Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: knish on June 07, 2016, 10:19:21 AM
-
Today marks my first day as a sedevacantist. I have finally caved, after years of fighting my conscience.
Here's why:
1. The Novus Ordo Missae was lawfully promulgated. This is a fact. Anyone who does an honest study will come to this conclusion. Yet, the NOM is evil. It's impossible for the Church to promulgate evil liturgy
2. Vatican II should have been protected by UOM - "B-b-b-but it was pastoral" Not according to the official docuмents.
"Pope" Paul VI
Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.
3. New Canonizations - JP2 and John XXIII - If these two guys are saints, JP2 in particular, which one MUST accept if they accept the post-conciliar Popes, what the heck are we doing? You can become a saint promoting Vatican II and the NO. Give it up, guys! What are you resisting? Just get blessed by some animists, pray to buddha, and your on your way to heaven. NOT. A saint he aint. This is a FACT!
4. Novus Ordo Magisterium - This is maybe the strongest argument. You realize that the "Church" now teaches, "infallibility," dual-covenant theology, religious liberty, heretical ecclesiology, rejects EENS, amongst other previously condemned heresies?
Amongst other things. Anyway, it's been fun, R&R. But, I'm done. I'm done with the double-think, faulty logic and nonsense. I reject this false Church and all associated with it.
-
Actually there is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist' but at least you now see the anti-church & it's anti-popes.
The only solution to the current mess is a recognition of Gregory XVII as true Pope until his death on 1989. :detective:
-
Actually there is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist' but at least you now see the anti-church & it's anti-popes.
The only solution to the current mess is a recognition of Gregory XVII as true Pope until his death on 1989. :detective:
I don't know the solution. I do know I can't continue lying to myself about these destroyers of the faith.
-
The only solution to the current mess is a recognition of Gregory XVII as true Pope until his death on 1989. :detective:
Well, "recognition" sounds like a legal term, and we don't have that kind of authority. But, yes, I believe that is exactly what happened. I don't believe, however, that a Gregory XVIII ever existed, but is nothing more than a scam.
-
I think that this is like the Arian crisis in that there is a very, very wide abuse of authority and corruption in the hierarchy. However, I do not think that the hierarchy has lost its authority, and cannot do so without excommunication. I don't think that heretics can be deposed automatically without any canonical recognition of their being deposed; even if they do incur "automatic excommunication", they retain their jurisdiction in the Church until such time as they are canonically deposed, and one can receive the sacraments from them validly and licitly; however, I do not blame those who avoid them out of repugnance for their heresy or sacrilegious abuse of the divine liturgy. I do not think that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil; remember, that the Novus Ordo in its own texts advocates Latin, Gregorian chant, and ad orientem. Abuse can make any liturgy evil, e.g. you can turn the ancient liturgy into a Black Mass. I do not think that every member of the hierarchy is bad-willed, or even a majority; I think a lot of them are just following their superiors with Catholic obedience. You have to separate the "useful idiot" who thinks he's helping in the "renewal" of the Church, and a corrupt ideologue who is intent on destroying the Church - the latter is evil in a way the former is clearly not. The problem is the infiltration of such ideologues into high places.
-
I think a restoration will take place in the Church as soon as society begins to persecute it more openly, whether that be from the Socialist leadership or radical Muslim invaders. Then the myth about a reconciliation with the tolerant modern world will no longer apply and the Church will be forced to fight for its life and its identity. Reconciliation with liberal society and its indifferentist principles has only produced generations of largely indifferentist and lukewarm Catholics. I hope at least something good can come from this mess. I don't know if the future generation will look back on Vatican II as an almost deliberate apostasy or as something with legitimate aspirations that was manipulated and taken off-track by infiltrators and subversives.
-
One of the main characteristics of Vatican II is its "optimistic", hopeful tone that in many ways has descended into downright pelagianism and universalism. I wonder if this "optimistic" tone is something that is not basically correct however; the argument is that in response to the Counter-Reformation and the exaggerations of the Protestants in regards to justification, the Church's spirituality became too focused on the accuмulation of merit which can potentially go in a Jansenist, depressive, "you're-never-quite-good-enough" direction. This is what all the "nouvelle theologiens" of Vatican II were accusing scholastic theologians of being guilty of: being too bogged-down in a petty legalism that missed the spirit of Christianity by a too obsessive preoccupation with details and distinctions. I think what a lot of the Council fathers were enthusiastic about was a new sense of "life" and "spirit" in the Church after a while of empty ritualism. I am not saying that this is correct however. The Church has always had to deal with these "charismatic" antinomian types from the very beginning, who want to shed all law and ritual and order for "spiritual" anarchy. But it's a matter of finding that golden mean between the two extremes. Having authentic liturgy and sound moral norms but also with a healthy piety and devotion, so that religion doesn't just become routine.
-
I prefer to hear the word of Jesus, “When the Son of man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)
Not from the Conciliarist of which there are many, many more than those who face the truth of our situation.
-
I read a small book by Fr. Lasance . It is of the Holy Ghost devotions. It states: "It is particularly a devotion for the latter ages of the Church, and will grow with that sublime augmentation of devotion to Our Lady, which is the prophecies and revelations of holy men and women have announced as the characteristic of the last saints, who shall precede the Doom, and to be to the end of the Church what the apostles were at the beginning" (Precious Blood)
Title: "Come Holy Spirit" 1929
Very good!
-
Today marks my first day as a sedevacantist. I have finally caved, after years of fighting my conscience. [....]
Amongst other things. Anyway, it's been fun, R&R. But, I'm done. I'm done with the double-think, faulty logic and nonsense. I reject this false Church and all associated with it.
So what will you do differently now?
-
Today marks my first day as a sedevacantist. I have finally caved, after years of fighting my conscience.
Here's why:
1. The Novus Ordo Missae was lawfully promulgated. This is a fact. Anyone who does an honest study will come to this conclusion. Yet, the NOM is evil. It's impossible for the Church to promulgate evil liturgy
2. Vatican II should have been protected by UOM - "B-b-b-but it was pastoral" Not according to the official docuмents.
"Pope" Paul VI
Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.
3. New Canonizations - JP2 and John XXIII - If these two guys are saints, JP2 in particular, which one MUST accept if they accept the post-conciliar Popes, what the heck are we doing? You can become a saint promoting Vatican II and the NO. Give it up, guys! What are you resisting? Just get blessed by some animists, pray to buddha, and your on your way to heaven. NOT. A saint he aint. This is a FACT!
4. Novus Ordo Magisterium - This is maybe the strongest argument. You realize that the "Church" now teaches, "infallibility," dual-covenant theology, religious liberty, heretical ecclesiology, rejects EENS, amongst other previously condemned heresies?
Amongst other things. Anyway, it's been fun, R&R. But, I'm done. I'm done with the double-think, faulty logic and nonsense. I reject this false Church and all associated with it.
I see you got past the emotion and embraced the logic. Bravo :applause:
-
I don't know the solution. I do know I can't continue lying to myself about these destroyers of the faith.
Always remember that sedevacantism has never claimed to be a "solution". It is merely the recognition of the true nature of the Crisis.
A solution will come--how it will come is not something I can predict. But it is impossible for the Crisis to be resolved as long as the vast majority of Catholics refuse to recognize the problem. The first step in solving any problem is always to "identify the problem".
-
I don't know the solution. I do know I can't continue lying to myself about these destroyers of the faith.
Always remember that sedevacantism has never claimed to be a "solution". It is merely the recognition of the true nature of the Crisis.
A solution will come--how it will come is not something I can predict. But it is impossible for the Crisis to be resolved as long as the vast majority of Catholics refuse to recognize the problem. The first step in solving any problem is always to "identify the problem".
Yes. SV merely points to the reality and to the root cause in large part to the problems. It is like pointing out to your family that the restaurant we are in is not the family restaurant we thought it was but something for adults only. Oops. We better get out of here.
-
Solution is always, the true Precious Blood in the sacraments and The Holy Rosary.
-
3. New Canonizations - JP2 and John XXIII - If these two guys are saints, JP2 in particular, which one MUST accept if they accept the post-conciliar Popes, what the heck are we doing?
LOL, that shows you how much I pay attention to the conciliar church happenings, I didn't know John XXIII was declared a saint.
What a joke.
-
Today marks my first day as a sedevacantist. I have finally caved, after years of fighting my conscience. [....]
Amongst other things. Anyway, it's been fun, R&R. But, I'm done. I'm done with the double-think, faulty logic and nonsense. I reject this false Church and all associated with it.
So what will you do differently now?
Probably nothing, in practice. Gonna continue going to the SSPX, as I have no sede chapels nearby. That aside, I'll stop lying to myself and engaging in double-think.
-
One of my wife's favorite Saints is Gemma BTW. She is quite an interesting story.
-
One of my wife's favorite Saints is Gemma BTW. She is quite an interesting story.
Yes, very interesting indeed. One of my favorite saints as well. Hence, the profile picture. I have a deep fascination for mystics.
-
One of my wife's favorite Saints is Gemma BTW. She is quite an interesting story.
Yes, very interesting indeed. One of my favorite saints as well. Hence, the profile picture. I have a deep fascination for mystics.
Saint Gemma Galgani ora pro nobis and help us to be like unto you.
-
I have since recanted of my error and am no longer a sedevacantist. I pray I have not lead anyone astray by this post.
God Bless,
Knish
-
Wow! All in just a week.
To paraphrase Saint Thomas More's talk to William Roper (from Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons), a week ago you were a passionate Churchman; now you're a passionate Conciliarist. We must just pray that when your head's finished turning, your face is to the front again.
(Note: The actual quote from the play is: Listen, Roper. Two years ago you were a passionate Churchman; now you're a passionate-Lutheran. We must just pray that when your head's finished turning, your face is to the front again.)
-
I have since recanted of my error and am no longer a sedevacantist. I pray I have not lead anyone astray by this post.
God Bless,
Knish
Do tell.
How did this change come about?
What convinced you to renounce sedevacantism?
-
Wow! All in just a week.
To paraphrase Saint Thomas More's talk to William Roper (from Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons), a week ago you were a passionate Churchman; now you're a passionate Conciliarist. We must just pray that when your head's finished turning, your face is to the front again.
(Note: The actual quote from the play is: Listen, Roper. Two years ago you were a passionate Churchman; now you're a passionate-Lutheran. We must just pray that when your head's finished turning, your face is to the front again.)
That movie is full of awesome quotes. Sometimes if something makes "too" much sense is scares one. That is too easy. Wow all these problems within the "Church" is a result of their being an invalid Pope. That is why all this nonsense gets officially "approved" and why I keep banging my head against the wall saying why did the Pope approve that and why did he promulgate that and why does he allow this, this and this and why does he do that, that and that and why does he pick all these heretics to be cardinals and why does he "canonize" devils?
I guess for any reason other than SV. SV just makes too much sense. Has to be something else more complicated.
-
I guess for any reason other than SV. SV just makes too much sense. Has to be something else more complicated.
I find it interesting that many people who use Occam's razor, the theory that the simplest explanation is the most likely true explanation, to explain many things absolutely reject Occam's razor in regards to the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis.
-
I guess for any reason other than SV. SV just makes too much sense. Has to be something else more complicated.
I find it interesting that many people who use Occam's razor, the theory that the simplest explanation is the most likely true explanation, to explain many things absolutely reject Occam's razor in regards to the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis.
Emotion gets in the way for many with SV. Also the problem of "where will my children get the Sacraments and schooled?" It is really quite mind-boggling. Plants are set up everywhere to coral the god-willed in an erroneous understanding of things with the ultimate hope of preventing their salvation. This is what the powers that be have been trying to do since they had our Lord Crucified. The obvious Truth cannot, must not be true.
The Novus Ordo itself which is Zionist run. The R & R which bases its whole reason for being upon a non-Catholic principle (the idea that Catholics can "resist" what valid Pope bind and maintain on the Church for five decades straight. Mind boggling if you look at it objectively). The Feeneyites who take traditional good-willed Catholics of the straight and narrow and immerse them in their grave error or heresy by insisting on what the Church does not insist on and teaching contrary to what the Church has taught. Then the conduct of many SVs including and especially some clergy does not help.
1 + 1 = 2 always even when 3 or 4 would be a more preferable answer.
The Southern Poverty center is on record begging traditional Catholics to accept Vatican "2". What does that tell you?
-
the logic of SV is based on the premise that V2 is heresy, and that all the popes who promulgated it are therefore heretics. A true council has the authority of God, but God would never permit heresy to issue from such a council. Therefore, V2 did not have the authority of God. It was not a true council. Popes cannot be pertinacious heretics because they cease to be catholics when they are. So if the man in Rome is a pertinacious heretic, he is not a catholic, and therefore, he is not the pope. The entire NO is heretical from top to bottom. It is not the roman catholic church but an organized group of people occupy buildings that were once occupied by catholics.
-
I guess for any reason other than SV. SV just makes too much sense. Has to be something else more complicated.
I find it interesting that many people who use Occam's razor, the theory that the simplest explanation is the most likely true explanation, to explain many things absolutely reject Occam's razor in regards to the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis.
It's not that we reject Occam's razor in regards to the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis, it's that using it, it's too easy to disprove sedevacantism.
-
I guess for any reason other than SV. SV just makes too much sense. Has to be something else more complicated.
I find it interesting that many people who use Occam's razor, the theory that the simplest explanation is the most likely true explanation, to explain many things absolutely reject Occam's razor in regards to the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis.
It's not that we reject Occam's razor in regards to the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis, it's that using it, it's too easy to disprove sedevacantism.
You, young man, are delusional.
-
The conciliar popes were elected by the same process and in the same manner that the popes before them were elected. The conciliar popes accepted their election the same way the popes before them did.
To put it in the words of Pope saint Pius X, after the newly elected accepts his election......."the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."
It really is that simple.
-
The conciliar popes were elected by the same process and in the same manner that the popes before them were elected. The conciliar popes accepted their election the same way the popes before them did.
To put it in the words of Pope saint Pius X, after the newly elected accepts his election......."the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."
It really is that simple.
It matters not during these days of enlightment, the dawn before the New Order, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr if the servants of God are Catholic or not?
Are you Stubborn a Freemason?
-
I have since recanted of my error and am no longer a sedevacantist. I pray I have not lead anyone astray by this post.
God Bless,
Knish
Do tell.
How did this change come about?
What convinced you to renounce sedevacantism?
I have noticed that many times, sedevacantism is the way to go, but then they discover there is no compromising especially when it comes to marriage, no annulments handed out like candy. Their lifestyle might require a change ... might it be a sacrifice is required?
-
The conciliar popes were elected by the same process and in the same manner that the popes before them were elected. The conciliar popes accepted their election the same way the popes before them did.
To put it in the words of Pope saint Pius X, after the newly elected accepts his election......."the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."
It really is that simple.
It matters not during these days of enlightment, the dawn before the New Order, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr if the servants of God are Catholic or not?
No. It really doesn't matter to me. It matters to you, but not to me.
Are you Stubborn a Freemason?
As I understand it, Freemasons must blindly submit to the wishes of their superiors without question. That is freemasonic, not Catholic. As Catholics, we are required to know our faith, we are not permitted to be ignorant of what is required for our own salvation nor put our souls in peril by blindly submitting to anyone, even the pope.
-
As I understand it, Freemasons must blindly submit to the wishes of their superiors without question. That is freemasonic, not Catholic. As Catholics, we are required to know our faith, we are not permitted to be ignorant of what is required for our own salvation nor put our souls in peril by blindly submitting to anyone, even the pope.
I don't know enough about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to know whether your supposition is correct or not.
But I do know that Catholics must docilely submit to the teachings of the pope. Many would characterize this as blindly submitting to him. What Catholics are not obliged to do is to submit, docilely or otherwise, to a non-Catholic who pretends to be pope.
-
As I understand it, Freemasons must blindly submit to the wishes of their superiors without question. That is freemasonic, not Catholic. As Catholics, we are required to know our faith, we are not permitted to be ignorant of what is required for our own salvation nor put our souls in peril by blindly submitting to anyone, even the pope.
I don't know enough about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to know whether your supposition is correct or not.
But I do know that Catholics must docilely submit to the teachings of the pope. Many would characterize this as blindly submitting to him. What Catholics are not obliged to do is to submit, docilely or otherwise, to a non-Catholic who pretends to be pope.
The simplest way to say it, is that we are bound to adhere to the faith period. That's the way it is due to this crisis.
The ordinary Catholic is a humble person, he has been taught humility and obedience. He has been told that his salvation lies in being humbly obedient.
In our present circuмstance, what is called for, is not this kind of servility. What is called for now, is some sense of responsibility. Our Lord said we are to be wise as serpents and simple as doves. Now is the time to be as wise as a serpent, and questioning and incredulous and dubious - this is the posture of the true Catholic nowadays because the clergy have shown they are irresponsible, that they are inconsistent, that they are irreverent - and that what they once taught they no longer teach. So they are no longer reliable guides and they surely need not be obeyed when that which they once established, they now go contrary to and try to cause the people to do likewise.
-
I have since recanted of my error and am no longer a sedevacantist. I pray I have not lead anyone astray by this post.
God Bless,
Knish
What would it take to convince you that someone claiming to be the pope is not the pope? Is there any belief, statement or behavior of his that would convince you that he cannot be the pope? Or is the papal election itself sufficient to ensure that he is pope, irrespective of anything he might do or say? I'm just trying to understand your theory of the papacy.
-
I have since recanted of my error and am no longer a sedevacantist. I pray I have not lead anyone astray by this post.
God Bless,
Knish
What would it take to convince you that someone claiming to be the pope is not the pope? Is there any belief, statement or behavior of his that would convince you that he cannot be the pope? Or is the papal election itself sufficient to ensure that he is pope, irrespective of anything he might do or say? I'm just trying to understand your theory of the papacy.
Those are the perfect questions to ask any anti-SV. I guess they would have to put on lay clothes and leave the Vatican never to be seen or heard from again. But even that might not do it from what I have seen.
-
What would it take to convince you that someone claiming to be the pope is not the pope? Is there any belief, statement or behavior of his that would convince you that he cannot be the pope? Or is the papal election itself sufficient to ensure that he is pope, irrespective of anything he might do or say? I'm just trying to understand your theory of the papacy.
Those are the perfect questions to ask any anti-SV. I guess they would have to put on lay clothes and leave the Vatican never to be seen or heard from again. But even that might not do it from what I have seen.
A while back, someone sent me a link to a topic on another forum (it is a SSPX forum in the sense that CathInfo is a Resistance forum, that I am not a member of) in which this very question was asked of the membership. I don't have the link anymore, but the answers were interesting. In the end, the responses indicated that nothing ever could convince anyone of sedevacantism.
In fact, there was a poster by the screen name of Stubborn (I don't know if it is the same poster as our very own Stubborn) who candidly replied that nothing could possibly convince him.
The conclusion I drew (besides that I was not going to join that forum) was that anti-sedevacantism is the only dogma that unites them. The more I see how anti-sedevacantists think, the more I see how similar it is to Protestantism.
-
Has anyone ever noticed that it is the sedevacantism that is feared the most of the enemies of God? The higher ups in the novus ordo are so afraid of sedevacantism as are those sitting on the fence.
I think the reason is the sedevacantist are unwilling to compromise the faith, and they know it.
-
What would it take to convince you that someone claiming to be the pope is not the pope? Is there any belief, statement or behavior of his that would convince you that he cannot be the pope? Or is the papal election itself sufficient to ensure that he is pope, irrespective of anything he might do or say? I'm just trying to understand your theory of the papacy.
Those are the perfect questions to ask any anti-SV. I guess they would have to put on lay clothes and leave the Vatican never to be seen or heard from again. But even that might not do it from what I have seen.
A while back, someone sent me a link to a topic on another forum (it is a SSPX forum in the sense that CathInfo is a Resistance forum, that I am not a member of) in which this very question was asked of the membership. I don't have the link anymore, but the answers were interesting. In the end, the responses indicated that nothing ever could convince anyone of sedevacantism.
In fact, there was a poster by the screen name of Stubborn (I don't know if it is the same poster as our very own Stubborn) who candidly replied that nothing could possibly convince him.
The conclusion I drew (besides that I was not going to join that forum) was that anti-sedevacantism is the only dogma that unites them. The more I see how anti-sedevacantists think, the more I see how similar it is to Protestantism.
This is dead on, but the question is why?
For some I have encountered it is because they do not know where they will then get the sacraments from for their children or have their children educated. For others it is an emotional thing when the clergy tell them that if they hold the position they are "skating on thin is" "are schismatic" and "could be damned" for this. That gives one pause.
Others, I am convinced are simply plants. Satan knows where the true Church is and knows the correct position on the issue. The diabolical non-nonsensical discreditation of SV can only come from the pits of Hell.
For instance "Fr." Grunner went around insisting that SV could not be true. Father Stepanich wrote him a very respectful and clear letter explaining the position of SV to which it was incuмbent upon Grunner to reply to or to at least to stop publicly insisting on what he knew there was very valid objections to. What was his response? Surely if he was so convinced the position he was binding on others and for which he would have to answer for was so obviously correct he would have dutifully responded and refuted Father Stepanich. What was his response?
Silence.
-
What would it take to convince you that someone claiming to be the pope is not the pope? Is there any belief, statement or behavior of his that would convince you that he cannot be the pope? Or is the papal election itself sufficient to ensure that he is pope, irrespective of anything he might do or say? I'm just trying to understand your theory of the papacy.
Those are the perfect questions to ask any anti-SV. I guess they would have to put on lay clothes and leave the Vatican never to be seen or heard from again. But even that might not do it from what I have seen.
A while back, someone sent me a link to a topic on another forum (it is a SSPX forum in the sense that CathInfo is a Resistance forum, that I am not a member of) in which this very question was asked of the membership. I don't have the link anymore, but the answers were interesting. In the end, the responses indicated that nothing ever could convince anyone of sedevacantism.
In fact, there was a poster by the screen name of Stubborn (I don't know if it is the same poster as our very own Stubborn) who candidly replied that nothing could possibly convince him.
The conclusion I drew (besides that I was not going to join that forum) was that anti-sedevacantism is the only dogma that unites them. The more I see how anti-sedevacantists think, the more I see how similar it is to Protestantism.
Yes, that is me and I replied with what it would take for me to become a SV.
-
The sad thing is that the more the "real" Catholics insist this apostate is a valid Pope the more they keep him afloat and give him the ability and influence to continue to destroy (to the extent that such is possible) the Church from within.
His madness must be stopped. But it can't be so long as the real Catholics keep insisting that he is the unifying visible head of the Roman Catholic Church. "He who hears him hears Christ".
-
Has anyone ever noticed that it is the sedevacantism that is feared the most of the enemies of God? The higher ups in the novus ordo are so afraid of sedevacantism as are those sitting on the fence.
I think the reason is the sedevacantist are unwilling to compromise the faith, and they know it.
Actually, I'm pretty sure fear has nothing to do with it, most likely their expression is showing they are in awe as to how the sedevacantists know with certainty, as if by Divine Revelation that there is no pope.
-
How much more certain do you need to be than Divine Law?
-
Has anyone ever noticed that it is the sedevacantism that is feared the most of the enemies of God? The higher ups in the novus ordo are so afraid of sedevacantism as are those sitting on the fence.
I think the reason is the sedevacantist are unwilling to compromise the faith, and they know it.
Actually, I'm pretty sure fear has nothing to do with it, most likely their expression is showing they are in awe as to how the sedevacantists know with certainty, as if by Divine Revelation that there is no pope.
I am surprised at you, because you and your ilk are the ones that are so in earnest on the dogma of EENS yet, when your pope speaks of other religions as if they are good you stick a banana in your ear.
For me, it is the breaking of the First Commandment that with certain, Francis is NOT a true pope and I do believe that a doubtful pope is no pope so that rules out any other possibility at this time.
Jesus Christ is the head of His Church and He is guiding it. We are not orphans.
-
Has anyone ever noticed that it is the sedevacantism that is feared the most of the enemies of God? The higher ups in the novus ordo are so afraid of sedevacantism as are those sitting on the fence.
I think the reason is the sedevacantist are unwilling to compromise the faith, and they know it.
Actually, I'm pretty sure fear has nothing to do with it, most likely their expression is showing they are in awe as to how the sedevacantists know with certainty, as if by Divine Revelation that there is no pope.
I am surprised at you, because you and your ilk are the ones that are so in earnest on the dogma of EENS yet, when your pope speaks of other religions as if they are good you stick a banana in your ear.
For me, it is the breaking of the First Commandment that with certain, Francis is NOT a true pope and I do believe that a doubtful pope is no pope so that rules out any other possibility at this time.
Jesus Christ is the head of His Church and He is guiding it. We are not orphans.
The First Commandment is the most important Commandment and it is the one the false-Popes break publicly and with the most regularity. That is what you call an heretical act.
-
Has anyone ever noticed that it is the sedevacantism that is feared the most of the enemies of God? The higher ups in the novus ordo are so afraid of sedevacantism as are those sitting on the fence.
I think the reason is the sedevacantist are unwilling to compromise the faith, and they know it.
Actually, I'm pretty sure fear has nothing to do with it, most likely their expression is showing they are in awe as to how the sedevacantists know with certainty, as if by Divine Revelation that there is no pope.
I am surprised at you, because you and your ilk are the ones that are so in earnest on the dogma of EENS yet, when your pope speaks of other religions as if they are good you stick a banana in your ear.
For me, it is the breaking of the First Commandment that with certain, Francis is NOT a true pope and I do believe that a doubtful pope is no pope so that rules out any other possibility at this time.
Jesus Christ is the head of His Church and He is guiding it. We are not orphans.
Well good - and yes, my ilk and I accept the dogma EENS as once, twice and thrice declared - that makes us and the popes who defined it feeneyites. What else is new? Now that you've professed with certainty the pope is not pope, is there another diversion or is this the only one?
Remember, I do not care if he is a true pope or not, but for safety's sake, will submit to him as pope if he ever wants us to do something that does not offend God.
-
Well good - and yes, my ilk and I accept the dogma EENS as once, twice and thrice declared - that makes us and the popes who defined it feeneyites. What else is new? Now that you've professed with certainty the pope is not pope, is there another diversion or is this the only one?
Remember, I do not care if he is a true pope or not, but for safety's sake, will submit to him as pope if he ever wants us to do something that does not offend God.
That is a monumental amount of caca stubborn. There should be allow against posting such nonsense on a Catholic forum.
Who decides what does or does not offend God if not the Pope? The SSPX. You are rock but upon some other rock that will come about in 1970 I will build my Church so stubborn can reassure himself that he is still Catholic. Or is the other REAL rock the Saint Benedict Center?
-
Has anyone ever noticed that it is the sedevacantism that is feared the most of the enemies of God? The higher ups in the novus ordo are so afraid of sedevacantism as are those sitting on the fence.
I think the reason is the sedevacantist are unwilling to compromise the faith, and they know it.
Actually, I'm pretty sure fear has nothing to do with it, most likely their expression is showing they are in awe as to how the sedevacantists know with certainty, as if by Divine Revelation that there is no pope.
I am surprised at you, because you and your ilk are the ones that are so in earnest on the dogma of EENS yet, when your pope speaks of other religions as if they are good you stick a banana in your ear.
For me, it is the breaking of the First Commandment that with certain, Francis is NOT a true pope and I do believe that a doubtful pope is no pope so that rules out any other possibility at this time.
Jesus Christ is the head of His Church and He is guiding it. We are not orphans.
Well good - and yes, my ilk and I accept the dogma EENS as once, twice and thrice declared - that makes us and the popes who defined it feeneyites. What else is new? Now that you've professed with certainty the pope is not pope, is there another diversion or is this the only one?
Remember, I do not care if he is a true pope or not, but for safety's sake, will submit to him as pope if he ever wants us to do something that does not offend God.
It only takes one serious diversion to put even a Catholic pope outside the Church, not to mention an infiltrator who was never Catholic to begin with.
I can only speak for myself but, in truth after you see it, (the serious diversion) you really don't want to waste your time seeking other heresies, just as you don't care, I don't care how far he will fall into the pit. The only time I even think of him is when I come to this forum and read from SSPX how horrible he is, their pope. I feel saddness when I think of the Blessed Mother and how she saw her Son suffering so, and so many such as the Conciliarists try to tear and destroy His Church apart, taking countless souls into the pit with them, those who had the Faith at one time and lost it. The Bible speaks of those who once had the Faith and left for a new faith, are possessed with seven devils. That is in the Bible. :scared2:
Strange too, how you say if and when he says something Catholic you will submit. Don't you think it odd that a True Catholic pope if and when he says something Catholic it hits the world news? Really! Why is everyone so surprised to hear what they perceive as a Catholic pope would dare to say something that even resembles the Catholic Church? That alone should at least give you a hint of what he really is!
-
I suppose if we weren't in a crisis I'd find it odd, but being as how in this crisis, the pope is a heretic - no, it does not surprise me. If he ever came out and wanted us to do something Catholic, now THAT would surprise me - and likely bring me joy.
But until that happens, I will remain the popes good servant, but God's first - how about you?
-
How about whenever the devil acts like God? Are you his good servant at those times?
-
We are not bound to be subject to the devil - the dogma clearly decrees we must be subject to the pope for our hope of salvation.
-
Francis represents the devil as do the other false Popes who worship in false religions and lead billions of souls into Hell. That is not the rock which Christ built His Church upon. The rock is not a subjective thing that you "follow" when you "think he is right". Absurdity on stilts. That makes you above the "Pope" as you are the one who decides what is right instead of him. Lay people do decide whether a Pope approved council, sacraments, mass, canon law or saints are legit or not. That is monumental nonsense. Can you imagine that happening with pre-V2 Popes?
The Holy Ghost prevents valid Popes from doing all they have done. The Holy Ghost is not preventing these apostates from erring. Why is that?
-
Francis represents the devil as do the other false Popes who worship in false religions and lead billions of souls into Hell. That is not the rock which Christ built His Church upon. The rock is not a subjective thing that you "follow" when you "think he is right". Absurdity on stilts. That makes you above the "Pope" as you are the one who decides what is right instead of him. Lay people do decide whether a Pope approved council, sacraments, mass, canon law or saints are legit or not. That is monumental nonsense. Can you imagine that happening with pre-V2 Popes?
Same nonsensical theology at work again. It does not make me above the pope to know right from wrong, to do right and to avoid wrong - even when that means being disobedient to the pope. We are expected to know our faith or we cannot know God - all of this is true whether the heretic pope is a true pope or not.
If you do not know right from wrong, it's your own fault, not because of a heretic pope, and if you do not know your faith, it's your own fault, not because of a heretic pope. If you commit mortal sin because you were fooled into it, that is your own fault. Whatever fault lies with the pope, he will answer for himself, just as we all answer for ourselves.
The Holy Ghost prevents valid Popes from doing all they have done. The Holy Ghost is not preventing these apostates from erring. Why is that?
Wrong. Here again you claim a sanctity and infallibility for the pope he does not posses, only God possesses.
“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately
defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to
undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening
its foundations." - Bishop Melchior Cano O.P., a theologian of the Council of Trent.
-
It is not you I'm trying to convince. You believe your own stuff. Those open to truth can find it if they like.
No one sets himself above a valid Pope and tells us whether what he says or implements is Catholic or not. Who is your Pope ultimately. Saint Benedict Center or Francis? Be honest.
-
It is not you I'm trying to convince. You believe your own stuff. Those open to truth can find it if they like.
No one sets himself above a valid Pope and tells us whether what he says or implements is Catholic or not. Who is your Pope ultimately. Saint Benedict Center or Francis? Be honest.
I believe what the Church teaches - and aside from it's condemnation of, it most assuredly does not teach sedevacantism. Certainly we can at least agree on this.
What is with you and accusing people of setting themselves above a valid pope? - try to accept the truth that it is only the sedevacantists who do that.
-
You won't answer the question. What living authority do you look to as a sure guide?
-
It is not you I'm trying to convince. You believe your own stuff. Those open to truth can find it if they like.
No one sets himself above a valid Pope and tells us whether what he says or implements is Catholic or not. Who is your Pope ultimately. Saint Benedict Center or Francis? Be honest.
I believe what the Church teaches - and aside from it's condemnation of, it most assuredly does not teach sedevacantism. Certainly we can at least agree on this.
What is with you and accusing people of setting themselves above a valid pope? - try to accept the truth that it is only the sedevacantists who do that.
You know what I think Stubborn? If you really believe Francis is a valid pope you better keep you negative writings about him out of your life, because to believe he is valid and speaking about him in such a manner might be at best adding centuries of Purgatory up for yourself. God says you are either for me or against me, to say the Church is a deceiver is a serious statement and that is what you say. Especially when these things are said over and over again by people who regard him as their pope. I do not know the mind of God but I do know He doesn't care for the hypocrite.
To say sedevacantism never existed is a lie, the Vatican even issued a stamp to commemorate it.
-
You won't answer the question. What living authority do you look to as a sure guide?
Aside from the priest in the confessional you mean? I certainly don't look to the pope as a sure guide - to be nice, he is an embarrassment to all things Catholic.
-
It is not you I'm trying to convince. You believe your own stuff. Those open to truth can find it if they like.
No one sets himself above a valid Pope and tells us whether what he says or implements is Catholic or not. Who is your Pope ultimately. Saint Benedict Center or Francis? Be honest.
I believe what the Church teaches - and aside from it's condemnation of, it most assuredly does not teach sedevacantism. Certainly we can at least agree on this.
What is with you and accusing people of setting themselves above a valid pope? - try to accept the truth that it is only the sedevacantists who do that.
You know what I think Stubborn? If you really believe Francis is a valid pope you better keep you negative writings about him out of your life, because to believe he is valid and speaking about him in such a manner might be at best adding centuries of Purgatory up for yourself. God says you are either for me or against me, to say the Church is a deceiver is a serious statement and that is what you say. Especially when these things are said over and over again by people who regard him as their pope. I do not know the mind of God but I do know He doesn't care for the hypocrite.
To say sedevacantism never existed is a lie, the Vatican even issued a stamp to commemorate it.
Again you equate the pope to God. Not sure if you even realize you do it, and not only you, nearly all sedes do that.
If the pope said you are either with me or against me, I would be forced to say I am against him because he is against God. There is only one God and FYI, the pope is not God.
-
Aside from the priest in the confessional you mean? I certainly don't look to the pope as a sure guide - to be nice, he is an embarrassment to all things Catholic.
Before V2 no one would say that about a Pope.
Can you honestly tell me where you got your thoughts on BOD and SV? Anyone else know? Is he a Saint Benedict Center guy?
-
Aside from the priest in the confessional you mean? I certainly don't look to the pope as a sure guide - to be nice, he is an embarrassment to all things Catholic.
Before V2 no one would say that about a Pope.
Can you honestly tell me where you got your thoughts on BOD and SV? Anyone else know? Is he a Saint Benedict Center guy?
Before V2 no one would have had any reason to say that about a pope.
On the necessity of the sacraments for salvation I could not prove myself wrong. If a BOD is true, then Our Lord, Trent and all the catechisms are a lie. It is that simple. I understand why you believe what you believe, you don't, but I do. If that sounds rash of me, so be it, I do not know how else to put it bluntly.
The same can be said of sedevacantism. It boils down to you accepting the false teachings of certain 20th century theologians, who've promulgated the false doctrine of infallibility that far as I know, all sedevacantists - and nearly the entire world embrace, otherwise, there might not be a crisis.
-
The same can be said of sedevacantism. It boils down to you accepting the false teachings of certain 20th century theologians, who've promulgated the false doctrine of infallibility that far as I know, all sedevacantists - and nearly the entire world embrace, otherwise, there might not be a crisis.
That is simply not true. The problem is that even in her fallible capacity the Catholic Church cannot teach heresy. Errors can occur, of course, but they can be only relatively minor and they can never endanger one's soul. If the Catholic Church's teaching would lead souls to hell it would mean defection of the Church. So far you have refused no less than three or four times to answer my simple question: can the Catholic Church promulgate teachings which will lead souls to hell?
-
I still don't understand the question of sedevacantism well enough to take a position. I don't see how it is possible for a true Pope to be a heretic, which Francis obviously is. And I also don't see how it is possible for the entire Church and all the Bishops to recognize an antipope as Pope as must be true if sedevacantism is true. So I am not satisfied with either position and consider it to be a mystery.
-
I still don't understand the question of sedevacantism well enough to take a position. I don't see how it is possible for a true Pope to be a heretic, which Francis obviously is. And I also don't see how it is possible for the entire Church and all the Bishops to recognize an antipope as Pope as must be true if sedevacantism is true. So I am not satisfied with either position and consider it to be a mystery.
This is the reason why it is called The Great Apostasy. Falling away from one religion to follow another.
See below and think about my signature note from the Bible.
-
Maybe somebody on this thread can answer this question for me. I have asked many sedevacantist friends and acointancses over the years... if the Pope is not the Pope, why did Our Lady of Fatima command us to pray for the Pope, for he would have much too suffer. She didn't say anything about praying that a "True Pope" may be reinstated, or anything else for that matter. Not looking for an argument, this is a sincere question. Thanks.
-
I think the last True Pope did have much to suffer.
-
Maybe somebody on this thread can answer this question for me. I have asked many sedevacantist friends and acointancses over the years... if the Pope is not the Pope, why did Our Lady of Fatima command us to pray for the Pope, for he would have much too suffer. She didn't say anything about praying that a "True Pope" may be reinstated, or anything else for that matter. Not looking for an argument, this is a sincere question. Thanks.
In 1917, when our Lady appeared to the children, there was a pope!
-
Define "true" pope.
How much does it take to excommunicate ones self? For anyone who dares to call themselves clergy and says a rotten adulterated mass, is not catholic, is not a follower of Christ. No Precious Blood on the altar! What does it take to see the "Fruit" on the tree?
ALL who accept the adulterated mass, clergy who's ordination is of the dioceses, are excommunicated.
Pope Pius XII made that clear! to ALL!
-
The same can be said of sedevacantism. It boils down to you accepting the false teachings of certain 20th century theologians, who've promulgated the false doctrine of infallibility that far as I know, all sedevacantists - and nearly the entire world embrace, otherwise, there might not be a crisis.
That is simply not true. The problem is that even in her fallible capacity the Catholic Church cannot teach heresy. Errors can occur, of course, but they can be only relatively minor and they can never endanger one's soul. If the Catholic Church's teaching would lead souls to hell it would mean defection of the Church. So far you have refused no less than three or four times to answer my simple question: can the Catholic Church promulgate teachings which will lead souls to hell?
It simply is true. And no, the Catholic Church, which is Christ, cannot teach error. I thought I answered earlier, but maybe not.
Errors / heresies / false teachings / etc. of whatever gravity, occur from those within the Church whose commission is supposed to be to guide the faithful to heaven, but the Church itself cannot err because the Church is Christ, it is His Mystical Body, so if you say the Church can err at all, you are saying that Christ can err, which obviously is impossible.
"The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" is a teaching some SV posters on SD attribute to Fenton, Noort and other popular 20th century theologians, as being what the Church infallibly teaches.
It is an error that most definitely is *not* a teaching of the Church - but it is a teaching that nearly everyone believes *is* a teaching of the Church. How did this happen? How did the population accept an invention from 20th century theologians as a teaching of the Church?
How did this particular teaching, which is not what the Church infallibly taught at V1 and is contradictory to what was taught at V1 ever make it into the theology manuals and pre-V2 seminaries? How is it that those 20th century theologians can teach error like that, yet are considered "respected" theologians?
-
I still don't understand the question of sedevacantism well enough to take a position. I don't see how it is possible for a true Pope to be a heretic, which Francis obviously is. And I also don't see how it is possible for the entire Church and all the Bishops to recognize an antipope as Pope as must be true if sedevacantism is true. So I am not satisfied with either position and consider it to be a mystery.
Many of the validly consecrated do not recognize him as Pope. Other validly consecrated Bishops are plants or private SVs. The "bishops" you talk about are neither bishops or Catholic. "The whole Church" is a faithful remnant.
-
Aside from the priest in the confessional you mean? I certainly don't look to the pope as a sure guide - to be nice, he is an embarrassment to all things Catholic.
Before V2 no one would say that about a Pope.
Can you honestly tell me where you got your thoughts on BOD and SV? Anyone else know? Is he a Saint Benedict Center guy?
Before V2 no one would have had any reason to say that about a pope.
On the necessity of the sacraments for salvation I could not prove myself wrong. If a BOD is true, then Our Lord, Trent and all the catechisms are a lie. It is that simple. I understand why you believe what you believe, you don't, but I do. If that sounds rash of me, so be it, I do not know how else to put it bluntly.
The same can be said of sedevacantism. It boils down to you accepting the false teachings of certain 20th century theologians, who've promulgated the false doctrine of infallibility that far as I know, all sedevacantists - and nearly the entire world embrace, otherwise, there might not be a crisis.
Again Stubborn does not admit where he gets his ideas from. Is this because he does not want to grant a legitimate point I make? Are debates for him about appearance and saving face rather than reality?
-
It simply is true. And no, the Catholic Church, which is Christ, cannot teach error. I thought I answered earlier, but maybe not.
But Vatican II did teach serious error. Therefore Vatican II's validity and validity of people who promulgated it must be questioned, because the Catholic Church cannot teach such an error.
"The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" is a teaching some SV posters on SD attribute to Fenton, Noort and other popular 20th century theologians, as being what the Church infallibly teaches.
It is an error that most definitely is *not* a teaching of the Church - but it is a teaching that nearly everyone believes *is* a teaching of the Church. How did this happen? How did the population accept an invention from 20th century theologians as a teaching of the Church?
It is not an error, it is truth which flow directly from the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church. If the non-infallible teachings were not safe to follow (even though they contain minor errors) that would mean that the Church can defect and lead its children into hell through her non-infallible teachings.
Also, it would mean that each faithful has to sift non-infallible teachings of the Church on his own test them through his private judgment to decide whether they are harmful or not. This is a completely non-Catholic approach.
Finally, you contradict yourself, for first you say that the Catholic Church cannot teach error, now you claim that the non-infallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to the faithul. Please make up your mind.
How did this particular teaching, which is not what the Church infallibly taught at V1 and is contradictory to what was taught at V1 ever make it into the theology manuals and pre-V2 seminaries? How is it that those 20th century theologians can teach error like that, yet are considered "respected" theologians?
Again, like many times before, you confuse the doctrines of Papal infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. It has nothing to do with Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus - Papal infallibility is in fact limited, but indefectibility of the Church means that also non-infallible teachings can never be harmful to souls and can contain only minor errors.
-
Aside from the priest in the confessional you mean? I certainly don't look to the pope as a sure guide - to be nice, he is an embarrassment to all things Catholic.
Before V2 no one would say that about a Pope.
Can you honestly tell me where you got your thoughts on BOD and SV? Anyone else know? Is he a Saint Benedict Center guy?
Before V2 no one would have had any reason to say that about a pope.
On the necessity of the sacraments for salvation I could not prove myself wrong. If a BOD is true, then Our Lord, Trent and all the catechisms are a lie. It is that simple. I understand why you believe what you believe, you don't, but I do. If that sounds rash of me, so be it, I do not know how else to put it bluntly.
The same can be said of sedevacantism. It boils down to you accepting the false teachings of certain 20th century theologians, who've promulgated the false doctrine of infallibility that far as I know, all sedevacantists - and nearly the entire world embrace, otherwise, there might not be a crisis.
Again Stubborn does not admit where he gets his ideas from. Is this because he does not want to grant a legitimate point I make? Are debates for him about appearance and saving face rather than reality?
They are not my ideas, they are teachings of the Church. They are teachings the Church has always taught. You cannot accept this - that is your own problem.
-
It simply is true. And no, the Catholic Church, which is Christ, cannot teach error. I thought I answered earlier, but maybe not.
But Vatican II did teach serious error. Therefore Vatican II's validity and validity of people who promulgated it must be questioned, because the Catholic Church cannot teach such an error.
"The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" is a teaching some SV posters on SD attribute to Fenton, Noort and other popular 20th century theologians, as being what the Church infallibly teaches.
It is an error that most definitely is *not* a teaching of the Church - but it is a teaching that nearly everyone believes *is* a teaching of the Church. How did this happen? How did the population accept an invention from 20th century theologians as a teaching of the Church?
It is not an error, it is truth which flow directly from the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church. If the non-infallible teachings were not safe to follow (even though they contain minor errors) that would mean that the Church can defect and lead its children into hell through her non-infallible teachings.
Also, it would mean that each faithful has to sift non-infallible teachings of the Church on his own test them through his private judgment to decide whether they are harmful or not. This is a completely non-Catholic approach.
Finally, you contradict yourself, for first you say that the Catholic Church cannot teach error, now you claim that the non-infallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to the faithul. Please make up your mind.
How did this particular teaching, which is not what the Church infallibly taught at V1 and is contradictory to what was taught at V1 ever make it into the theology manuals and pre-V2 seminaries? How is it that those 20th century theologians can teach error like that, yet are considered "respected" theologians?
Again, like many times before, you confuse the doctrines of Papal infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. It has nothing to do with Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus - Papal infallibility is in fact limited, but indefectibility of the Church means that also non-infallible teachings can never be harmful to souls and can contain only minor errors.
Plus he does not understand what the theology manuals actually teach since it does not fit in with what the Saint Benedict Center who in effect acts as his Pope teaches.
He has an unnecessary bias against pre-V2 theology manuals as these manuals are very reliable and a great way of getting a fuller explanation of the Church's basic teachings. Any serious Catholic who can read them should read them. And ask questions of our traditional clergy when necessary as the too have a better understanding of what the Church teaches than those who post here do.
-
It simply is true. And no, the Catholic Church, which is Christ, cannot teach error. I thought I answered earlier, but maybe not.
But Vatican II did teach serious error. Therefore Vatican II's validity and validity of people who promulgated it must be questioned, because the Catholic Church cannot teach such an error.
Of course V2 taught error, is there a trad who denies this? I do not question the validity of V2, but if you want to, I guess no one will stop you.
"The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" is a teaching some SV posters on SD attribute to Fenton, Noort and other popular 20th century theologians, as being what the Church infallibly teaches.
It is an error that most definitely is *not* a teaching of the Church - but it is a teaching that nearly everyone believes *is* a teaching of the Church. How did this happen? How did the population accept an invention from 20th century theologians as a teaching of the Church?
It is not an error, it is truth which flow directly from the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church. If the non-infallible teachings were not safe to follow (even though they contain minor errors) that would mean that the Church can defect and lead its children into hell through her non-infallible teachings.
Also, it would mean that each faithful has to sift non-infallible teachings of the Church on his own test them through his private judgment to decide whether they are harmful or not. This is a completely non-Catholic approach.
Finally, you contradict yourself, for first you say that the Catholic Church cannot teach error, now you claim that the non-infallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to the faithul. Please make up your mind.
So you believe the false teaching of the 20th century theologians. Fine. You have a lot of company that believe the same lies you believe, but that being the case, your pope problem and V2 validity problem and Magisterium defecting problem remains. But you may add an additional problem of believing a teaching that contradicts V1's teaching.
How did this particular teaching, which is not what the Church infallibly taught at V1 and is contradictory to what was taught at V1 ever make it into the theology manuals and pre-V2 seminaries? How is it that those 20th century theologians can teach error like that, yet are considered "respected" theologians?
Again, like many times before, you confuse the doctrines of Papal infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. It has nothing to do with Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus - Papal infallibility is in fact limited, but indefectibility of the Church means that also non-infallible teachings can never be harmful to souls and can contain only minor errors.
I am not confusing a thing. You are the one confusing things. It is quite simple actually, there are certain parameters which per V1, must be met for teachings to be infallible. Teachings that fall outside of those parameters are entirely fallible. Isn't that simple?
The indefectibility of the Church means simply, that no matter what anyone does from within or from without, they will never succeed in destroying the Church. Even heretical popes who are hell bent on destroying the Church will never succeed. That, in a nutshell, is the doctrine of the Church's indefectibility.
Those poor souls who adhere to the false teaching that "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" cling to teachings that are obviously not teachings of the Church, what they are, are teachings of 20th century theologians.
-
It simply is true. And no, the Catholic Church, which is Christ, cannot teach error. I thought I answered earlier, but maybe not.
But Vatican II did teach serious error. Therefore Vatican II's validity and validity of people who promulgated it must be questioned, because the Catholic Church cannot teach such an error.
"The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" is a teaching some SV posters on SD attribute to Fenton, Noort and other popular 20th century theologians, as being what the Church infallibly teaches.
It is an error that most definitely is *not* a teaching of the Church - but it is a teaching that nearly everyone believes *is* a teaching of the Church. How did this happen? How did the population accept an invention from 20th century theologians as a teaching of the Church?
It is not an error, it is truth which flow directly from the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church. If the non-infallible teachings were not safe to follow (even though they contain minor errors) that would mean that the Church can defect and lead its children into hell through her non-infallible teachings.
Also, it would mean that each faithful has to sift non-infallible teachings of the Church on his own test them through his private judgment to decide whether they are harmful or not. This is a completely non-Catholic approach.
Finally, you contradict yourself, for first you say that the Catholic Church cannot teach error, now you claim that the non-infallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to the faithul. Please make up your mind.
How did this particular teaching, which is not what the Church infallibly taught at V1 and is contradictory to what was taught at V1 ever make it into the theology manuals and pre-V2 seminaries? How is it that those 20th century theologians can teach error like that, yet are considered "respected" theologians?
Again, like many times before, you confuse the doctrines of Papal infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. It has nothing to do with Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus - Papal infallibility is in fact limited, but indefectibility of the Church means that also non-infallible teachings can never be harmful to souls and can contain only minor errors.
Plus he does not understand what the theology manuals actually teach since it does not fit in with what the Saint Benedict Center who in effect acts as his Pope teaches.
He has an unnecessary bias against pre-V2 theology manuals as these manuals are very reliable and a great way of getting a fuller explanation of the Church's basic teachings. Any serious Catholic who can read them should read them. And ask questions of our traditional clergy when necessary as the too have a better understanding of what the Church teaches than those who post here do.
Read V1 sometime, then come back and make that teaching agree with the 20th century theologians: "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful"
-
Have you ever admitted to being wrong about anything on this site or anywhere else?
-
Of course V2 taught error, is there a trad who denies this? I do not question the validity of V2, but if you want to, I guess no one will stop you.
Simple syllogism:
1. The Catholic Church cannot teach error
2. But Vatican II, claiming to be Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church, taught error
3. Vatican II cannot be a valid Council of the Catholic Church
So you believe the false teaching of the 20th century theologians. Fine. You have a lot of company that believe the same lies you believe, but that being the case, your pope problem and V2 validity problem and Magisterium defecting problem remains. But you may add an additional problem of believing a teaching that contradicts V1's teaching.
You are yet to demonstrate why this teaching is wrong and how does it contradict V1, and how do you reconcile your belief that non-infallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to the faithful with the fact that the Catholic Church cannot teach error (clear contradiction).
So, Fenton, van Noort et al. were ignorant of V1 and could not see what Stubborn sees as a clear contradiction? It seems more likely that you are just plainly wrong.
I am not confusing a thing. You are the one confusing things. It is quite simple actually, there are certain parameters which per V1, must be met for teachings to be infallible. Teachings that fall outside of those parameters are entirely fallible. Isn't that simple?
That is exactly correct and exactly irrelevant to this discussion, because we are not discussing Papal infallibility, but non-infallible teachings of the Church (we agree that V2 was not infallible).
The indefectibility of the Church means simply, that no matter what anyone does from within or from without, they will never succeed in destroying the Church. Even heretical popes who are hell bent on destroying the Church will never succeed. That, in a nutshell, is the doctrine of the Church's indefectibility.
Once again you re-define indefectibility of the Church, turning it into indestructibility of the Church, much like modernists re-define EENS. Indefectibility of the Church does not mean merely that the Church cannot be destroyed (that would be indestructibility, not indefectibility), but that it cannot teach error to the faithful (even in her fallible capacity) and it cannot fail in her universal discipline (thus, if the Novus Ordo Mass is evil and displeasing to God, it could not have been promulgated by the Catholic Church).
Those poor souls who adhere to the false teaching that "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" cling to teachings that are obviously not teachings of the Church, what they are, are teachings of 20th century theologians.
OK, so according to you fallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to the faithful. This means that the Church can in fact teach error (so you contradict yourself, since you claimed she cannot) and can lead souls to hell through its teaching. This is completely wrong and is a denial of Church's indefectibility.
As I wrote before, if the fallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to souls, than an individual Catholic is a final authority to sift the Magisterium and decide on his own which teachings are harmfu land which are not, which is completely non-Catholic notion.
If you are right, than a Novus Ordite can decide that St. Pius X Pascendi, Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos or Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos (to mention just few docuмents which condemn modernist ideas) are simply wrong and are examples of fallible teachings (none of thee encyclicals defined any dogma) harmful to the faithful, and are in fact trumped by Vatican II as an Ecuмenical Council. From your standpoint you can hardly object that.
-
Have you ever admitted to being wrong about anything on this site or anywhere else?
Yes. When I am wrong, I admit it right away, which has happened too often for my liking.
-
Very good. Me as well. Very often, which is a good sign that I'm still learning.
-
"Must I Believe It?"
http://strobertbellarmine.net/believe.html
By da Silveira
Please have Saint Benedict Center read this and come back with the appropriate corrections.
-
Of course V2 taught error, is there a trad who denies this? I do not question the validity of V2, but if you want to, I guess no one will stop you.
Simple syllogism:
1. The Catholic Church cannot teach error
2. But Vatican II, claiming to be Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church, taught error
3. Vatican II cannot be a valid Council of the Catholic Church.
Man, this is old already.
1) The Church, which is Christ, cannot teach error - I think you disagree but can't be sure.
2) The Council taught error - I think you disagree, well, if that is so, you are wrong. The Council is not Christ, the council's teachings were fallible - here, I'm not sure but I think you will suffer heartburn because this is inconceivable to you, the only cure I am aware of, is for you to study V1.
3) Vatican 2 was not a valid council of the Church. You arrive at your conclusion based on 20th century theologians' teachings that you believe to be Church teaching. Hence, your problem remains.
Your problem being, that The Council (whom (I think) you call "the Church") taught error, on that account, I think you conclude that The Council was invalid or was not a Council of The Church.
As I said, I will never convince you otherwise, you will need to convince yourself I guess - until you do, your problem remains. Again, I recommend you read and study the decrees of V1 until you finally understand the requirements for infallibility - if you do this, you will find that everything outside those requirements, including the Second Vatican Council, is entirely fallible.
If you cannot reach this conclusion, then it is my guess that you have placed too high a value on the 20th century theologians' teachings and simply refuse to let go.
-
It's quite simple, everyone.
If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected. This is very simple and no error, Stubborn. You call it an error because you don't like it, because it undermines R&R.
While this has not been dogmatically defined, it proceeds very clearly and very directly from the dogma that the Church cannot defect. Consequently, your position, Stubborn, is proximate to heresy and a grave sin to hold. It is not Catholic.
-
Assent Due to Certain Papal Utterances - Dublin Review, 1878
http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1401&sid=829eafa4c3a825bd57d6aeaec534c45b
-
It's quite simple, everyone.
If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected. This is very simple and no error, Stubborn. You call it an error because you don't like it, because it undermines R&R.
While this has not been dogmatically defined, it proceeds very clearly and very directly from the dogma that the Church cannot defect. Consequently, your position, Stubborn, is proximate to heresy and a grave sin to hold. It is not Catholic.
Perfectly explained and a good summary of the discussion :applause:.
Your problem being, that The Council (whom (I think) you call "the Church") taught error, on that account, I think you conclude that The Council was invalid or was not a Council of The Church.
Teachings of the Ecuмenical Council are part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So, if the Ecuмenical Council teaches error, it means that the Church teaches error. I can't believe I have to explain something that basic.
Again, I recommend you read and study the decrees of V1 until you finally understand the requirements for infallibility - if you do this, you will find that everything outside those requirements, including the Second Vatican Council, is entirely fallible.
:facepalm:
I emphasized numerous times, I agree that Vatican II was not infallible - thus Vatican I and its conditions for infallibility are irrelevant to this discussion. But even fallible teachings of the Catholic Church cannot contain error so grave to lead souls astray - they are always safe to submit to, the errors can be only minor.
-
It's quite simple, everyone.
If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected. This is very simple and no error, Stubborn. You call it an error because you don't like it, because it undermines R&R.
While this has not been dogmatically defined, it proceeds very clearly and very directly from the dogma that the Church cannot defect. Consequently, your position, Stubborn, is proximate to heresy and a grave sin to hold. It is not Catholic.
Do you come up with this formula from 20th century theologians?
Lad, you are bent on your sededoubtism as if you found a solution of some sort, which in and of itself demonstrates a false understanding of the doctrine of papal / OUM infallibility - and even you have admitted your sededoubtism to being a novel idea.
But as +ABL (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Interview_With_Archbishop_Lefebvre.htm) - who should know, said:
Because the seminaries of today are not teaching anything about the making of a priest; they teach liberal psychology, sociology, humanism, modernism and many other sciences and semi sciences that are either contrary to Catholic doctrine or have nothing whatever to do with church teachings or with what a priest should know. As for Catholic teachings, they are hardly being taught in today's seminaries.
These ideas have penetrated into the seminaries and throughout the church. And today the church wakes up finding itself in a liberal straitjacket.
Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.
He was only infallible in very specific matters of faith and morals. At that time, many enemies of the church did all they could to ridicule this dogma and propagate misconceptions. For example, the enemies of the church often said to the unknowing and naive that if the pope said a dog was a cat, it was the duty of Catholics blindly to accept this position without any question.
Of course this was an absurd interpretation and the Catholics knew that. This time the same enemies of the church, now that it serves their purpose, are working very hard to have whatever the pope says accepted, without question, as infallible, almost as if his words were uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ himself.
This impression, although widely promoted, is nevertheless utterly false.
Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed. It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible. The fact is that the pope is a liberal, that all this liberal trend has taken place at the Council of Vatican II, and created a direction for the destruction of the church - a destruction which one expects to happen any day.
After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church, there are attempts to suppress my seminaries. And it is for this reason that I am asked to stop ordaining priests.
-
Teachings of the Ecuмenical Council are part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So, if the Ecuмenical Council teaches error, it means that the Church teaches error. I can't believe I have to explain something that basic.
The only thing you need to explain is why you think it was not possible for the Council to teach error. And no using false teachings from 20th century theologians' to do it.
-
Stubborn simply does not understand that the claim is not that Vatican II was infallible, thus his arguments about limitations of infallibiltiy are irrelevant. We agree that Vatican II as not infallible.
But even fallible teachings of the Church cannot contain heresy and lead to massive apostasy in the Church, like Vatican II did. This would mean defection of the Church and is impossible. Similarly, the Church cannot fail in her universal discipline therefore if Novus Ordo Missae is displeasing to God and cannot be attended under any circuмstances, it could not have been promulgated by the Church.
Teachings of the Ecuмenical Council are part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So, if the Ecuмenical Council teaches error, it means that the Church teaches error. I can't believe I have to explain something that basic.
The only thing you need to explain is why you think it was not possible for the Council to tech error. And no using false teachings from 20th century theologians' to do it.
Because the Catholic Church cannot teach error (you claimed to believe that) and is indefectible. An Ecuмenical Council teachng error and leading souls to hell through adherence to its teachings means defection of the Church.
-
And no using false teachings from 20th century theologians' to do it.
You simply declare these to be false without any argument for why they're false. So everything taught by any 20th-century theologian is false?
NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that it's possible for the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline to go so badly off the rails as to justify and even require schism from the Catholic hierarchy. Infallible safety derives from the indefectibility of the Church. So, if you disagree with this position, rather than simply dismissing the opinion as false and denouncing "20th-century" theologians, demonstrate how the Church would not have defected in her mission if she could lead souls to hell through her Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
-
Stubborn simply does not understand that the claim is not that Vatican II was infallible, thus his arguments about limitations of infallibiltiy are irrelevant. We agree that Vatican II as not infallible.
But even fallible teachings of the Church cannot contain heresy and lead to massive apostasy in the Church, like Vatican II did. This would mean defection of the Church and is impossible. Similarly, the Church cannot fail in her universal discipline therefore if Novus Ordo Missae is displeasing to God and cannot be attended under any circuмstances, it could not have been promulgated by the Church.
It was not promulgated by the Church - always remember that the Church is Christ.
Teachings of the Ecuмenical Council are part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So, if the Ecuмenical Council teaches error, it means that the Church teaches error. I can't believe I have to explain something that basic.
The only thing you need to explain is why you think it was not possible for the Council to tech error. And no using false teachings from 20th century theologians' to do it.
Because the Catholic Church cannot teach error (you claimed to believe that) and is indefectible. An Ecuмenical Council teachng error and leading souls to hell through adherence to its teachings means defection of the Church.
An Ecuмenical Council did teach error. You and Lad and LoT and etc. are the ones who cannot accept this even though it happened and as historical fact, is indisputable. You are disputing the indisputable. I believe this is because you are stuck in accepting the false teachings of the 20th century theologians who teach that EC's are ipso facto infallible - when V2 proved that idea to not only be completely wrong, it also proved that the vast majority of otherwise faithful Catholics believed it so strongly, that they gave up the true faith for the new faith.
-
Just wanted to say here that I cannot longer defend a dogmatic "sedeplenist" position in good conscience and that I have concluded that the SSPX position is the most schismatic one of ALL. The separatist R&R position is a failure. I think Archbishop Lefebvre (without intending so) may have done more bad to good in the resistance to Vatican II and Modernism by creating a type of false traditional Catholic movement which promotes separatism from the hierarchy it still recognizes as such.
After months of studying and praying about it I have grown very fond of the sedeprivationist position (Cassiciacuм Thesis) I really think there is a lot of value in the Fr. Des Lauries Thesis. This is just a personal opinion of course.
-
It's quite simple, everyone.
If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected. ...
But that's where we are at today. I don't care what you do. You can hide yourself in a corner of the local novus ordo parish and wear earplugs while you pray the Rosary and read your St. Andrew's Missal, but the atmosphere itself will poison you. I know of that which I speak. Trust me.
As for the fssp and other indult places, just as bad. Talk about mass confusion. The pews are filled with more varieties of Catholics than a Chinese take-out menu.
-
It's quite simple, everyone.
If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected. ...
But that's where we are at today. I don't care what you do. You can hide yourself in a corner of the local novus ordo parish and wear earplugs while you pray the Rosary and read your St. Andrew's Missal, but the atmosphere itself will poison you. I know of that which I speak. Trust me.
As for the fssp and other indult places, just as bad. Talk about mass confusion. The pews are filled with more varieties of Catholics than a Chinese take-out menu.
Keep in mind that objectively there is not a "variety" of Catholics from the perspective doctrine, from the perspective of faith, and in the Latin Rite from the perspective of worship and discipline.
We come up with the idea of a "variety" of Catholics because the Church has been usurped by apostate heretics and their followers. Once we get this we might be able to do something about it. The same thing is happening in the world. Nations no longer have sovereignty. The world and the Church is headed by the same zionist elite who want to control our money and our souls.
-
Stubborn:
It was not promulgated by the Church - always remember that the Church is Christ.
Circular reasoning. If you can get out of reality by say whatever is promulgated by the false Pope is not promulgated if the Benedict Center does not agree with it you do not have a Church.
The thinking is actually ridiculous. It makes a mockery of the papacy making it an op-ed where those under decide what is "promulgated" and what is not.
-
Indefectibility of the Church
http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=994&sid=829eafa4c3a825bd57d6aeaec534c45b
I strongly urge those who really want a true understanding of the Church to read the links I have been providing in this thread.
-
And no using false teachings from 20th century theologians' to do it.
You simply declare these to be false without any argument for why they're false. So everything taught by any 20th-century theologian is false?
I thought I made my argument clear but apparently not. So, allow me to clarify - Per the posters on SD, the 20th century theologians teach as a teaching of the Church, that; "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".
I argue that this is a novel teaching, not a teaching of the Church. I say that when the revolution was only initially being perpetrated in the late 60s, when the Catholic world was still largely Catholic and the vast majority of hold outs still rejected the NO and still clung tightly to their faith and their Mass, this teaching is the crow bar that finally was able to pry the stubborn holdouts from their faith and accept the new faith. It was always, literally, "if the pope said it, then we have to do it because it must be ok". The reason they all thought like that was because of the 20th century theologians who promulgated their false teaching regarding the infallibility of the pope as a teaching of the Church.
NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that it's possible for the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline to go so badly off the rails as to justify and even require schism from the Catholic hierarchy. Infallible safety derives from the indefectibility of the Church. So, if you disagree with this position, rather than simply dismissing the opinion as false and denouncing "20th-century" theologians, demonstrate how the Church would not have defected in her mission if she could lead souls to hell through her Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
So what if NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that, Vatican 1 decrees the conditions for infallibility of the OUM and the pope - those conditions were never present at V2, which means those who went along with the revolution did so under false pretenses that the imposition of the NO, having the pope's and council's blessing, was a product of infallibility. IOW, the people were fooled, something else most will likely deny can happen even though it did - and still does.
They all went along because they were taught that no matter what the pope says or does, it is automatically infallible. That the pope's power is limitless. That "if the pope said it's ok, we gotta do it". Where did this originate? Where did they all learn this from? I don't mean only lay people, I mean pretty much everyone - priests, bishops, seminarians, nuns, nearly everyone. Where did the millions get this teaching from that made them all believe the pope is infallible no matter what he does? From discussions on another forum, the answer keeps pointing back to originating with some of the "respected" 20th century theologians who invented the whole idea and passed it off as a teaching of the Church.
Per V1, the conditions for papal and OUM infallibility that Pope Pius IX spelled out for all those teachings Catholics must submit to under pain of mortal sin are these:
The teachings must be contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Note these conditions above are the same for papal infallibility ("Ex Cathedra") as well as the infallibility of the teachings of the OUM. Does not the teachings from an Ecuмenical Council qualify as teachings of the OUM?
So there it is. All anyone can do, is try and accuse V1 of failing in it's duty by not covering everything, or that there are exceptions or additional conditions not mentioned, or it is incomplete, or whatever other excuses one wants to make to reduce the decrees to mere starting points so "we'll take it from here", but the doctrine of papal and OUM infallibility is right there, solemnly decreed. Who ever thinks they know more can try all they like, but no one can honestly make her teachings agree with the false teachings of the 20th century theologians' that "The fallible teachings of popes are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".
-
And no using false teachings from 20th century theologians' to do it.
You simply declare these to be false without any argument for why they're false. So everything taught by any 20th-century theologian is false?
I thought I made my argument clear but apparently not. So, allow me to clarify - Per the posters on SD, the 20th century theologians teach as a teaching of the Church, that; "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".
I argue that this is a novel teaching, not a teaching of the Church. I say that when the revolution was only initially being perpetrated in the late 60s, when the Catholic world was still largely Catholic and the vast majority of hold outs still rejected the NO and still clung tightly to their faith and their Mass, this teaching is the crow bar that finally was able to pry the stubborn holdouts from their faith and accept the new faith. It was always, literally, "if the pope said it, then we have to do it because it must be ok". The reason they all thought like that was because of the 20th century theologians who promulgated their false teaching regarding the infallibility of the pope as a teaching of the Church.
NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that it's possible for the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline to go so badly off the rails as to justify and even require schism from the Catholic hierarchy. Infallible safety derives from the indefectibility of the Church. So, if you disagree with this position, rather than simply dismissing the opinion as false and denouncing "20th-century" theologians, demonstrate how the Church would not have defected in her mission if she could lead souls to hell through her Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
So what if NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that, Vatican 1 decrees the conditions for infallibility of the OUM and the pope - those conditions were never present at V2, which means those who went along with the revolution did so under false pretenses that the imposition of the NO, having the pope's and council's blessing, was a product of infallibility. IOW, the people were fooled, something else most will likely deny can happen even though it did - and still does.
They all went along because they were taught that no matter what the pope says or does, it is automatically infallible. That the pope's power is limitless. That "if the pope said it's ok, we gotta do it". Where did this originate? Where did they all learn this from? I don't mean only lay people, I mean pretty much everyone - priests, bishops, seminarians, nuns, nearly everyone. Where did the millions get this teaching from that made them all believe the pope is infallible no matter what he does? From discussions on another forum, the answer keeps pointing back to originating with some of the "respected" 20th century theologians who invented the whole idea and passed it off as a teaching of the Church.
Per V1, the conditions for papal and OUM infallibility that Pope Pius IX spelled out for all those teachings Catholics must submit to under pain of mortal sin are these:
The teachings must be contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Note these conditions above are the same for papal infallibility ("Ex Cathedra") as well as the infallibility of the teachings of the OUM. Does not the teachings from an Ecuмenical Council qualify as teachings of the OUM?
So there it is. All anyone can do, is try and accuse V1 of failing in it's duty by not covering everything, or that there are exceptions or additional conditions not mentioned, or it is incomplete, or whatever other excuses one wants to make to reduce the decrees to mere starting points so "we'll take it from here", but the doctrine of papal and OUM infallibility is right there, solemnly decreed. Who ever thinks they know more can try all they like, but no one can honestly make her teachings agree with the false teachings of the 20th century theologians' that "The fallible teachings of popes are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".
What does your Pope (Saint Benedict Center) say about the doubtful and invalid Sacraments? Valid Popes can do this right? No more valid Bishops or Priests but it's cool. A Pope can do that.
-
Chapter 1
On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.
2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].
4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.
If what you hold about the Papacy is true then you make a mockery of Christ and the Church.
-
I don't know the solution. I do know I can't continue lying to myself about these destroyers of the faith.
Either a true Pope will be chosen who will anathematize Vatican II and all its
antipopes, or a true Pope will be elected by dissident bishops .. if that happens,
most of the world will consider the true Pope to be the antipope.
I think sedevacantists are still hoping for a change to come from within
which is why they have been so patient about it.
These issues are coming to a head.
I've been reading Philip Hughes's 3-volume History of the Catholic Church.
He started a 4th but passed away in 1967.
If the Church got through everything it's been through, it can get through this
also. Only God knows if the end times are quickly approaching, or if we are
only moving through a stage in Church history.
As my grandmother used to say, "something's gotta break".
-
Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48]. (Membership within the Church depends on this yet you reject the doctrines, worship and disciplines of the one you must accept in order to be a member within the Church. LoT)
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
-
I thought I made my argument clear but apparently not. So, allow me to clarify - Per the posters on SD, the 20th century theologians teach as a teaching of the Church, that; "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".
I argue that this is a novel teaching, not a teaching of the Church.
You don't "argue" anything. You just make the claim. Your position is proximate to heresy because it rejects a principle that derives very clearly from the dogma of the Church's indefectibility.
So what if NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that, Vatican 1 decrees the conditions for infallibility of the OUM and the pope - those conditions were never present at V2, ...
Again, you understand nothing about the Church's broader indefectibility. This has little to do with infallibility in the strict sense.
-
I don't know the solution. I do know I can't continue lying to myself about these destroyers of the faith.
Either a true Pope will be chosen who will anathematize Vatican II and all its
antipopes, or a true Pope will be elected by dissident bishops .. if that happens,
most of the world will consider the true Pope to be the antipope.
I think sedevacantists are still hoping for a change to come from within
which is why they have been so patient about it.
These issues are coming to a head.
I've been reading Philip Hughes's 3-volume History of the Catholic Church.
He started a 4th but passed away in 1967.
If the Church got through everything it's been through, it can get through this
also. Only God knows if the end times are quickly approaching, or if we are
only moving through a stage in Church history.
As my grandmother used to say, "something's gotta break".
I don't hope for a change from within. My SV friends do not see this happening. We laugh at the idea. Sandborn favorite theory depends on this happening in a certain sense though.
"Within" what? It is not the Catholic Church but the Church of Satan that everyone is so obsessed with. It is the ape of the Catholic Church with its new false everything. That is the big mistake of many traditionalists, pretending that the NO is somehow the Catholic Church. It is Satan's favorite Church because the most souls, by far, are led to Hell through it.
-
It's quite simple, everyone.
If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected. This is very simple and no error, Stubborn. You call it an error because you don't like it, because it undermines R&R.
While this has not been dogmatically defined, it proceeds very clearly and very directly from the dogma that the Church cannot defect. Consequently, your position, Stubborn, is proximate to heresy and a grave sin to hold. It is not Catholic.
Of all the arguments and opinions I've heard... yours seems to be the most logical.
There doesn't seem to be any logical solution for the vast array of opinions out there on this subject. :cheers:
-
Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecuмenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecuмenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. (Do you do this Stubborn? - J.G.)
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50]. (You are not in the flock if you do not do this Stubborn)
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. (You have departed from it Stubborn)
5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." [51] (You must submit to the bishops under the "Pope" Stubborn, what does SBC say about that?)
6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power (or retired lawyers for Virginia, the SSPX, the SBC or the Dimonds God forbid), which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon (Do you get that Stubborn?) [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
This is the council you keep appealing to right Stubborn?
Stubborn be honest is this how you regard Francis? Is this how you "submit" to him. Be honest.
-
I don't hope for a change from within. My SV friends do not see this happening. We laugh at the idea. Sandborn favorite theory depends on this happening in a certain sense though.
Nevertheless, the only two options, from within (at least partially), or
from without totally.. which hasn't happened yet. As long as SV's don't
have a Pope, they are being patient... for what ?
Do you have a link to Sandborn's favorite theory specifically as
it pertains to the machinations of a full restoration in the Church ?
-
Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecuмenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56]. (You separate yourself from this faith and doctrine if you do not submit to all a valid Pope binds on the Church)
What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57] (What has Francis settled for you Stubborn?)
Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
"The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church." [58] (So long as Ferrara, Salza, Venarri, Matt, SSPX, SBC give it the okay)
3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received. (Has Francis kept it pure and uncontaminated? Has anyone since Pius XII?)
4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59]. (If you have a question about the Faith do you refer your concern to Francis? Does the SBC do this for you?)
5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circuмstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecuмenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. (Does Francis do this?)
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, (is this true if Francis is a valid Pope? :roll-laugh1:) in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. (Has Francis done this for us?) Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell. (You are in schism with your Pope Stubborn)
8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority (STUBBORN!!!), we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Don't pretend the definition of an Ex Cathedra pronouncement negates all he taught about ruling and governing the Church in discipline apart from Ex Cathedra statements. Only an intellectually dishonest person would do that.
Show me a teaching form anyone anywhere that claims we are only bound to accept ex cathedra statements and nothing else.
Be honest now and show you good will by admitting that you can find no such teaching.
-
I don't hope for a change from within. My SV friends do not see this happening. We laugh at the idea. Sandborn favorite theory depends on this happening in a certain sense though.
Nevertheless, the only two options, from within (at least partially), or
from without totally.. which hasn't happened yet. As long as SV's don't
have a Pope, they are being patient... for what ?
Do you have a link to Sandborn's favorite theory specifically as
it pertains to the machinations of a full restoration in the Church ?
I believe he's talking about Sedeprivationism.
-
I thought I made my argument clear but apparently not. So, allow me to clarify - Per the posters on SD, the 20th century theologians teach as a teaching of the Church, that; "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".
I argue that this is a novel teaching, not a teaching of the Church.
You don't "argue" anything. You just make the claim. Your position is proximate to heresy because it rejects a principle that derives very clearly from the dogma of the Church's indefectibility.
Claim or argue, thanks for pointing that out. FYI, you have not corrected me or refuted anything I wrote with anything other than your opinion. All you have done so far is make your own unsubstantiated claims while ignoring quotes I provided from V1 and +ABL - and even from the 20th century theologian.
So what if NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that, Vatican 1 decrees the conditions for infallibility of the OUM and the pope - those conditions were never present at V2, ...
Again, you understand nothing about the Church's broader indefectibility. This has little to do with infallibility in the strict sense.
Just another unsubstantiated claim, but here you are wrong. I understand a lot about the indefectibility of the Church, albeit I did not learn about it from 20th century theologians, I only learned about it from priests who remained trad without ever saying a NOM.
Look, if I am wrong, then prove it with actual teachings of the Church, I don't look forward to admitting I'm wrong - but will if I am, but your word just won't cut it here. As it is now, you may as well accuse yourself of the very things you are falsely accusing me of. At least I am backing up what I post with actual council teachings - which everyone seems to ignore.
-
It's quite simple, everyone.
If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected. This is very simple and no error, Stubborn. You call it an error because you don't like it, because it undermines R&R.
While this has not been dogmatically defined, it proceeds very clearly and very directly from the dogma that the Church cannot defect. Consequently, your position, Stubborn, is proximate to heresy and a grave sin to hold. It is not Catholic.
Of all the arguments and opinions I've heard... yours seems to be the most logical.
There doesn't seem to be any logical solution for the vast array of opinions out there on this subject. :cheers:
Now there's an endorsement that should cause you to think.
-
I don't hope for a change from within. My SV friends do not see this happening. We laugh at the idea. Sandborn favorite theory depends on this happening in a certain sense though.
Nevertheless, the only two options, from within (at least partially), or
from without totally.. which hasn't happened yet. As long as SV's don't
have a Pope, they are being patient... for what ?
Do you have a link to Sandborn's favorite theory specifically as
it pertains to the machinations of a full restoration in the Church ?
I believe he's talking about Sedeprivationism.
We're well past sedeprivationism making any sense.
In the 70s-80s-90s perhaps one could maintain
sedeprivationism, but I'm seeing that more of just an
initial reaction to the crisis which is no longer tenable
in these circuмstances, if it ever was.
-
I don't hope for a change from within. My SV friends do not see this happening. We laugh at the idea. Sandborn favorite theory depends on this happening in a certain sense though.
Nevertheless, the only two options, from within (at least partially), or
from without totally.. which hasn't happened yet. As long as SV's don't
have a Pope, they are being patient... for what ?
Do you have a link to Sandborn's favorite theory specifically as
it pertains to the machinations of a full restoration in the Church ?
You ask an excellent question. People like Griff and me believe we are being too "patient". Obviously we can't just go elect a Pope on our own. But the valid Catholic clergy can do something about this. Others too, believe the R & R's are being too patient in regards to their criteria for a valid Pope. When we all reject him he will lose his power. A lot of us I admit are waiting for a miracle. I can see why a miracle seems to be the only solution at this point. But before we can get to any solutions we must accept the problem. We have no Pope. We have not come close to getting to that point yet.
Sandborn believes if Bergolio rejected his heresy he would become Pope. At that point he would also need to be come a Priest first and then a Bishop. If I get time I will try to find a link but don't hold your breath. He conveyed this thought to me back when either JP2 or Ratzinger claimed office. Of course JP2 was a Bishop and Ratzinger was a Priest. Bergolio is neither.
-
I don't hope for a change from within. My SV friends do not see this happening. We laugh at the idea. Sandborn favorite theory depends on this happening in a certain sense though.
Nevertheless, the only two options, from within (at least partially), or
from without totally.. which hasn't happened yet. As long as SV's don't
have a Pope, they are being patient... for what ?
Do you have a link to Sandborn's favorite theory specifically as
it pertains to the machinations of a full restoration in the Church ?
I believe he's talking about Sedeprivationism.
We're well past sedeprivationism making any sense.
In the 70s-80s-90s perhaps one could maintain
sedeprivationism, but I'm seeing that more of just an
initial reaction to the crisis which is no longer tenable
in these circuмstances, if it ever was.
Well-stated. :applause:
-
Many of the validly consecrated do not recognize him as Pope. Other validly consecrated Bishops are plants or private SVs. The "bishops" you talk about are neither bishops or Catholic. "The whole Church" is a faithful remnant.
I am not only talking about today, I am also talking about when John XXIII and Paul VI were around. All of the Bishops of the time recognixed Paul VI and they were all true Bishops consecrated in the Old Rite and some were heretics but many were Catholic. All of them, every single one recognized Paul VI as pope. And the whole Church recognized him as Pope. This should be impossible if sedevacantism is true, but it happened in real life. It is a mystery to me.
-
Many of the validly consecrated do not recognize him as Pope. Other validly consecrated Bishops are plants or private SVs. The "bishops" you talk about are neither bishops or Catholic. "The whole Church" is a faithful remnant.
I am not only talking about today, I am also talking about when John XXIII and Paul VI were around. All of the Bishops of the time recognixed Paul VI and they were all true Bishops consecrated in the Old Rite and some were heretics but many were Catholic. All of them, every single one recognized Paul VI as pope. And the whole Church recognized him as Pope. This should be impossible if sedevacantism is true, but it happened in real life. It is a mystery to me.
I see. Good point. The way things happened it was unavoidable. The conclave was secret. John 23 came out. He is Pope. I would have thought so as well. Same with Paul 6. I would have thought he was Pope even if I was my age and as learned as I am now back then.
They have to be accepted until they show they are not legitimate, until they show the Holy Ghost is not protecting them because they are not valid.
Believe me when the changes took effect people were questioning it. Those changes were not universally accepted.
-
Many of the validly consecrated do not recognize him as Pope. Other validly consecrated Bishops are plants or private SVs. The "bishops" you talk about are neither bishops or Catholic. "The whole Church" is a faithful remnant.
I am not only talking about today, I am also talking about when John XXIII and Paul VI were around. All of the Bishops of the time recognixed Paul VI and they were all true Bishops consecrated in the Old Rite and some were heretics but many were Catholic. All of them, every single one recognized Paul VI as pope. And the whole Church recognized him as Pope. This should be impossible if sedevacantism is true, but it happened in real life. It is a mystery to me.
It may not be necessary to anathematize Paul VI specifically, or John XXIII,
or JP I, JPII. Francis needs to be anathematized, and likely Benedict XVI
also, due specifically to his "resignation".
The whole of Vatican II must be anathematized and all its repurcussions
stricken as null. It should not even be referred to as "Vatican II" anymore.
just thinking off the cuff here.
-
Many of the validly consecrated do not recognize him as Pope. Other validly consecrated Bishops are plants or private SVs. The "bishops" you talk about are neither bishops or Catholic. "The whole Church" is a faithful remnant.
I am not only talking about today, I am also talking about when John XXIII and Paul VI were around. All of the Bishops of the time recognixed Paul VI and they were all true Bishops consecrated in the Old Rite and some were heretics but many were Catholic. All of them, every single one recognized Paul VI as pope. And the whole Church recognized him as Pope. This should be impossible if sedevacantism is true, but it happened in real life. It is a mystery to me.
It may not be necessary to anathematize Paul VI specifically, or John XXIII,
or JP I, JPII. Francis needs to be anathematized, and likely Benedict XVI
also, due specifically to his "resignation".
The whole of Vatican II must be anathematized and all its repurcussions
stricken as null. It should not even be referred to as "Vatican II" anymore.
just thinking off the cuff here.
Who promulgated and who approved V2, "Sacraments" "Mass"? But to stay on track with this thread perhaps we aught to only consider Mr. Jorge.
-
An Ecuмenical Council did teach error. You and Lad and LoT and etc. are the ones who cannot accept this even though it happened and as historical fact, is indisputable. You are disputing the indisputable.
I dispute whether Vatican II was a valid Ecuмenical Council. It is impossible for the heresies like the ones taught in Vatican II to be taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
I believe this is because you are stuck in accepting the false teachings of the 20th century theologians who teach that EC's are ipso facto infallible - when V2 proved that idea to not only be completely wrong, it also proved that the vast majority of otherwise faithful Catholics believed it so strongly, that they gave up the true faith for the new faith.
The conversation with you is like with LoT on EENS, you simply refuse to read what I write. I have stated numerous times that I don't claim that Vatican II was infallible, but you insist I do. Once again: VATICAN II WAS NOT INFALLIBLE. I acknowledge that, yet you insist that I broaden papal infallibility beyond what Vatican I taught. Having established that, can we proceed?
Even though Vatican II was fallible, even fallible teachings of the Catholic Church cannot contain heresy and endanger souls, because that would mean defection of the Church. They can contain only minor errors. Vatican II being a valid Ecuмenical Council is in conflict with the dogma of indefectibility of the Church.
-
The conversation with you is like with LoT on EENS, you simply refuse to read what I write.
Since you needed to state that opinion on this thread I'll respond that the feeling is mutual.
Now back to the point at hand.
Carry on. :cheers:
-
It may not be necessary to anathematize Paul VI specifically, or John XXIII,
or JP I, JPII. Francis needs to be anathematized, and likely Benedict XVI
also, due specifically to his "resignation".
I expect the Church in the future after the crisis, if this is not near the end of the world, to condemn all of the Popes since John XXIII except for maybe John Paul I because he did not live long enough to do much except for choosing his awful name.
-
It may not be necessary to anathematize Paul VI specifically, or John XXIII,
or JP I, JPII. Francis needs to be anathematized, and likely Benedict XVI
also, due specifically to his "resignation".
I expect the Church in the future after the crisis, if this is not near the end of the world, to condemn all of the Popes since John XXIII except for maybe John Paul I because he did not live long enough to do much except for choosing his awful name.
That name says all that needs to be said doesn't it. I approve of the direction they took us. The fαɢs ruined the rainbow and the apostates ruined two good names. Well the names by themselves are still good Deo gratias!
-
I don't know if any of you read Ann Barnhardt's recent essay (http://www.barnhardt.biz/),
where she officially renounces Francis as Pope, then claims
according to Canon Law 188 (1983 version), Benedict is still
the true Pope, and she's not a SV.
I wonder if she's come to terms with the fact that, by this
reasoning, when Ratzinger dies, she would indeed be a
full SV.
-
I don't know if any of you read Ann Barnhardt's recent essay (http://www.barnhardt.biz/),
where she officially renounces Francis as Pope, then claims
according to Canon Law 188 (1983 version), Benedict is still
the true Pope, and she's not a SV.
I wonder if she's come to terms with the fact that, by this
reasoning, when Ratzinger dies, she would indeed be a
full SV.
Good point. There are three ways a Pope stops being Pope.
1. Public heresy (or binding on the Church what cannot be bound in Heaven)
2. Resignation
3. Death
Instead of speculating at the surface in reaction to the nonsense she needs to study the issue in depth from a Catholic perspective which of course is a pre-V2 perspective.
-
I don't know if any of you read Ann Barnhardt's recent essay (http://www.barnhardt.biz/),
where she officially renounces Francis as Pope, then claims
according to Canon Law 188 (1983 version), Benedict is still
the true Pope, and she's not a SV.
I wonder if she's come to terms with the fact that, by this
reasoning, when Ratzinger dies, she would indeed be a
full SV.
Good point. There are three ways a Pope stops being Pope.
1. Public heresy (or binding on the Church what cannot be bound in Heaven)
2. Resignation
3. Death
Instead of speculating at the surface in reaction to the nonsense she needs to study the issue in depth from a Catholic perspective which of course is a pre-V2 perspective.
She's caught up in the more "sensational" heresies of Bergoglio. But if she studied the matter more, she'd realize that Ratzinger holds most of the same positions.
-
I don't know if any of you read Ann Barnhardt's recent essay (http://www.barnhardt.biz/),
where she officially renounces Francis as Pope, then claims
according to Canon Law 188 (1983 version), Benedict is still
the true Pope, and she's not a SV.
I wonder if she's come to terms with the fact that, by this
reasoning, when Ratzinger dies, she would indeed be a
full SV.
Good point. There are three ways a Pope stops being Pope.
1. Public heresy (or binding on the Church what cannot be bound in Heaven)
2. Resignation
3. Death
Instead of speculating at the surface in reaction to the nonsense she needs to study the issue in depth from a Catholic perspective which of course is a pre-V2 perspective.
She's caught up in the more "sensational" heresies of Bergoglio. But if she studied the matter more, she'd realize that Ratzinger holds most of the same positions.
Well-stated.
-
An Ecuмenical Council did teach error. You and Lad and LoT and etc. are the ones who cannot accept this even though it happened and as historical fact, is indisputable. You are disputing the indisputable.
I dispute whether Vatican II was a valid Ecuмenical Council. It is impossible for the heresies like the ones taught in Vatican II to be taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Why do you say that? - please provide docuмentation that states a valid EC can not teach error at all under any circuмstances.
I already provided docuмentation from V1 decreeing the conditions necessary for infallibility of the pope or the OUM, as such, it was and is entirely possible for a council to teach rank heresy because the conditions FOR infallibility while arguably were present in the Council, were certainly not met. Not to mention that V2 and all it's errors actually happened.
If you dispute whether or not it was a valid council, then please post your dispute. It should be easy enough to settle, simply post what the differences between a valid and invalid Council are, or at least what a valid Council actually is.
I believe this is because you are stuck in accepting the false teachings of the 20th century theologians who teach that EC's are ipso facto infallible - when V2 proved that idea to not only be completely wrong, it also proved that the vast majority of otherwise faithful Catholics believed it so strongly, that they gave up the true faith for the new faith.
The conversation with you is like with LoT on EENS, you simply refuse to read what I write. I have stated numerous times that I don't claim that Vatican II was infallible, but you insist I do. Once again: VATICAN II WAS NOT INFALLIBLE. I acknowledge that, yet you insist that I broaden papal infallibility beyond what Vatican I taught. Having established that, can we proceed?
I understand, however, your reasoning is what I dispute. You are reasoning that it was an invalid Council therefore not infallible. I say it was a valid council that was not protected from error by the Holy Ghost.
Even though Vatican II was fallible, even fallible teachings of the Catholic Church cannot contain heresy and endanger souls, because that would mean defection of the Church. They can contain only minor errors. Vatican II being a valid Ecuмenical Council is in conflict with the dogma of indefectibility of the Church.
The Catholic Church is Christ, it cannot teach even minor errors. If I am wrong, and I am certainly willing to be wrong, then please post one of these minor errors you speak of. Personally, I cannot think of one.
The Church, that is Christ, always teaches Catholic truths for our help to get to heaven. Some of those teachings we are bound to believe, some of those teachings we are free to question, but how can Christ, the Church, teach even minor errors? It makes no sense to me at all.
What I wrote above is speaking of the Catholic Church, not the conciliar church. Do not confuse the two. The conciliar church is not the catholic church. Do we agree on this much?
-
I don't know if any of you read Ann Barnhardt's recent essay (http://www.barnhardt.biz/),
where she officially renounces Francis as Pope, then claims
according to Canon Law 188 (1983 version), Benedict is still
the true Pope, and she's not a SV.
I wonder if she's come to terms with the fact that, by this
reasoning, when Ratzinger dies, she would indeed be a
full SV.
Good point. There are three ways a Pope stops being Pope.
1. Public heresy (or binding on the Church what cannot be bound in Heaven)
2. Resignation
3. Death
Instead of speculating at the surface in reaction to the nonsense she needs to study the issue in depth from a Catholic perspective which of course is a pre-V2 perspective.
She's caught up in the more "sensational" heresies of Bergoglio. But if she studied the matter more, she'd realize that Ratzinger holds most of the same positions.
Pope Francis is an unmasked Modernist while Pope Ratzinger may have appeared to be more conservative on the outside; but just the outside. The underlined heresy is still there in full vigor.
-
I don't know if any of you read Ann Barnhardt's recent essay (http://www.barnhardt.biz/),
where she officially renounces Francis as Pope, then claims
according to Canon Law 188 (1983 version), Benedict is still
the true Pope, and she's not a SV.
I wonder if she's come to terms with the fact that, by this
reasoning, when Ratzinger dies, she would indeed be a
full SV.
Good point. There are three ways a Pope stops being Pope.
1. Public heresy (or binding on the Church what cannot be bound in Heaven)
2. Resignation
3. Death
Instead of speculating at the surface in reaction to the nonsense she needs to study the issue in depth from a Catholic perspective which of course is a pre-V2 perspective.
Public Heresy is complicated.
4. Non-Canonical Election isn't..
The more I read about "Cardinal" Daneels, and the "St Gallen mafia"
.. the more its apparent the man has no business being a priest,
let alone a bishop/cardinal..
This was particularly disgusting (original story from 2010 (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4471))
Someone has to clean house. If the cardinals won't let the Holy
Spirit choose a real Pope, then we are obliged to keep exposing
them, as shamefully as possible. We know Ratzinger was in possession
of the "full monte" expose on all the creeps in vatican.. pedos, homos,
who knows what else.. and shortly resigned. He either couldn't handle it,
was threatened or was afraid, and quit.
Like a true faker would. A coward or imposter of the lowest sort.
-
I don't know if any of you read Ann Barnhardt's recent essay (http://www.barnhardt.biz/),
where she officially renounces Francis as Pope, then claims
according to Canon Law 188 (1983 version), Benedict is still
the true Pope, and she's not a SV.
I wonder if she's come to terms with the fact that, by this
reasoning, when Ratzinger dies, she would indeed be a
full SV.
Good point. There are three ways a Pope stops being Pope.
1. Public heresy (or binding on the Church what cannot be bound in Heaven)
2. Resignation
3. Death
Instead of speculating at the surface in reaction to the nonsense she needs to study the issue in depth from a Catholic perspective which of course is a pre-V2 perspective.
She's caught up in the more "sensational" heresies of Bergoglio. But if she studied the matter more, she'd realize that Ratzinger holds most of the same positions.
Pope Francis is an unmasked Modernist while Pope Ratzinger may have appeared to be more conservative on the outside; but just the outside. The underlined heresy is still there in full vigor.
That comment about Ratzinger is something which was attested to by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in a 2006 interview with the Remnant (Stephen Heiner). There was significant controversy at the time because +Tissier used the H-word (heresy) but he later backtracked on the particular word (heresy) but remained firm that Ratzinger had never corrected his errors. (cf. http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0430-tissier.htm (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0430-tissier.htm) and http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2006/04/interview-with-bishop-bernard-tissier.html (http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2006/04/interview-with-bishop-bernard-tissier.html))
-
That comment about Ratzinger is something which was attested to by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in a 2006 interview with the Remnant (Stephen Heiner). There was significant controversy at the time because +Tissier used the H-word (heresy) but he later backtracked on the particular word (heresy) but remained firm that Ratzinger had never corrected his errors. (cf. http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0430-tissier.htm (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0430-tissier.htm) and http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2006/04/interview-with-bishop-bernard-tissier.html (http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2006/04/interview-with-bishop-bernard-tissier.html))
I read that, and now I'm just going over some passages concerning
redemption in Ratzinger's book from 1968. Here is a link to some of
what is objectionable, although I don't think it's exactly what Tissier
was referring to when he said "He denies the necessity of satisfaction."
http://robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html
Reading this excerpt over, there is no doubt in my mind that Ratzinger
both understood and rejected our traditional definition of redemption.
Perhaps it wasn't human enough. Which makes me wonder if he
even believes in a God who acts upon humanity, as the Supreme Being
who does not need man, but loves man.
Just look at Ratzinger tear into St. Anselm's sound teaching on redemption.
He says it makes God the Father look "sinister". This is terribly wrong.
Then he goes on to mischaracterize Our Lord's decision to follow
the will of the Father despite all the suffering that entailed as the
only reason for His Crucifixion.
What Ratzinger said is contrary to the Gospels themselves.
-
I don't know if any of you read Ann Barnhardt's recent essay (http://www.barnhardt.biz/),
where she officially renounces Francis as Pope, then claims
according to Canon Law 188 (1983 version), Benedict is still
the true Pope, and she's not a SV.
I wonder if she's come to terms with the fact that, by this
reasoning, when Ratzinger dies, she would indeed be a
full SV.
Good point. There are three ways a Pope stops being Pope.
1. Public heresy (or binding on the Church what cannot be bound in Heaven)
2. Resignation
3. Death
Instead of speculating at the surface in reaction to the nonsense she needs to study the issue in depth from a Catholic perspective which of course is a pre-V2 perspective.
She's caught up in the more "sensational" heresies of Bergoglio. But if she studied the matter more, she'd realize that Ratzinger holds most of the same positions.
In a way Benedict XVI/Pope B/Fr Ratzinger whatever, is far more the radical. He was an understudy of the very clever, radical suit wearing Fr Karl Rahner SJ. Fr Rahner SJ would not have a simpleton (like the present Pope A) work under him. A great many of the positions presently expressed somewhat incoherently were pioneered by BXVI at around V2. His work Jesus of Nazareth reads to me like pure Protestantism. Bergoglian theology by contrast, looks like it involves whatever random thought pops into the Argentine's head. However what was in effect the legalisation of the Mass (I know thanks to the Agatha Christie Indult could be used to allow celebration of Mass using the Sarum missal, although strictly it was only for the 1965 Missal) by him, did create the Benedict the Traditionalist meme.
-
This is one of the things which I find problematic when I see reactions of many Trads to the current situation - many people believe that Ratzinger being a Pope somehow solves the problem, with the notion that Ratzinger is somewhat conservative. He is nothing of that sort, he is a modernist and a public heretic just like other V2 Popes, his alleged conservatism is limited to some external gestures. I think that the whole trend of "resignationism" aka "sede-Benedict-plenism" is simply an emotional response of many Trads to the horrific Pontificate(?) of Francis, rather than an objective assessment of the situation.
-
Does Fr. Krammer still hold this position ?
If he does, how does Fr. Chazel reconcile that during his Una cuм Masses at the Bamboo Seminary ?
Do the seminarians get confused when one Fr. is Una cuм Francis whilst the other Fr. Is Una cuм Benedict ?
:reporter:
-
Ratzinger was an extreme "liberal" (actually a heretic but called liberal) in the 60's. He basically stayed the same throughout while everyone else got worse. By the time the 21st Century rolled around he was considered "conservative" (actually a heretic but called conservative).
-
How do you shorten links?
Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magisterium
http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=943&sid=829eafa4c3a825bd57d6aeaec534c45b
I can do it elsewhere but when I do it here it does not become a link you can click on.
-
Have you tried tinyurl.com ?
Someone just mentioned that to me. Thanks!
-
does anyone really know how more than 2000 bishops in an ecuмenical council could accept the docuмents of Vatican II? Is it 20/20 hindsight that we see the problem now, so it was less clear at the time, or was something else going on? Isn't it simply unprecedented to have such a thing happen in the RCC? How the hell did it happen?
-
As I understand it, Freemasons must blindly submit to the wishes of their superiors without question. That is freemasonic, not Catholic. As Catholics, we are required to know our faith, we are not permitted to be ignorant of what is required for our own salvation nor put our souls in peril by blindly submitting to anyone, even the pope.
I don't know enough about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to know whether your supposition is correct or not....
From the Encyclopedia of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/mackeys_encyclopedia/o.htm)
OBEDIENCE
The doctrine of obedience to constituted authority is strongly inculcated in all the Old Constitutions as necessary to the preservation of the Association. In them it is directed that ''every" Mason shall prefer his elder and put him to worship." Thus the Master Mason obeys the order of his Lodge, the Lodge obeys the mandates of the Grand Lodge, and the Grand Lodge submits to the Landmarks and the old Regulations.
The doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance in polities, however much it may be supposed to be inimical to the progress of free institutions constitutes undoubtedly the great principle of Masonic government. Such a principle would undoubtedly lead to an unbearable despotism, were it not admirably modified and controlled by the compensating principle of appeal. The first duty of every Freemason is to obey the mandate of the Master. But if that mandate should have been unlawful or Oppressive! he will find his redress in the Grand Lodge, which will review the case and render justice. This spirit of instant obedience and submission to authority constitutes the great safeguard of the institution Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ more resembles a military than a political organization. The order must at once be obeyed; its character and its consequences may be matters of subsequent inquiry. The Masonic rule of obedience is like the nautical, imperative: "Obey orders, even if you break owners."
-
One of the most horrifying elements of Sedevacantism is that it does not so much limit itself to the legitimacy of a Pontiff, but that it blurs the visible authority of the Church, which has existed in an unbroken way from the days of the Apostles unto our times. People like Myrna and LoT do not seem to comprehend the magnitude of the implications inherent to their position, and thus they ask themselves publically why so few people adhere to it.
None of the modern errors and nefarious practices are universally accepted in the Church, so one of the premises of the thesis, namely that the whole Church in communion with Pope Francis supposedly receives, for example, Dignitatis humanae as orthodox doctrine, is false. Archbishop Emeritus Jan Pawel Lenga explicitly rejects liberalism and the freemasonic bureaucracy within the Vatican, to give a concrete example demonstrating my point. But it is on this false premise that Sedevacantism is built, and it concludes that the truly Catholic answer to the alleged reality is to make the communion of bishops disappear, thus breaking the intimate, unbreakable chain of Succession that has existed since the dawn of Christendom.
While it is true that a bishop who rejects a certain false doctrine today prevalent, could at the same time be using the evil new liturgy, and the other way around, it is nevertheless a fact that none of these bad teachings or practices specifically are received universally within the Church. I remember reading about a certain Eastern Catholic bishop who had been resisting the will of his Patriarch who was trying to modernise their Eastern liturgy; so, there we have a bishop who rejects the new anthropocentric liturgical orientation. And it does not matter that he is of the East, because he is subject to the Apostolic See and recognises the primacy of its jurisdiction.
-
One of the most horrifying elements of Sedevacantism is that it does not so much limit itself to the legitimacy of a Pontiff, but that it blurs the visible authority of the Church, which has existed in an unbroken way from the days of the Apostles unto our times. People like Myrna and LoT do not seem to comprehend the magnitude of the implications inherent to their position, and thus they ask themselves publically why so few people adhere to it.
None of the modern errors and nefarious practices are universally accepted in the Church, so one of the premises of the thesis, namely that the whole Church in communion with Pope Francis supposedly receives, for example, Dignitatis humanae as orthodox doctrine, is false. Archbishop Emeritus Jan Pawel Lenga explicitly rejects liberalism and the freemasonic bureaucracy within the Vatican, to give a concrete example demonstrating my point. But it is on this false premise that Sedevacantism is built, and it concludes that the truly Catholic answer to the alleged reality is to make the communion of bishops disappear, thus breaking the intimate, unbreakable chain of Succession that has existed since the dawn of Christendom.
While it is true that a bishop who rejects a certain false doctrine today prevalent, could at the same time be using the evil new liturgy, and the other way around, it is nevertheless a fact that none of these bad teachings or practices specifically are received universally within the Church. I remember reading about a certain Eastern Catholic bishop who had been resisting the will of his Patriarch who was trying to modernise their Eastern liturgy; so, there we have a bishop who rejects the new anthropocentric liturgical orientation. And it does not matter that he is of the East, because he is subject to the Apostolic See and recognises the primacy of its jurisdiction.
bull hockey.
Pius X mandated that all priests take the oath against modernism.
If that oath were required today, the priests, including
bishops who refused to sign would be defrocked. There is
still a real chain of succession in the Roman Catholic Church that
exists apart from the Vatican II + "popes", and certainly outside
of whatever "Francis" does. I am aware of some, but I'm not
very well-steeped in all the lines that are valid. Other posters
such as the forum owner Matthew know a lot more than I do on
this. The information is out there.
It is our duty as Catholics not to follow the voice of a leader who
preaches a different Gospel than that which was handed down to
us from the very beginning. The goal of Satan and his minions,
witting and unwitting, to infiltrate the Catholic Church and pervert
it is an undeniable fact. Catholics who follow a false church to hell
and respect heresy as truth, even to the point of grossly mispresenting
the very nature of our faith in its most sublime truths must decide
who their God is. We are there.
-
One of the most horrifying elements of Sedevacantism is that it does not so much limit itself to the legitimacy of a Pontiff, but that it blurs the visible authority of the Church...
Spoken by a true Conciliar catholic.
-
let me say this: that Bellarmine has said that a pertinacious heretic ceases to be in the church. He needs no censure from the church. The heresy, ipso facto ,means that he cannot be the visible head of the church because he isn't in the church. Now THAT is a thesis which gives a theological defense of SV.
I have tried many times to ask what would constitute a false pope in this forum and i receive answers from SV people, but none from SSPX and others. cuм tacent, clamant.
-
I have tried many times to ask what would constitute a false pope in this forum and i receive answers from SV people, but none from SSPX and others.
I think that the reason why there is not much response anymore to sedevacantist threads, is that most people are sick of them.
One way by which it is certain that someone is not a false pope is when this person is received as the rightful Pope of Rome by the whole orbs catholicus. Such a one cannot be a false pope, because that would render the whole Church schismatic, which is impossible. The pontificate of Pope Francis is a dogmatic fact.
Did Cardinal Bergoglio receive canonical admonishments from ecclesiastical authority before ascending the See of Peter? Did he spurn these admonishments? He has not received such public admonishments, or we would have known about them. He gradually ascended from rank to rank within an ecclesiastical climate where heresy was no longer being tried and punished, until at last he reached the summit of all spiritual authority, the Supreme Pontificate.
Remember, folks. Even Luther was given an ecclesiastical trial.
Since it was never canonically established that Cardinal Bergoglio was a formal heretic, he was not barred from validly receiving the Petrine Ministry.
Sedevacantists do not seem to understand how a public society works. They read on the internet that a theologian has said that heretics are barred from becoming Popes, and they run off with this isolated fragment without being able to contextualise it within the broader scope of the theological and canonical framework of the Church.
-
, because that would render the whole Church schismatic, which is impossible.
This is what the Great Apostasy IS. Apostasy means "a falling away from the True religion to follow another" or you might say, the GREAT SCHISM. Which is why the Bible says in Luke 18,8 "Yet when the Son of Man comes, will He find, do you think, Faith on the earth?"
Your wrong because even though we live in the Great Schism, the new church era (CURRENTLY THE CHURCH OF FRANCIS). The Church is still there, the Papacy and Jesus Christ is the head, all authority comes from Him. It is just smaller now.
-
I have tried many times to ask what would constitute a false pope in this forum and i receive answers from SV people, but none from SSPX and others.
I think that the reason why there is not much response anymore to sedevacantist threads, is that most people are sick of them.
One way by which it is certain that someone is not a false pope is when this person is received as the rightful Pope of Rome by the whole orbs catholicus. Such a one cannot be a false pope, because that would render the whole Church schismatic, which is impossible. The pontificate of Pope Francis is a dogmatic fact.
Did Cardinal Bergoglio receive canonical admonishments from ecclesiastical authority before ascending the See of Peter? Did he spurn these admonishments? He has not received such public admonishments, or we would have known about them. He gradually ascended from rank to rank within an ecclesiastical climate where heresy was no longer being tried and punished, until at last he reached the summit of all spiritual authority, the Supreme Pontificate.
Remember, folks. Even Luther was given an ecclesiastical trial.
Since it was never canonically established that Cardinal Bergoglio was a formal heretic, he was not barred from validly receiving the Petrine Ministry.
Sedevacantists do not seem to understand how a public society works. They read on the internet that a theologian has said that heretics are barred from becoming Popes, and they run off with this isolated fragment without being able to contextualise it within the broader scope of the theological and canonical framework of the Church.
the last sentence is meaningless, just like the nonsense in the church these days. What you saying is that there is no way to tell objectively if a pope or anyone else for that matter is a heretic. If the majority of catholics do not think he's a heretic then he is not. That is a false statement, because it means that there is no objective definition of heresy. However, there is an objective definition of heresy and it possible to tell if someone is a heretic. We can tell by comparing his statements to doctrine and dogma. If he states that the transubstantiation isn't real, he's a heretic. It doesn't matter if 1.3 billion catholics believe he is not a heretic. They are heretics as well if they believe that. Like all post conciliar catholics, you think the truth is whatever the majority believes NOW and if they believe that Trent taught falsely, then it must be true. Likewise, if vatican 2 is accepted by the majority then it is true, even though the majority once believed in Trent! Now how does that make sense? Doctrine can never change. You do not know that?
Here's what I think: anyone with guts is a SV, anyone without a damned spine thinks bergoglio is the pope.
-
You are completely missing the point. Perhaps it is obvious to you that Francis was a heretic before being elevated to the Apostolic See, but this has no bearing upon the essential criteria for canonical status with the Church as a formal heretic. The canonical admonishments by the competent ecclesiastical authorities are required, which Saint Paul himself has confirmed.
Now, you mentioned something about guts. I am involved, under my real name, with political activity to christen my fatherland, and to destroy the false principle of the secular state. What are you doing exactly, Sedevacantist? You are wasting your time making the Episcopate disappear; time that could be applied fruitfully to serve the Church and your nation.
Do not talk to me about guts.
-
You are completely missing the point. Perhaps it is obvