about that? Such actions indicate nothing of substance? Right...
Look, while you are free to believe that their heresies, etc., do not lead to automatic loss of office, etc., do not embarrass yourself by continuing with this nonsense that they have not said anything clearly heretical. MANY who recognize-but-resist, whose training far surpasses your own, readily ADMIT that these men have uttered clear-cut heresies for YEARS.
-
The sede has a much larger problem to deal with regarding the very divine constitution of the Church.
This is not a "sede" problem, Matthew -- it is THE bigger issue that ALL trads must face. Few realize this and even fewer want to touch it, but there it is.
There is a new, non-Catholic entity, with its own doctrine, worship, and discipline, that has more or less supplanted the Catholic Church. This is why all of us, including those who recognize-but-resist, use a different name when speaking of this alien body.
The enemies have used the material element of the Church to annihilate the faith of hundreds of millions.
What good is the structure, authority, etc., of the Church if they are being/can be used to ruin the faith of the members thereof? Or do you deny that this has, in fact, occurred?
The good of authority pertains to the essential nature of the Church itself, regardless of those who possess it. It is most certainly a "sede" problem, their basic premise is that all those in authority are formal heretics who have ceased to be members of the Catholic Church. What are you left with? A Church devoid of authority, a Church that has lost an essential characteristic, a Church that is impotent to fulfill its mission.
The restoration of the Church can only come about by means of recognized jurdisdiction. Catholics are not required to guess whether or not a certain body arising at some point in the future will come to repossess this lost authority. It is chimerical.
-
The case of tacit resignation entails a certain evident nature, such as a priest marrying. But we are not dealing with your average heretic here my friend, your mere say so doesn't make it so. One of the most notable features is their distinct unwillingness to pertinaciously adhere to anything at all that could be construed as heretical.
So, they have NOT said ANYTHING that could even be construed as heretical, yet Bp W (among others) says they have clearly uttered heresy? Who is wrong, Matthew -- you or Bp W (et alii)?
Are you fine with a man going to Africa and, according to his own testimony, actively participating in the worship of animists? Nothing clear about that? Such actions indicate nothing of substance? Right...
Look, while you are free to believe that their heresies, etc., do not lead to automatic loss of office, etc., do not embarrass yourself by continuing with this nonsense that they have not said anything clearly heretical. MANY who recognize-but-resist, whose training far surpasses your own, readily ADMIT that these men have uttered clear-cut heresies for YEARS.
This is where the rubber meets the road. Let's start a separate thread and analyze the top five heresies and determine once for all their true note. Then from there we can determine whether they pertinaciously adhere to these errors knowing they contradict defined Catholic dogma.
-
The sede has a much larger problem to deal with regarding the very divine constitution of the Church.
This is not a "sede" problem, Matthew -- it is THE bigger issue that ALL trads must face. Few realize this and even fewer want to touch it, but there it is.
There is a new, non-Catholic entity, with its own doctrine, worship, and discipline, that has more or less supplanted the Catholic Church. This is why all of us, including those who recognize-but-resist, use a different name when speaking of this alien body.
The enemies have used the material element of the Church to annihilate the faith of hundreds of millions.
What good is the structure, authority, etc., of the Church if they are being/can be used to ruin the faith of the members thereof? Or do you deny that this has, in fact, occurred?
The good of authority pertains to the essential nature of the Church itself, regardless of those who possess it. It is most certainly a "sede" problem, their basic premise is that all those in authority are formal heretics who have ceased to be members of the Catholic Church. What are you left with? A Church devoid of authority, a Church that has lost an essential characteristic, a Church that is impotent to fulfill its mission.
The restoration of the Church can only come about by means of recognized jurdisdiction. Catholics are not required to guess whether or not a certain body arising at some point in the future will come to repossess this lost authority. It is chimerical.
-
The good of authority pertains to the essential nature of the Church itself, regardless of those who possess it.
But you can't have nobody properly using their true authority. The same way you cannot have everybody believing error.
-
The fact that they don't properly use it or don't use it at all doesn't negate the fact that they might still possess it. And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.
-
The fact that they don't properly use it or don't use it at all doesn't negate the fact that they might still possess it. And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.
Yes, but only you are talking about ALL members not using authority, or improperly using their authority.
Yes, Caminus, the unknown authority ruling the Church.
-
The good of authority pertains to the essential nature of the Church itself, regardless of those who possess it.
What good is authority if it is being used to pervert, rather than promote, the Faith?
Which comes first, faith or authority? Authority without faith is worse than nothing; it is harmful.
I totally agree there are big, unaddressed holes in the strict sede view, which is why I am not an SV, strictly so called. However, I also see big, unanswered holes in the recognize-but-resist view. That said, this is NOT your grandfather's crisis; it is like an ecclesiastical nuclear wasteland and there is no "simple" answer. Unfortunately, BOTH dogmatic SV-ism AND dogmatic recognize-but-resist-ism act as if all is clear and those who disagree are stupid non-Catholics. Not only are such attitudes wrong, they are insuperable obstacles to real progress and unity.
-
Let's start a separate thread and analyze the top five heresies and determine once for all their true note.
In your view, this is radically impossible, as we are NEITHER theologians NOR the law.
-
And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.
Well, there is nothing in Catholic theology that says a pope cannot lose the Faith and his office, nor that a counterfeit anti-church cannot come into existence. In fact, Abp. Sheen, when he was at the top of his game, predicted that this very thing would occur in the 20th C.
-
Let's start a separate thread and analyze the top five heresies and determine once for all their true note.
In your view, this is radically impossible, as we are NEITHER theologians NOR the law.
That was a little hyperbole. But at any rate, I never said it was radically impossible to make a private determination that a proposition is heretical.
-
And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.
Well, there is nothing in Catholic theology that says a pope cannot lose the Faith and his office, nor that a counterfeit anti-church cannot come into existence. In fact, Abp. Sheen, when he was at the top of his game, predicted that this very thing would occur in the 20th C.
If you read the text closely, he is referring to Communism. Abp. Sheen is no friend of traditionalists anyway.
-
The fact that they don't properly use it or don't use it at all doesn't negate the fact that they might still possess it. And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.
Yes, but only you are talking about ALL members not using authority, or improperly using their authority.
Yes, Caminus, the unknown authority ruling the Church.
Now refusal to exercise authority, or simple negligence, amounts to the juridical loss of office? Next you'll be telling me that truly evil men cannot be real Bishops ruling the Church of God (Huss).
-
I never said it was radically impossible to make a private determination that a proposition is heretical.
Well, would such a thing matter in your view -- i.e., doesn't it mean nothing until the law has ruled on the matter of guilt? What if we proved a million heresies? What then?
FWIW, clerics more learned than we, many of whom agree with you on the essential nature of the crisis, have already stated that the V2 popes have uttered heresies. Why try to reinvent the wheel? On this point, do you think Bp W (for one) simply does not know what he is talking about?
-
The fact that they don't properly use it or don't use it at all doesn't negate the fact that they might still possess it. And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.
You admit you have no certainty here. Cristian mentioned this before, and it appears you believe a doubtful pope is a true pope here and now. This is why the person of the pope is considered to be a dogmatic fact.
-
I never said it was radically impossible to make a private determination that a proposition is heretical.
Well, would such a thing matter in your view -- i.e., doesn't it mean nothing until the law has ruled on the matter of guilt? What if we proved a million heresies? What then?
FWIW, clerics more learned than we, many of whom agree with you on the essential nature of the crisis, have already stated that the V2 popes have uttered heresies. Why try to reinvent the wheel? On this point, do you think Bp W (for one) simply does not know what he is talking about?
I know that many learned theologians have disagreed in assigning a particular note to a given proposition. I know that the history of the Church and how Rome has dealt with true heretics doesn't really square with the how the sede judges things. I know that a Church devoid of true authority is no Church at all. I know the kind of men we are dealing with are oftentimes convinced that they truly hold the Catholic faith and do not see any problem with the manner in which they formulate it. I know that theological error is extremely destructive, nay many doctrinal errors combined, have a devastating aggregate affect but this does not render one a non-member of the Church. I know that a man can destroy the theological virtue of faith without adhering to heresy. I know that this situation is extremely complex and multi-layered and that the blanket, dogmatic sede thesis is simply not a solution, nor is it merely a pretended recognition of a fact.
There are a thousand deceiving spirits that surround us at any given time and I refuse to give them any ground by flying off into unsound territory, much less venturing an opinion outside of what I know to be absolutely true and certain. If doubts arise, I give them no heed if it does not pertain to my immediate state. The dogmatic sede theory has all the marks of a purely human solution to an incomprehensible problem. It is the same habit of mind that convinced Calvin to find a solution to the mystery of predestination. He fixated on his opinion, mocked the apparently contradictory Catholic doctrine, and fell into a simplistic heretical notion that he could grasp and satisfied his mind.
-
I know that many learned theologians have disagreed in assigning a particular note to a given proposition.
And they agreed to a vast number of propositions in a morally unanimous fashion.
I know that the history of the Church and how Rome has dealt with true heretics doesn't really square with the how the sede judges things.
“Rome” is the very thing in question here.
I know that a Church devoid of true authority is no Church at all.
And a living Church nobody can follow is no Church either.
I know the kind of men we are dealing with are oftentimes convinced that they truly hold the Catholic faith and do not see any problem with the manner in which they formulate it.
The Church judges externals no different than we do. This is like saying a man knows the Assumption is a dogma of Faith yet he sees no problem (for himself) holding a contrary position to a defined dogma. He is rightly judged as a heretic.
I know that theological error is extremely destructive, nay many doctrinal errors combined, have a devastating aggregate affect but this does not render one a non-member of the Church.
But heresy does in fact sever a man from the Church.
I know that a man can destroy the theological virtue of faith without adhering to heresy.
The loss of Faith (externally) does not exclude one from the Church?
I know that this situation is extremely complex and multi-layered and that the blanket, dogmatic sede thesis is simply not a solution, nor is it merely a pretended recognition of a fact.
The sede thesis is the sede thesis. Whether one believes it is a dogma is another matter.
There are a thousand deceiving spirits that surround us at any given time and I refuse to give them any ground by flying off into unsound territory, much less venturing an opinion outside of what I know to be absolutely true and certain.
An opinion can never be an absolute or even moral certainty. If there is no certainty, then it is opinion.
If doubts arise, I give them no heed if it does not pertain to my immediate state.
Do other’s views on the current crisis affect your immediate state?
The dogmatic sede theory has all the marks of a purely human solution to an incomprehensible problem.
Again, there is no such thing as “the dogmatic sede theory.” There are dogmatic adherents on both sides. Look in the mirror sometime.
It is the same habit of mind that convinced Calvin to find a solution to the mystery of predestination. He fixated on his opinion, mocked the apparently contradictory Catholic doctrine, and fell into a simplistic heretical notion that he could grasp and satisfied his mind.
Where is the analogous “sede error?”
-
I'd love to continue this conversation, but I've got other projects to tend to.
-
Gladius said:
He is the contrary of dogmatic about his understanding of the present crisis, which is not true of many on both sides of the proverbial fence (including some on this site).
Where did you and SJB pick up this line? You make it sound very reasonable and compassionate but it rings some alarm bells for me.
Do you think both sedevacantists and SSPX can be right? I will answer that for you: No. So if only one side is right, doesn't that mean it should try to convince the other side? Why should truth be accomodating towards error?
You criticize Caminus for saying over and over that we can't judge the VII Popes to be heretics without a formal decision, yet you are saying the same thing -- we can't be "dogmatic" sedevacantists until we have a formal decision. Yet the reality is that the sedevacantist position is the only one that is theologically possible. Do you really think even for a second, gladius, that SSPX might be right? I know you don't, so why do you rail against "dogmatic" sedes? Just because your nemesis in Ohio tried to stop people from going to the SSPX? Isn't it possible Father Cekada is right about certain things, or is everything he does and says wrong? If so, he is a good guide, because you can just reverse all of his decisions to know the truth 100% of the time! Sedes should not be going to una cuм Masses when they have non-una-cuм Masses available -- simple as that. In an emergency, whatever, okay.
You say you're not a sedevacantist in the strict sense of the term. But sedeprivationists are sedevacantists, as you know. The sedeprivationists contribute the idea that some of these VII non-Popes might have valid elections ( even if Ratzinger was not a real bishop, a layman can be elected Pope ). It seems reasonable enough, but the big problem is it contradicts cuм Ex Apostolatus which says the election of a Pope who was a heretic before election is null and void. Lo and behold, I know a sedeprivationist monk in France who claimed cuм Ex Apostolatus was abrogated by the 1917 Code.
Sedeprivationism may work for John-Paul II or Paul VI, depending on whether or not they were public heretics before their elections, but it doesn't work at all for Ratzinger who was a raging heretic. In any event, they / you are sedevacantists. Saying that a Pope is out of the Church and not formally Pope, but has a valid election that could be activated if he renounced his heresies, is not to say he is Pope, hence they don't include his name in the Canon. If your problem with the sedevacantist position involves jurisdiction, the same problem remains for you as a sedeprivationist.
Of course, there are those who want to build the apparent lack of jurisdiction into a huge thorn in the sede's side. Luckily for those who want the truth, we already have the example of the Great Western Schism. None of the bishops in that time who were given mandates by FALSE POPES ( the French line as opposed to the Urban VI ) were ever said to be illicit bishops. Therefore, with a little logic, it holds that the sedes are also provided by God with supplied jurisdiction that will one day retroactively be considered licit, if the subject is even broached at all -- because it never has been with the Schism, to my knowledge. It is common sense that the sede and trad bishops are keeping the Church alive and consecrations done without mandates will not be held against them.
It is crystal-clear to me that epikeia can be invoked here, as well as canon law that states that when the law is harmful to souls, it can be abrogated. I have heard the retort that the necessity of a papal mandate for jurisdiction is not human law but divine law, but they can't back it up. How can it be divine law when there are so many ways around it, such as when the Pope gives someone like Abp. Thuc permission to consecrate other bishops precisely WITHOUT a mandate ( and this really was a privilege given to him by Pius XI )? It's a divine law the Pope can break, I suppose?
The sedevacantist argument is airtight. There are no flaws whatsoever. As with the looming economic crisis, the only reason that people don't believe it is because the consequences of believing it are too big. Certain people just can't believe that the Church would be without a Pope for half a century, just like they can't believe the entire world is on the verge of mega-collapse. Too big to fail! So they stick their heads in the sand. That is why Caminus calls it chimerical. It takes a certain grace to see the big picture here, the connections between the corrupt ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Republics and Vatican II, and how they must go down together so that the MONARCHY and the TRUE CHURCH can rise up out of the ashes together. I will spare the site a tour through the Apocalypse but the various multi-horned beasts come into play. People are uncomfortable since there is no precedent for what we're going through, nothing really even comes close. However, there was no precedent for the Arian crisis when it was happening either, and I'd say this is true of all crises, each time the devil goes about his business from another angle. Those who want some kind of cookie-cutter tried-and-true solution they can mimic from the past will be sorely disappointed, but they can apply true Catholic principles to a novel situation, and that is what always must be done.
So it's not surprising to me that someone like Caminus, who denies cօռspιʀαcιҽs, who thinks that the Vatican II Popes are just innocent blunderers who are teaching what they really think is Catholicism ( a master stroke of irony, since he often tells us we can't judge who's a formal heretic and can't read hearts, yet he just knows that the anti-Popes sincerely desire to be Catholic even when they directly contradict basic Catholic teaching ), doesn't have a clue what's really going on.
-
I'd love to continue this conversation, but I've got other projects to tend to.
As do I.
-
"The deposit of the Catholic Faith doesn't belong to the Pope"
Who said this?
Hello my good friend.. I remember hearing it somewhere, so they're not my words, however do not know to whom they originally belong. But I don't' think one can argue they are untrue. I believe Vatican I backs this up as well.
:cheers: my friend! wel I love this quote of Pius IX "I am the tradition" :)
-
1) The Council, while recognizing X as Pope, meets and call the Pope into a trial to explain his heresies, to admonish him. If he retracts he continues to be Pope, if he doesn`t retract then he ceases to be Pope.
Review the case of John XXII.
I`ve read many theologians about him... and no one ever said he was heretic.
They didn't call him to trial, yet that did not prevent them from determining amongst themselves what were the facts of the case and the nature of the offensive statement. They didn't pretend to canonically admonish him, but certainly he was admonished outside of his capacity as Pope.
Subjects can never admonish their superiors.
Those in authority who might ascertain that such a statement was certainly heretical
No one ever said to him his proposition was heretical, simply because the dogma of the immediate fruition of the beatific vision was defined as dogma by his successor.
and the ostensible man who occupied the office of the papacy persisted in his private capacity to maintain the proposition, it would consequently be determined that he did not desire to hold the Catholic faith any longer.
John XXII held the opinion of the contrary proposition defined by his successor and he changed his mind in his deathbed!
At that point, if he persisted in maintaining his office, refusing to leave the Church, my opinion is that he would require to be forcefully removed from his office.
Same question as always. You say he has to be removed, does that mean he hold the office or not? If he did then you cannot remove a Pope from the office... that`s called Conciliarism.
The case of tacit resignation entails a certain evident nature, such as a priest marrying.
To be more precise "public" nature.
2) The council, while considering him no longer Pope, meets and call the Pope into a trial to explain his heresies.
Was this knowledge simultaneously infused into their minds? Did they have no contact with the Pope to ascertain what he meant by a proposition? Have you had recourse to the Pope to ascertain what he meant by a controversial statement?
What if you ask him about it and he confirms the heretical proposition? What`s the next step?
3) If I`m not mistaken you accept the possibility X ceases to be Pope but the fact of the declaration belongs to the council. Now let`s suppose this happens and X is called into trial and the council says: "X is not guilty" (since the council is not infallible is it?). So what will happen? X will suddenly be Pope again? Was always Pope? Will not be Pope and the Church will accept him as such...? What?
As I said, they wouldn't attempt to "call him into trial." But that doesn't negate the possibility that the facts be ascertained without first necessarily denying he is Pope. That is an absurd procedure.
I`m sorry, I`m lost here.
You're simply not allowing anything between total inaction and formal canonical proceedings.
I allow to you anything you wish in between those 2 things, but things won`t change. According to you an admonition is needed, and for that you need a trial or at least authority over the person admonished.
The sede has a much larger problem to deal with regarding the very divine constitution of the Church.
I admit there are difficulties on the sede position, no doubt about it!
It is impossible, except by force of will, to restrict this question to a single line of Popes. Logic and consistency necessitates this judgment be applied to all cardinals, bishops and priests of the novus ordo who accept these "heresies" in short, the entire juridical structure of the Church, devoid of ordinary jurisdiction. A but Christ's Church has possessed and will always possess ordinary jurisdiction, otherwise it would be impotent to fulfull its mission, it would become something it was not before
,
Well it is not less impossible to say that nothing has changed for the last 50 years! Ratzinger himself admit this when he called, for instance, Gaudium et Spes an anti-syllabus.
it would simply vanish and become one sect among many.
The same sects that are mean of salvation? :wink:
Unless you assert that traditional priests and bishops form this juridical structure, a formally separate Church, with its nature perfectly remaining, then you've got a serious problem on your hands.
I have never believed such a thing.
-
Great post
Raoul, I never thought of myself as a dogmatic sedvacantist till I started reading the notes on this thread and my eyes are wide opened to the ridiculous claims of those who defend error.
It seems to me in simple terms that SSPX takes one out the front door of VII, only to bring them back in through the back door.
-
Didn't John XXII espouse heresy in talks he gave publicly? Wouldn't that make him a public heretic and anti-pope to sedes?
And if you say he did not commit heresy because the doctrine he contradicted had not yet been formally defined by the Church, one could say the same about BXVI & JPII as they never contradicted any formally defined dogmas.
On an unrelated note, isn't it odd that Roncalli would take the name John XXIII after John XXII adhered to error for a time?
-
On an unrelated note, isn't it odd that Roncalli would take the name John XXIII after John XXII adhered to error for a time?
yes very, very odd!
-
Yet the reality is that the sedevacantist position is the only one that is theologically possible.
Raoul, no offense but that is absurd. The sedevacantist thesis has not been proven true yet. Just as I cannot say my stance is the only one that is theologically possible. Until a sede can present their argument with proof rather than just as an opinion, it cannot be proven as true.
Dogmatic sedevacantism is not an acceptable position because it relies on illogical conclusions that any group that is not sede must be in error.
-
Didn't John XXII espouse heresy in talks he gave publicly? Wouldn't that make him a public heretic and anti-pope to sedes?
Which heresy? Why is it that no theologian says he was heretic while at the same time this argument was used by Gallicans, and other liberals?
And if you say he did not commit heresy because the doctrine he contradicted had not yet been formally defined by the Church
That question was disputed at that time. Actually some Fathers of the Church hold it.
It is the same as accusing Saint Thomas of heresy for opposing the Immaculate Conception. It doesn`t make any sense.
one could say the same about BXVI & JPII as they never contradicted any formally defined dogmas.
One out of many... Pius IX called EENS "a very well known dogma"
On an unrelated note, isn't it odd that Roncalli would take the name John XXIII after John XXII adhered to error for a time?
Personally I don`t see anything odd here.
-
]Do you think both sedevacantists and SSPX can be right? I will answer that for you: No. So if only one side is right, doesn't that mean it should try to convince the other side? Why should truth be accomodating towards error?
Right about resistance to the new religion? Yes, they are both right.
We need to be accomodating to those in error about the status of the post-conciliar popes. These are errors with which we were once involved (and remained Catholics.)
-
Only one position can be correct, however, I have hope that God will forgive the errors of SSPX faithful and only God knows who is faithful through no fault of their own, if the sin of pride is involved or deliberate sin against the Holy Ghost He may not be so merciful. I don't know, just my humble opinion.
I know God judges us by how much we know according to His grace He bestowed upon us.
-
Didn't John XXII espouse heresy in talks he gave publicly? Wouldn't that make him a public heretic and anti-pope to sedes?
No on both accounts :)
On an unrelated note, isn't it odd that Roncalli would take the name John XXIII after John XXII adhered to error for a time?
It is even odder when we consider that there had already been an anti-pope named John 23.
-
Great post
Raoul, I never thought of myself as a dogmatic sedvacantist till I started reading the notes on this thread...
Myrna- I hope you think carefully of this comment, as it is heresy; I say this not as an insult, but as your brother.
-
Whoa! Disagree with her comment all you like, s2s, but calling the words you quoted HERESY is a wee bit over the top, amigo...
-
Great post
Raoul, I never thought of myself as a dogmatic sedvacantist till I started reading the notes on this thread...
Myrna- I hope you think carefully of this comment, as it is heresy; I say this not as an insult, but as your brother.
Well I think it is heresy to believe one can be a pope of both truth and error.
-
Do you think both sedevacantists and SSPX can be right? I will answer that for you: No. So if only one side is right, doesn't that mean it should try to convince the other side? Why should truth be accomodating towards error?
I know little about theology, but what I know is that you speak with a destructive spirit. You do not care about the restoration of the Church, you care only about being right, when you can never be right in this time we are in. You continually act as an ignorant fool in your posts who has been brainwashed to think everyone else is brainwashed. How disgusting it is to read what you write.
Do you really think even for a second, gladius, that SSPX might be right? I know you don't, so why do you rail against "dogmatic" sedes?
Because it is HERETICAL!
I swear Raoul, every time you post you make me more and more sick. You have taken the intelligence God has given you and used it for evil, plain and simple. It will be on your hands if people read your filth and become 'dogmatic' sedevecantis and become heretics. It can NEVER be more than an opinion until a future counsel proves so. You condemn men who you've never even met in person, much less know what is in their heart. You have already done that what is to be left to Christ- judged these men and condemned them.
SEDEVECANTISM HAS NEVER BEEN PRONOUNCED A DOGMA OF FAITH. IF YOU ACT OR BELIEVE AS SUCH, YOU THEN HOLD A HERETICAL POSITION, AND ARE TRULY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.
-
Whoa! Disagree with her comment all you like, s2s, but calling the words you quoted HERESY is a wee bit over the top, amigo...
But GV- are you telling me that if someone pronounces SV'ism a requirement to be saved, that is dogmatic SVism, this is not heresy???
-
Only one position can be correct, however, I have hope that God will forgive the errors of SSPX faithful and only God knows who is faithful through no fault of their own, if the sin of pride is involved or deliberate sin against the Holy Ghost He may not be so merciful. I don't know, just my humble opinion.
I know God judges us by how much we know according to His grace He bestowed upon us.
It should be comforting then to know the issue of the pope is secondary to that of the Faith. Do you think many SSPX attendees are sinning against the Holy Ghost?
17. "On account of the distinction as explained [between sedes and sedens], in so far as the Apostolic See can never fail in its permanence by divine right and law, but the individual occupants [sedentes], being mortal, fail at intervals, the APOSTOLIC SEE ITSELF, as the necessary foundation and center of unity of the Church can never be called in doubt without heresy; but it can happen sometimes, in great disturbances, and it is evident from history that it has happened, that many men, while holily keeping the Faith and veneration towards the Apostolic See as true Catholics, without their own fault are not able to acknowledge the one seated in the Apostolic See, and therefore while in no way falling into heresy, slip into schism, which however is not formal but only material. Thus in the lamentable disturbance throughout forty years, from Urban VI until Gregory XII [the Great Western Schism], Catholics were split into two and then three obediences, as they were then called, while all acknowledged and revered the divine rights of the Apostolic See; nevertheless, not acknowledging the right of the one seated in the Apostolic See, from invincible ignorance of the lawful succession [i.e. as to which claimant was the lawful successor] and thus adhering either to no one, or to a pseudo-pontiff. Among these, even saints such as St. Vincent Ferrer for a time, and his brother Boniface, a Carthusian Prior, were implicated in material schism." (Ibid. p. 223-4)
-
Are you telling me that if someone pronounces SV'ism a requirement to be saved, that is dogmatic SVism, this is not heresy???
Did she say that? It was far from clear in the words you quoted.
-
Only one position can be correct, however, I have hope that God will forgive the errors of SSPX faithful and only God knows who is faithful through no fault of their own, if the sin of pride is involved or deliberate sin against the Holy Ghost He may not be so merciful. I don't know, just my humble opinion.
I know God judges us by how much we know according to His grace He bestowed upon us.
I'm sorry to interrupt my projects in order to say that the above post, aside from backwards comment about God knowing who is faithful through no fault of their own, contains the most outrageous, ignorant and foolish assertions I have yet seen from a sede. Myrna has surpassed even the infamous Dimonds. Let me clue you in on something, O Ye Last of the Faithful, the True Feminine Successor to the Apostles, God does not require a Catholic to determine whether the Pope has indeed fallen into heresy and cast himself outside of the Church, and together with him, the entire hierarchy. Your "humble piety" extending the hope that Catholics are truly invincibly ignorant of your opinion thinly veils extreme ignorance about God, sin and the spiritual life. If you dare invoke the principle of invincible ignorance regarding this opinion, you necessarily imply that it is a truth necessary for salvation. Thus, you have added some extra requirement for Catholics to attain salvation beyond holding the virtues. You have unwittingly defined a dogma of faith. Now you would have Catholics sift through the docuмents of Councils, Popes and Bishops in order to ascertain what precise heresy they have held, whether it is pertinacious and then determine they have fallen from office. No more can we be simply Catholics, we must all become learned theologians able to read and comprehend all manner of theological distinctions. You unwittingly fall into an error similar to the Protestant heresy that reading the Bible is morally necessary for salvation. Thus, you either demand, for your new Gospel, that we read these docuмents and make a series of judgments about prelates or that we simply rely upon the authority of those who have already judged the matter. But these priests do not possess the authority to make such a determination as binding upon Catholics. In short, your opinion is beyond the pale and contains, implicitly at least two heresies.
-
Only one position can be correct, however, I have hope that God will forgive the errors of SSPX faithful and only God knows who is faithful through no fault of their own, if the sin of pride is involved or deliberate sin against the Holy Ghost He may not be so merciful. I don't know, just my humble opinion.
I know God judges us by how much we know according to His grace He bestowed upon us.
I take offense to this post. I'm an SSPX Trad and you're saying you hope God will forgive the errors the SSPXers have made. That is crazy. What errors have we made? Last time I checked the primary importance was to discover Traditional Catholicism. But judging your post, it appears you think "But wait, you're not there yet. You need to believe the current Pope is an anti-pope in order to obtain salvation". That's not a good thing to say to any Traditional Catholic, especially a Trad who struggled to find Tradition and had to grind their way through being a Novus Ordite first, like me. I used to be a Novus Ordite and converted to being a Traditionalist. Now all of a sudden it doesn't mean squat unless I become a sedevacantist?
You and Raoul keep saying that both sides can't be right. But actually, that is wrong on two accounts. For one thing, both sides follow Traditional Catholicism which is right. And for another thing, since it's a matter of opinion then it cannot be right or wrong. An example would be if two people were arguing over a controversial topic that had no concrete evidence for either side and yet one of them said "Well, both sides can't be right, so if you don't agree with my stance then you are wrong!". When it comes to something being a hands-down opinion, there is no right or wrong. I resent anyone telling me my position is wrong if I think Benedict is Pope even if I'm a Traditional Catholic and that I need to change it.
Overall I have no qualms with sedevacantism. It's dogmatic sedevacantism I cannot tolerate. The stance "If it ain't sede, it ain't good!" is a rubbishly illogical position to hold. God does not judge someone based on whether or not they thought the Pope was true Pope.
-
Did she say that? It was far from clear in the words you quoted.
Unless I have a different interpretation of Dogmatic Sedevecantis than most people, which may be true because I'm very novice, what else could I have taken from this?
-
You and Raoul keep saying that both sides can't be right. But actually, that is wrong on two accounts.
Unfortunately, if recent history is any indication, Raoul will not respond to our comments. He comes in with his psycho-prophetic words, then disappears so he has to defend nothing. He acts as if Zionists are attacking him through this forum. Its sad actually.
-
Raoul actually has been more reasonable on other subjects since he came back. It's his viewpoints on the SSPX and dogmatic sedevacantism that still need work.
-
I didn't know him before he left, but I cant imagine some of his comments being much worse. What I don't get is he seem to have a lot of knowledge, yet doesn't see that taking his viewpoint too far is heretical. He also has the mentality of pitting traditionalist against each other which is also very grotesque.
This seems to be the mentality of most who I've met who attend CMRI- I don't know if its the spirit of those who attend or their priests pushing this idea on the laity; I do feel its a combination of both which is most likely the case from people I've spoken with. Unfortunately, though they are valid, I'm finding it harder and harder to support the CMRI.
-
FWIW, the CMRI's own party line is decidedly non-dogmatic.
-
FWIW, the CMRI's own party line is decidedly non-dogmatic.
I knew that about them GV, however (sorry to be so cliche)" actions speak louder than words". So it's unfortunately not worth much in their case :/
-
Great post
Raoul, I never thought of myself as a dogmatic sedvacantist till I started reading the notes on this thread and my eyes are wide opened to the ridiculous claims of those who defend error.
It seems to me in simple terms that SSPX takes one out the front door of VII, only to bring them back in through the back door.
This is true, I have never ever believed that sede was the only way, for the only way is to Keep the Faith, but reading this thread, and posts from truly intelligent people, using fancy words, but miss the point. Reminds me of that quote, always learning but never come to realize the truth.
Keep the Faith, that is the way, do you really believe that the current "popes" are keeping the faith? Do you really believe that truth and error can exist side by side in a Diving Institution? Do you really believe that a pope doesn't need to be Catholic, and a true vicar of Christ can mock the Church?
Sorry but I don't.
I am not condemning anyone here to Hell, only God, or better yet, people condemn themselves. I am sure there are some Catholics in the state of grace within Vatican II, who will be judged, as I said by God, according to His grace given them. There are many holy SSPX faithful living the lives of saints, I hope, who are keeping the faith. God knows His own.
What I am saying is people defending the errors of these "Conciliar popes" will have to answer to God, for God is much harder on teachers than your common layperson, I read that in the Bible.
Perhaps I don't know the real meaning of dogmatic sedecantism, and have caused scandal, however if you read my notes again I never said all those outside the sede position are damned. I am fighting for my salvation just as you are, but again, both sides in the eyes of God can't be correct because by their own words we have two different religions. The novus ordo, meaning NEW, UPDATED, MODERN, CURRENT, OF WHICH THESE FELLOWS YOU ARE DEFENDING ARE THEIR POPES.
-
You and Raoul keep saying that both sides can't be right. But actually, that is wrong on two accounts.
Unfortunately, if recent history is any indication, Raoul will not respond to our comments. He comes in with his psycho-prophetic words, then disappears so he has to defend nothing. He acts as if Zionists are attacking him through this forum. Its sad actually.
You admit you're a "novice", yet you seem to have strong opinions about those who are obviously better read than you. Those two things usually go hand-in-hand.
-
To Spiritus I must respond to his words "I used to be a Novus Ordite and converted to being a Traditionalist. Now all of a sudden it doesn't mean squat unless I become a sedevacantist?"
You resent my post because why?
Sedevacantist means the Chair of Peter is empty from a Catholic pope sitting there. What you are saying is, I reject being a Novus Ordite but will defend its pope. How can you reject the religion the pope is the head of?
Someone posted God doesn't care what we believe about the pope, so then why spend all your energy defending the heretic?
-
What I am saying is people defending the errors of these "Conciliar popes" will have to answer to God, for God is much harder on teachers than your common layperson, I read that in the Bible.
This is hilarious! Who has defended the errors of the Conciliar Popes??! Is declining to condemn and judge a man without knowing what is in his heart against the rules of being Catholic? No, doing the opposite, judging a man without knowing what is absolutely and unequivocally, as what Sede seem to do quite naturally, is what's wrong.
-
You and Raoul keep saying that both sides can't be right. But actually, that is wrong on two accounts.
Unfortunately, if recent history is any indication, Raoul will not respond to our comments. He comes in with his psycho-prophetic words, then disappears so he has to defend nothing. He acts as if Zionists are attacking him through this forum. Its sad actually.
You admit you're a "novice", yet you seem to have strong opinions about those who are obviously better read than you. Those two things usually go hand-in-hand.
BXVII is better read than me yet I have strong opinions against him. Do you favor him because you're better read? Just because I'm a novice, doesn't mean I can not see lies and contradictions SJB, it means that I have to take more time to look up what my position is to be able to defend it. Please don't take my admittance of not being as tenured in theology as some as a weakness in the sense that I am unable to think and see what is right and wrong.
-
You and Raoul keep saying that both sides can't be right. But actually, that is wrong on two accounts.
Unfortunately, if recent history is any indication, Raoul will not respond to our comments. He comes in with his psycho-prophetic words, then disappears so he has to defend nothing. He acts as if Zionists are attacking him through this forum. Its sad actually.
You admit you're a "novice", yet you seem to have strong opinions about those who are obviously better read than you. Those two things usually go hand-in-hand.
BXVII is better read than me yet I have strong opinions against him. Do you favor him because you're better read? Just because I'm a novice, doesn't mean I can not see lies and contradictions SJB, it means that I have to take more time to look up what my position is to be able to defend it. Please don't take my admittance of not being as tenured in theology as some as a weakness in the sense that I am unable to think and see what is right and wrong.
Myrna knows what is right and wrong too, yet she makes a lot of errors in her comments, just like you do.
-
Myrna knows what is right and wrong too, yet she makes a lot of errors in her comments, just like you do.
So what is your point SJB...? That I am a novice? That I make mistakes?
-
Myrna knows what is right and wrong too, yet she makes a lot of errors in her comments, just like you do.
So what is your point SJB...? That I am a novice? That I make mistakes?
Yes. You don't know the material well enough to "teach" others.
-
To Spiritus I must respond to his words "I used to be a Novus Ordite and converted to being a Traditionalist. Now all of a sudden it doesn't mean squat unless I become a sedevacantist?"
You resent my post because why?
Sedevacantist means the Chair of Peter is empty from a Catholic pope sitting there. What you are saying is, I reject being a Novus Ordite but will defend its pope. How can you reject the religion the pope is the head of?
Someone posted God doesn't care what we believe about the pope, so then why spend all your energy defending the heretic?
I don't defend Benedict. Saying he's a valid Pope isn't what I would call defending him. I'm stating what I believe to be true. At the same time, I believe he is a modernist. Just because you're a modernist does not mean you are outside the Catholic Church necessarily (and modernism is not the mother of all heresies, blasphemy is).
-
...modernism is not the mother of all heresies...
FWIW, St. Pius X called it the "synthesis of all heresies."
-
I didn't know him before he left, but I cant imagine some of his comments being much worse. What I don't get is he seem to have a lot of knowledge, yet doesn't see that taking his viewpoint too far is heretical. He also has the mentality of pitting traditionalist against each other which is also very grotesque.
This seems to be the mentality of most who I've met who attend CMRI- I don't know if its the spirit of those who attend or their priests pushing this idea on the laity; I do feel its a combination of both which is most likely the case from people I've spoken with. Unfortunately, though they are valid, I'm finding it harder and harder to support the CMRI.
Raoul's posts were much worse before he was banned. Right before he was banned, he was going on about how the SSPX's position wasn't Catholic and that Bishop Fellay and the Society knew their excommunication would be lifted before the rosary crusade was called for. After he came back though, his posts have been much more reasonable for the most part. He's apparently changed some.
That being said, I still disagree with him on several subjects, particularly regarding the SSPX and dogmatic sedevacantism. Following Bishop Fellay's bad treatment towards Bishop Williamson this past fall I don't think anyone will be that offended if Raoul cuts Fellay down again. But he should realize that without Archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX, there probably would be no TLM.
-
Whoa! Disagree with her comment all you like, s2s, but calling the words you quoted HERESY is a wee bit over the top, amigo...
As is your incorrectly asserting that various statements of the post-conciliar popes are heresy.
-
Whoa! Disagree with her comment all you like, s2s, but calling the words you quoted HERESY is a wee bit over the top, amigo...
As is your incorrectly asserting that various statements of the post-conciliar popes are heresy.
I suppose you think Bp W, for example, is also wrong when he claims the exact same thing?
-
Myrna knows what is right and wrong too, yet she makes a lot of errors in her comments, just like you do.
So what is your point SJB...? That I am a novice? That I make mistakes?
Yes. You don't know the material well enough to "teach" others.
Well last I checked I'm not "teaching" others. I was making a comment to the danger of heresy in Myrna's comment. So, what, if I haven't taken theology courses I shouldn't comment? This is a forum I thought?
Also, I do believe, the arguments I make, when I make them, are very strong and I am able to back them up. So, again, please don't take my admittance of not being as learned as others as not being able to make an argument or defend my belief, as I believe I am quite capable of doing so.
-
I too will admit that my post saying I was dogmatic sedevacantist was posted in haste, because reading this thread and the excuses given against sedevacantist were against logic, in my opinion. Of course I believe that those who firmly believe in the SSPX position can save their souls, I wonder however about those who are closet sedevacantist, within SSPX, and how God will judge them for their lack of fortitude. I said "I wonder", not that I am condemning; I wonder too how God will judge those SSPX who call sedevacantist schismatic, are they not dogmatic SSPX?
Below is a excerpt from the John Lane archive for interested parties:
1. The SSPX position is a legitimate position to hold. The Church has not pronounced, it is a disputed matter. We have certitude regarding sedevacantism but we cannot impose this on those that differ. We must treat them as fellow Catholics that we see hold an erroneous position. We are the ones if you like, that appear to have gone out on a limb, compared to normal times, and to sedeplenists look as if we are not subject to the Sovereign Pontiff.
2. Sedevacantists that condemn the SSPX and treat them as less than fellow brethren are not simply holding an erroneous position, on a disputed matter. How we are to treat fellow Catholics, including those that we see hold erroneous positions on matters not judged by the Church has never been a disputed matter. It is clear that we are to retain the bonds of unity and charity with fellow members of the Mystical Body. This is Christianity. This is what perturbs me so much about these hardline sedes. What they are doing is not actually legitimate.
3. It does not follow from holding the sedevacantist position that sedeplenists are not Catholic. However, we should be able to understand that for those that do hold the sedeplenist position, it is possible for some to think of sedevacantists as not Catholic. And we have to see that this would be indeed the right thing to do in ordinary times, the Catholic position, as Catholics must be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff, and those that are not subject would be schismatics. Fortunately, there are few out there that take this extreme position by being so unforgiving in these confusing times, as they too make allowances. These sedeplenists that do not take the hard line position are those that have a broader mind, in the good sense, and can see why we hold to the sedevacantist position, even though they think it erroneous, and therefore they apply Christian principles and treat us as fellow Catholics, albeit ones in error. Such as all the SSPX priests I have ever met, and laypeople, bar one perhaps.
So, whilst we have to refrain from making uncharitable judgements for either party, it is perfectly legitimate to feel repelled and to speak out against what we see is a position in contradiction with undisputed teachings on how we are to treat our fellow Catholics. If we have faith without charity we are as "tinkling cymbals". And if we breach charity with fellow Catholics and trangress Christian principles will our faith remain intact?
The are only two excuses I can think of for sedevacantists treating the SSPX as less than fellow Catholics.
1. If they hold that sedevacantism is not a disputed matter, but something that must be believed to be Catholic. If this is the case, then they are elevating their judgements to those of the Church, which is an incredibly arrogant, proud thing to do in addition to being super erroneous. They do not know their faith as well as they think they do. They would need to prove that the sedevacantist opinion is not an opinion but a dogma. This position would indeed lead to schism eventually I believe.
2. If they hold the position that the SSPX are schismatic. And if this is the case, then they had better have good evidence, as they will be judged as they judge. And I am not prepared to risk that judgement nor give any excuses for it either without solid evidence. It must be proven according to Catholic teachings and leave no room for dispute.
Further, if a sedevacantist hold neither of the above two propositions then he has no excuse for breaching the bonds of unity and charity with the SSPX.
So, to sum up - The hardline sedevacantist who casts others out of the church or severs communion with SSPX sedeplenists cannot be defended, as opposed to the SSPX sedeplenist because the former's actions are a transgression against the bond of unity we must keep with fellow Catholics so as to retain our membership in the Church. Whereas the latter's position, whilst erroneous, is permissable, and does not result in a breach against the bond of unity with fellow catholics. The sedevacantist that severs communion with the SSPX or any traditional Catholic for that matter or treats them as schismatics is in fact in danger of schism themselves.
John, please give me your thoughts and let me know if I am wrong on any of this.
Sincerely,
_____________________________________________________________
Dear X,
I think that is almost all exactly right.
But, we must note, I think, that it is possible legitimately to avoid other Catholics even though one recognises them as one's fellow Catholics, for several reasons. For example, if their errors, no matter how innocently held, constitute, in our judgement, a danger to ourselves or our children. Of course, this is all a question of prudent judgement formed with appropriate reluctance whilst considering the almost incalculable good of that peace which Our Lord commanded us to keep.
One thing that bothers me about this whole willingness to condemn and cut off communion is that the spirit of the old traditional Catholics of the 'seventies and 'eighties was to highlight principles and issues, and not so much persons. So we would be concerned with whether the priest we were thinking of approaching was genuinely ordained, or only "ordained" in the new rite. It was a question of principle. Some persons would fall foul of it and we would avoid them. But the spirit of this new situation feels schismatic. It's like the SSPX is now regarded as a monolithic institution with an openly heretical or schismatic agenda to which all of its members subscribe, and which must therefore be avoided per se. If that is true, then let those who think it say so without dissembling, and then prove it properly, as you've said in your email. And if it isn't true (which it isn't, in my view) then these fellow Catholics of the SSPX must be treated with kindness and every possible excuse made for them in those points where we differ with them. There is no third (Catholic) way.
As for "schismatic" sedevacantists being indefensible - I think perhaps that is a little strong. One could, for example, point out in their favour that they may be motivated by a genuine zeal for the unity of the Church and they may not be well-instructed on the things you mention. It's ironic, and one of the paradoxes of our era, that a zeal for unity may even lead to a kind of practical schism. !
Thank you for such a lengthy and interesting email on this question. It's the best thing I've seen on it for some time!
Yours in Christ, King of our intellects and wills,
John Lane.
Here is the link:
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=203
Not sure why some words above in the quote are XXXX out, see link for the word.
-
There's no such thing as being "dogmatic SSPX". All SSPX members capable of using their common sense know that a Traditional Latin Mass, no matter who celebrates it, is fully valid and acceptable. Those in the SSPX who are closet sede I doubt will be judged by God in a different way. You need to realize, Myrna, that God will not judge someone based on whether or not they thought the Pope was Pope, and if not why they didn't publicize their viewpoint. There has never been any evidence to show God punishes those who are not sede during the reign of a questionable Pope. What matters is being Traditional Catholic and doing all the things (attending Mass, making penance, repenting for past sins, etc.) that help your soul obtain Heaven.
Regarding the article, I agree with it that sedes should not treat SSPXers as schismatics.
-
But its okay to treat sedevacantist as schismatics, that is what I meant by being dogmatic SSPX. A sedevacantist can't, for the most part, even post on a traditional Catholic forum.
Why not? Are they so afraid to hear another viewpoint of their "pope"? They have his picture all over their chapels, yet speak ugly of him. I am sure that makes God very pleased with them.
SSPX doesn't care, you say, who celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass, well sedevacantist do. We care a lot. What about these new priests, are they offering the Body of Christ or only bread? If the SSPX as you say do not care if the pope is pope or not, why do so many, HERE, make an issue of it?
To be a closet sedevacantist and lie about it, is a sin. Lying is a sin, all lies. Deceit. No fortitude!
Guess what Spiritus, the reason there have been "no evidence to show" is simple, in that this is the first time we are living in the great apostasy.
Apostasy is not only defined as a total denial of Christ (in the sense they want to believe) as someone said, because when you deny one teaching of Christ you deny them all, that is in the Bible, look it up. Apostasy is falling away from one religion to follow another, and you yourself have said, Vatican II is not Catholic, yet you honor its "pope" by defending their title.
-
There's plenty of SSPXers who don't treat sedes as if though they're schismatics. I'm one of them who doesn't treat sedes that way. You say a sede can hardly post on a Catholic forum. But isn't what what you're doing now? ;)
When I say the SSPX doesn't care who celebrates the TLM, I mean they don't act like the dogmatic sedes and go nuts if it's not being celebrated by one of them. Dogmatic sedes sometimes won't attend a TLM unless it's celebrated by sedes. Wouldn't it be wierd if the SSPX was like that? "Oh, they aren't SSPX so we won't attend their TLM".
Being a closet sede isn't a sin unless you're directly asked if you are a sede and you deny it when you really are. Otherwise it's not a sin.
I don't honor Vatican II or its Pope. If I honored Benedict I'd act like he's the authority on everything and would be doing what the NO people do by practically bowing down to him.
-
But its okay to treat sedevacantist as schismatics, that is what I meant by being dogmatic SSPX. A sedevacantist can't, for the most part, even post on a traditional Catholic forum.
No Myrna, I'm sure some people treat SV's incorrectly, but I don't think anyone here has acted that way. Again, its all in how 'far' the position is taken. If its recognized as an opinion, and just that, not requirement for salvation, there is non issue. SV's are not schismatics.
Why not? Are they so afraid to hear another viewpoint of their "pope"? They have his picture all over their chapels, yet speak ugly of him. I am sure that makes God very pleased with them.
Of course we can not speak for SV's posting on Cath Forums, but I know SV forums who would not let me post on there as well. No one is afraid another viewpoint of the pope. Having a picture on the wall is more symbolic (in my opinion) than anything. When you say we 'speak ugly of him', what we actually do is speak about the errors any specific pope may have committed. This is not wrong, and is actually required for being Catholic. So, yes, I'm can hope that God is please that we are preserving the Faith.
-
Subjects can never admonish their superiors.
This is not true, in fact subjects are required to admonish their superiors when they are wrong. This has always been a catholic belief.
St. Paul admonished St. Peter when he was wrong.
A subject cannot condemn a superior. Which is what the sede's try to do when they declare a Pope to be an anti-pope.
-
I'm afraid, spiritus, that Myrna is correct on this matter. Though many people who attend the SSPX are not "dogmatic anti-sedevacantists", many are. Bishop Fellay is. I was at the October 2010 Angelus Press Conference where Bishop Fellay made it quite clear that he believed Benedict XVI and most of the Vatican cardinals are heretical members of the Catholic Church while sedevacantists are schismatics who are outside the Catholic Church. It was listening to his conference that convinced me that he was not going to "accept a deal" from the Vatican anytime soon, but he also despised any argument made by sedevacantists and wouldn't mind if they were all expelled from SSPX chapels.
The bishop made an airplane analogy for the Church. He said that the Church is like an airplane. Catholics are in the plane being flown by the pilot, the pope. The Protestants won't get on the plane while sedevacantists and Orthodox are flying in a plane without any pilot. He never connected, however, that he is refusing to get on the plane with Benedict as the pilot because it is flying in the wrong direction. He had noted earlier in the conference that Benedict was making some right moves, but he was essentially still following the path of Vatican II, i.e., he was flying his plane in the wrong direction.
Many anti-sedevantist tradtional Catholics, such as Bishop Fellay, neatly compartmentalize the issues so tightly that they can rail against both a pope who is leading his flock astray (and even claiming that he is a ravenous wolf at times) while also condemning sedevacantists who won't follow that shepherd into the pit (or by eaten by him).
But spiritus is correct that this attitude is not on display everywhere on CathInfo though any honest reading of this forum will show that there are, at least, a few "dogmatic anti-sedevacantists" on the forum. Even these, however, seldom raise their heads except in off-handed ways.
The fact that sedevacantism can be rationally discussed on CathInfo, even if few minds are actually changed, is a blessing, I think. The other traditional Catholic Forum to which I belong does not allow the sedevacantist thesis to even be discussed and the programming automatically changes any derivation of the word "sedevacantist" to "BLEEP!". I think it is childish and since questions and comments often lead directly to the sedevacantist theories (e.g., "What are we to think when the pope...?"), the whole forum grinds to a halt. The forum owner is a parishioner of an SSPX parish and has made it clear that he believes sedevacantism itself is anti-SSPX and he will not allow condemnation of the SSPX.
Legally, one must say that today's sedevacantism is a thesis, a theological probability. This is because there is absolutely no authority that can legally bind all men's consciences on the matter. On the other hand, the sedevacantist theory is either true or not whether it can bind one's conscience or not. As much as one believes he can fly when he jumps off a tall building, he will fall to the ground. Of course, this example can be used to demonstrate either side. The fact is, that whether we have a pope or not is a fact that will continue to be a fact no matter what any of us believe. But it is not a "dogmatic fact" as is, say, the Immaculate Conception.
One can choose to believe either side of this debate and still be fully incorporated in the Catholic Church. Outside the Dimond Brothers and Saint Gertrude the Great, the number of sedevacantists who hold that anyone who disagrees with them are outside the Church for that reason alone is exceedingly small. On the other hand, it seems that the vast majority of people who think that if one does not fully accept the claims of the conciliar popes to the papacy then one is, by that reason alone, outside the Church. This is especially true if you include those who think "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" are valid expressions of the "one Roman Rite". And if you consider those who believe that virtually all "humankind" is somehow incorporated in the "Church of Christ" (even if they despise Christ outright), the only people whom they consider to be truely damned are sedevacantists and other traditional Catholics.
Thankfully, thiese latter groups are not too vocal on CathInfo.
-
There's plenty of SSPXers who don't treat sedes as if though they're schismatics. I'm one of them who doesn't treat sedes that way. You say a sede can hardly post on a Catholic forum. But isn't what what you're doing now? ;)
When I say the SSPX doesn't care who celebrates the TLM, I mean they don't act like the dogmatic sedes and go nuts if it's not being celebrated by one of them. Dogmatic sedes sometimes won't attend a TLM unless it's celebrated by sedes. Wouldn't it be wierd if the SSPX was like that? "Oh, they aren't SSPX so we won't attend their TLM".
Being a closet sede isn't a sin unless you're directly asked if you are a sede and you deny it when you really are. Otherwise it's not a sin.
I don't honor Vatican II or its Pope. If I honored Benedict I'd act like he's the authority on everything and would be doing what the NO people do by practically bowing down to him.
I know that Matthew is an exception; allowing sede opinion on this forum, I think you know that!
As you say all SSPX are not against sede, the same goes for sede, all are not against SSPX, I myself have attended SSPX chapels, how do you suppose I see the current "pope" picture, and hear a sermon against him. I can't imagine God happy with that hypocrisy. If the picture is there for symbolic reasons, better choice would be one of St. Peter.
-
Subjects can never admonish their superiors.
This is not true, in fact subjects are required to admonish their superiors when they are wrong. This has always been a catholic belief.
I meant the kind of admonition of which canon law talks about.
A subject cannot condemn a superior. Which is what the sede's try to do when they declare a Pope to be an anti-pope.
1) We don`t do that since we don`t recognize BXVI as our superior.
2) The declaration of the vacancy of the See is not the same as the legally or canonically condemnation of the Pope.
-
TKGS, I believe I know what other forum you belong to. AngelQueen, right? I know they censor the word "sedevacantist". SirVidium reminds me of Bishop Fellay regarding his views on sedevacantism, he has no problem with sedes being on his forum as long as they keep quiet about it. Same with Bishop Fellay. "You sedes can be in the Society as long as you keep quiet about it". AQ is not a serious forum.
Back to the original subject, yes I am aware that Fellay is anti-sede, unlike Archbishop LeFebvre who had sympathy for the sedes. I'm really kind of surprised there are so many sedes in the Society considering Fellay's numerous anti-sede remarks. With the SSPX and its memebers you'll get a mixed bag. Some will sympathize for sedes, others will think they're outside the Church. Stevusmagnus is a prime example, he's an SSPXer and can't stand the sede position. I, on the other hand, respect the sede position. Same thing with SSPX priests. Some don't mind sedes, other have no tolerance for them.
-
There's plenty of SSPXers who don't treat sedes as if though they're schismatics. I'm one of them who doesn't treat sedes that way. You say a sede can hardly post on a Catholic forum. But isn't what what you're doing now? ;)
When I say the SSPX doesn't care who celebrates the TLM, I mean they don't act like the dogmatic sedes and go nuts if it's not being celebrated by one of them. Dogmatic sedes sometimes won't attend a TLM unless it's celebrated by sedes. Wouldn't it be wierd if the SSPX was like that? "Oh, they aren't SSPX so we won't attend their TLM".
Being a closet sede isn't a sin unless you're directly asked if you are a sede and you deny it when you really are. Otherwise it's not a sin.
I don't honor Vatican II or its Pope. If I honored Benedict I'd act like he's the authority on everything and would be doing what the NO people do by practically bowing down to him.
I know that Matthew is an exception; allowing sede opinion on this forum, I think you know that!
As you say all SSPX are not against sede, the same goes for sede, all are not against SSPX, I myself have attended SSPX chapels, how do you suppose I see the current "pope" picture, and hear a sermon against him. I can't imagine God happy with that hypocrisy. If the picture is there for symbolic reasons, better choice would be one of St. Peter.
So you're saying God is NOT pleased when the SSPX priets give sermons speaking out against any modernist things the Pope does? I'd love to know how you reached that conclusion. Doesn't make sense if you ask me.
-
To be a closet sedevacantist and lie about it, is a sin. Lying is a sin, all lies. Deceit. No fortitude!
This is not true either, Myrna. You say that to be a "closet sede" is to lie. Read about how Saint Thomas More would neither sign a docuмent recognizing the false papacy of the King of England, nor would he say that he wasn't, either.
Not everyone who is a "closet sede" is a liar.
-
There's plenty of SSPXers who don't treat sedes as if though they're schismatics. I'm one of them who doesn't treat sedes that way. You say a sede can hardly post on a Catholic forum. But isn't what what you're doing now? ;)
When I say the SSPX doesn't care who celebrates the TLM, I mean they don't act like the dogmatic sedes and go nuts if it's not being celebrated by one of them. Dogmatic sedes sometimes won't attend a TLM unless it's celebrated by sedes. Wouldn't it be wierd if the SSPX was like that? "Oh, they aren't SSPX so we won't attend their TLM".
Being a closet sede isn't a sin unless you're directly asked if you are a sede and you deny it when you really are. Otherwise it's not a sin.
I don't honor Vatican II or its Pope. If I honored Benedict I'd act like he's the authority on everything and would be doing what the NO people do by practically bowing down to him.
I know that Matthew is an exception; allowing sede opinion on this forum, I think you know that!
As you say all SSPX are not against sede, the same goes for sede, all are not against SSPX, I myself have attended SSPX chapels, how do you suppose I see the current "pope" picture, and hear a sermon against him. I can't imagine God happy with that hypocrisy. If the picture is there for symbolic reasons, better choice would be one of St. Peter.
So you're saying God is NOT pleased when the SSPX priets give sermons speaking out against any modernist things the Pope does? I'd love to know how you reached that conclusion. Doesn't make sense if you ask me.
Doesn't make sense to me that SSPX believes the pope is Catholic either!
Deceit is always a lie.
-
What's essentially wrong with saying that B16 is not the pope?
Some people feel they can't adequately defend or justify the position, that they can't explain how it could be possible, and they don't want to scandalize the weak. And they might not be sure.
-
There's plenty of SSPXers who don't treat sedes as if though they're schismatics. I'm one of them who doesn't treat sedes that way. You say a sede can hardly post on a Catholic forum. But isn't what what you're doing now? ;)
When I say the SSPX doesn't care who celebrates the TLM, I mean they don't act like the dogmatic sedes and go nuts if it's not being celebrated by one of them. Dogmatic sedes sometimes won't attend a TLM unless it's celebrated by sedes. Wouldn't it be wierd if the SSPX was like that? "Oh, they aren't SSPX so we won't attend their TLM".
Being a closet sede isn't a sin unless you're directly asked if you are a sede and you deny it when you really are. Otherwise it's not a sin.
I don't honor Vatican II or its Pope. If I honored Benedict I'd act like he's the authority on everything and would be doing what the NO people do by practically bowing down to him.
I know that Matthew is an exception; allowing sede opinion on this forum, I think you know that!
As you say all SSPX are not against sede, the same goes for sede, all are not against SSPX, I myself have attended SSPX chapels, how do you suppose I see the current "pope" picture, and hear a sermon against him. I can't imagine God happy with that hypocrisy. If the picture is there for symbolic reasons, better choice would be one of St. Peter.
So you're saying God is NOT pleased when the SSPX priets give sermons speaking out against any modernist things the Pope does? I'd love to know how you reached that conclusion. Doesn't make sense if you ask me.
Doesn't make sense to me that SSPX believes the pope is Catholic either!
Deceit is always a lie.
Your first line is hilarious. Read that again. The Pope better be Catholic! You should have just said Benedict. :laugh1:
Humor aside, the SSPX isn't lying. The dogmatic sedevacantist position is wrong. Don't you realize that without Archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX the TLM would be practically gone? You once said the CMRI was started before the SSPX. That may be true, but did the CMRI publicly stand up to the Pope, and did they have a leader like LeFebvre? If it were just the CMRI, very few would have supported them because of being sede and because of not having leadership qualities. The CMRI just said "ok, no Pope, let's break away" and said nothing else on the matter, whereas ABL made his case public to make sure people KNEW about the TLM. You accuse the SSPX of having a "recognize and resist" position, but it sounds like that's the position the CMRI holds for staying private. The SSPX made the CMRI public, because they made the TLM public again.
-
Your first line is hilarious. Read that again. The Pope better be Catholic! You should have just said Benedict.
Humor aside, the SSPX isn't lying. The dogmatic sedevacantist position is wrong. Don't you realize that without Archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX the TLM would be practically gone? You once said the CMRI was started before the SSPX. That may be true, but did the CMRI publicly stand up to the Pope, and did they have a leader like LeFebvre? If it were just the CMRI, very few would have supported them because of being sede and because of not having leadership qualities. The CMRI just said "ok, no Pope, let's break away" and said nothing else on the matter, whereas ABL made his case public to make sure people KNEW about the TLM. You accuse the SSPX of having a "recognize and resist" position, but it sounds like that's the position the CMRI holds for staying private. The SSPX made the CMRI public, because they made the TLM public again.
Nice to know you think it funny that SSPX doesn't believe the pope MUST BE CATHOLIC.
Nice to know too that you believe God really needed LeFebvre to continue His Church, for your information God doesn't NEED ANYONE. If LeFebvre or CMRI did not exist the Church and the Mass would have continued, as it will till the end of time. That is Church teaching, you should study up!
And BTW, CMRI did not break away, Vatican II and the heretic hierarchy broke away.
-
No, the SSPX believes the Pope must be Catholic and that Benedict is Catholic. You mis-understood.
I never said God needed LeFebvre. He used LeFebvre to continue the Mass. Had God not used Him, there would be no TLM. No offense, but it is you that needs to study up. From what I have observed, dogmatic sedevacantists cannot give LeFebvre the credit he deserves. God worked through him to save the Mass, so yes God above all deserves the credit, then LeFebvre. But the dogmatic sedes seem to have a stubborness about them to where they can't admit LeFebvre was used by God to save the Mass. Like how Raoul would rather give credit to anonymous sede bishops that he doesn't even know. There's a huge flaw in reasoning there.
-
I know you hate to admit it but CMRI was before SSPX, like it or not.
Just as Adam was before Eve. Yet God used them both to multiply the earth.
-
It doesn't matter if the CMRI came before the SSPX. Did the CMRI publicly stand up to the Pope? No. Did the CMRI start a big priestly group that had three different Traditional groups spawn off from it? No. And was the CMRI started by a living Saint who endured almost un-imaginable persecution? Again, no. I know you hate to admit it, but the SSPX beats the CMRI on all the accounts I just mentioned, like it or not.
:cool:
-
Well, before CMRI, was Father Gomar DePauw. "God didn't need CMRI" to continue the Mass either.
You either cooperate with God or you don't. CMRI, Archbishop Lefevbre, and Father DePauw, ALL cooperated with God.
To minimize any of their influence is just stupid. The fact that they cooperated with God is why we have the Mass now. The fact that Mary cooperated with God and gave her "fiat" gave us Jesus.
So, let's stop with the "who came first" stupidity already.
-
So, let's stop with the "who came first" stupidity already.
But it is so fun and useful! :laugh2:
-
Tell it to Spiritus, that is his fantasy, that SSPX is the only reason why we are graced today. He says it often enough.
I never said God needed CMRI, in fact if you read here, it is I that said, God needs no one to carry out His plan.
-
So, let's stop with the "who came first" stupidity already.
But it is so fun and useful! :laugh2:
:roll-laugh1:
:fryingpan:
-
Tell it to Spiritus, that is his fantasy, that SSPX is the only reason why we are graced today. He says it often enough.
I never said God needed CMRI, in fact if you read here, it is I that said, God needs no one to carry out His plan.
Oh, but that's where you're not exactly correct, though. God DOES need us to cooperate with Him. The best example of this is Our Lady. Had she not said YES, we'd be in trouble, now, wouldn't we?
God gives us free will to cooperate with Him or not. I'm sure when we die, we'll see tons of times where people COULD have cooperated with God, and didn't, and the effects of people saying YES to God and what things would have been like if they hadn't.
And so, God chose the people that did cooperate with Him, but He didn't MAKE them do it. They used their free will to do the right thing, and thank God they had the fortitude and the courage to do so.
-
:fryingpan:
I have yet to decide if it is a good or a bad thing, but my head seems to be harder than any skillet I have come across :)
-
Came first as what? An organization whose founder became a Priest AFTER SSPX was formed? And was ordained by a schismatic? Curious, what was the theological training he recieved?
The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen was formed in 1967 in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, by Francis Schuckardt with the assistance of Denis Chicoine. In 1969, with the approval of Bishop Sylvester Treinen, of the Diocese of Boise, Shuckardt formed the group into a religious congregation of sisters and brothers.
With the implementation of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, Schuckhardt and his group came to the conclusion that Paul VI was not a valid pope and therefore sought services from priests who shared his theological position. In the early 1970s Schuckhardt received ordination as a priest and as a bishop from Daniel Q. Brown, an Old Roman Catholic bishop who apparently converted to Schuckhardt's brand of Catholicism.
In the late 1970s CMRI acquired the old Jesuit scholasticate Mount Saint Michael in Spokane, Washington, making it their congregation's center.
In 1984, Chicoine publicly accused Schuckardt of alleged drug abuse and gross personal immorality, which appeared in the secular press. In June 1984, Chicoine, with the backing of the majority of the congregation's clergy and laity, ousted Schuckardt.
-
LordPhan, I suppose you deny Jesus is God too, after all he chose Judas.
I agree with you POT God did need Mary in His plan, which is why He created her FULL OF GRACE. He knew she would say yes, because His grace is powerful.
As far as the others he choose, if they used their freewill wrongly, He choose someone else.
-
LordPhan, I suppose you deny Jesus is God too, after all he chose Judas.
I agree with you POT God did need Mary in His plan, which is why He created her FULL OF GRACE. He knew she would say yes, because His grace is powerful.
You should be banned for infering I would deny Jesus is God. Especially infering it from my statement that CMRI was founded by someone who was ordained by a Schismatic of the 'Old Catholics' who would be no more a Bishop then the Archdruid of Canterbury.
As far as I can tell from limited reading just now, there first legitamete Bishop of the CMRI would have came in 1986 and he was Former SSPX.
-
For you information you know nothing of the history of CMRI, and Dan Brown, who was a schismatic but took the proper oath, bringing him back into the fold for a time. That is the way God works at times, always showing His power. Later he fell back into his schism, but was in good standing in the eyes of God at the time he ordained Schuckardt, who I admit was not showing proper example from his personal life.
SSPX should understand all that since this is their forever defense for their false popes.
Anyway, at least CMRI takes the faithful out the front door of Vatican II, while SSPX, takes them out and right back in the back door.
Now who can tell us, who came first, the chicken or the egg. I say the chicken because God created the animals before the eggs, at least I think so.
-
For you information you know nothing of the history of CMRI, and Dan Brown, who was a schismatic but took the proper oath, bringing him back into the fold for a time. That is the way God works at times, always showing His power. Later he fell back into his schism, but was in good standing in the eyes of God at the time he ordained Schuckardt, who I admit was not showing proper example from his personal life.
SSPX should understand all that since this is their forever defense for their false popes.
Now who can tell us, who came first, the chicken or the egg. I say the chicken because God created the animals before the eggs, at least I think so.
What oath? What oath can a schismatic take to reenter the church? I have never heard this before.
SSPX does not defend the Popes for any of heresy. You have prejudiced yourself furthermore you have still not apologized for your calumny against me.
How dare you accuse me of denying the divinity of Christ? How dare you call me an apostate!?! How would that even cross your mind to use that as an argument?
-
Where did I use the word "heresy", I said personal life" as in lifestyle.
In 1969, Daniel Quilter Brown received Episcopal consecration as an “Old Roman Catholic” bishop.4 Bishop Brown had been born and raised a Catholic, but became disenchanted with the reforms of Vatican II and had chosen to become an Old Roman Catholic bishop in order to perpetuate valid Episcopal orders; realizing that the Old Roman Catholics, unlike the modern post-Conciliar Catholic Church, had not yet fallen into heresy and thus still retained valid Orders.5 Despite the fact that Bishop Brown obtained his consecration in the Old Roman Catholic Church (a schismatic church), he and his followers called themselves Roman Catholics and refused to use the title of “Old Roman Catholic.” Shortly after his consecration, he broke all ties and communications with the Old Roman Catholics.6 Bishop Brown soon became acquainted with Brother Francis and tried to persuade him a accept ordination from him, because “in view of the fact that we cannot exist for long as Catholics without the sacraments, I would propose to ordain to the priesthood a qualified member of your group (from the information I have, this would probably be yourself)...”7 Later he proposed to consecrate Brother Francis to the episcopacy in addition to ordaining him to the priesthood.
Brother Francis sought the advise of some traditional Catholic priests, most notably Fr. Burton Fraser, S.J., about Bishop Brown's proposal. He was told that under the grave circuмstances that currently existed, that it was well within Catholic law and principles to accept consecration. Although the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of Old Catholics orders, Brother Francis was unwilling to receive orders from Bishop Brown because of the schismatic origins of his consecration.
In the meantime, Bishop Brown openly repented of having received consecration from the Old Roman Catholics, broke all ties with them, made a public “Abjuration of Error and Profession of Faith,” confessed his sins and received absolution from a traditional priest.8 It was only after these events that Brother Francis agreed to receive consecration from Bishop Brown:
NOW YOU HAVE THE TRUTH OF THE STORY
-
SSPX does not defend the Popes for any of heresy. You have prejudiced yourself furthermore you have still not apologized for your calumny against me.
How dare you accuse me of denying the divinity of Christ? How dare you call me an apostate!?! How would that even cross your mind to use that as an argument?
Of course I don't have real evidence you deny Jesus, I used that phrase to get it across that God can pick an apostate like Judas, so why can't He again pick this Dan Brown, a schismatic brought back to the fold. . . to continue His church.
God's ways are not our ways.
I deeply and sincerely apologize.
-
I forgive you, delete the post.
-
Only Matthew can delete any post after the time period.
Thank you, I truly meant no harm to anyone here. Just defending CMRI, as usual.
-
LP's posts clearly blow the whole "CMRI came first and is more superior" argument out of the water. Don't get me wrong, if the CMRI was all I had I'd attend it in a heartbeat over the NO. But to say it's superior to the SSPX is laughable. Also, I never gave all the credit to the SSPX, Myrna.
-
Anyway, at least CMRI takes the faithful out the front door of Vatican II, while SSPX, takes them out and right back in the back door.
It's against forum rules to cut down the SSPX. I can understand constructive criticism, but to say something about them that isn't even true is WRONG.
-
You can think whatever you want to believe, I can't change you only God can regarding this happening and the way it happened. I know that God blessed this organization because of the results.
Most of our religious are very Saintly and God's grace has been bestowed especially on our religious. Yes, the devil is within and has captured some, proving again even the devil knows where God IS; trying to destroy along with people like you as the devils sub-agents. People who speak evil of God's work.
CMRI has been involved in the beginning prophesy to convert Russia. Fr. Alexander Kryssov an expert on Church history, is the first true priest from Moscow and has returned to the traditional parish he was a member of in the shadow of the Kremlin, his ordination a blessed accomplishment by CMRI and now providing the first Russian traditional priest in Russia planting seeds for a Triumph of Mary's Immaculate Heart.
A Novus Ordo priest, who came to us because he realized he was never ordained, will be properly ordained after his long awaited period of learning and training. A training now ending with his ordination on June 29th Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul:
Ordinations at Mount St. Michael Rev. Mr. Michael Oswalt will be ordained to the Holy Priesthood. On July 3 the Feast of the Most precious Blood of Jesus his First Solemn High Mass will be offered. Along with his ordination another seminarian from New Zealand Rev. Mr. Brendan Legg will be ordained and return to New Zealand to continue the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
These are only a few good fruits of CMRI, each day God is blessing us with growth and Saints, not to mention the miracles of conversion, i.e. my own husband.
"You will know them by their fruits"
-
LP's posts clearly blow the whole "CMRI came first and is more superior" argument out of the water. Don't get me wrong, if the CMRI was all I had I'd attend it in a heartbeat over the NO. But to say it's superior to the SSPX is laughable. Also, I never gave all the credit to the SSPX, Myrna.
The only thing blown out of the water are dead fish! You love to rah rah for people who only agree with you and it shows.
-
"You will know them by their fruits"
somebody just sign up with this name but they havent posted yet.
-
Are you taunting him, herb? :wink:
-
Are you taunting him, herb? :wink:
haha no gladius. i just am curious because that is an intersting name to use and i wonder what the person gonna post about.
-
LP's posts clearly blow the whole "CMRI came first and is more superior" argument out of the water. Don't get me wrong, if the CMRI was all I had I'd attend it in a heartbeat over the NO. But to say it's superior to the SSPX is laughable. Also, I never gave all the credit to the SSPX, Myrna.
The only thing blown out of the water are dead fish! You love to rah rah for people who only agree with you and it shows.
Um, right. It's that's true, then how come I constantly say Raoul (who has been known to disagree with me at times) has made a big contribution to CatholicInfo ever since he came back? You're making up stuff that has nothing to back it up.
-
Ohh! This is a link I have been looking for!!!
All very good comments but I tend to go with SJB.
I heard this about St. Robert Bellarmine from another very interesting source. A Benedictine Order website. http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
the smart sheep
-
TKGS
About the airplane analogy. Maybe the sedevecantist do have a pilot - THE SAINTS AND THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. And they are going in the right direction.
the smart sheep
-
TKGS
About the airplane analogy. Maybe the sedevecantist do have a pilot - THE SAINTS AND THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. And they are going in the right direction.
the smart sheep
I agree completely; but remember, this was Bishop Fellay's analogy.
I sort of had your explanation in the back of my mind when I heard Bishop Fellay's remarks, but I wasn't able to adequately express it to others. Your's is a good explanation.
-
:cool: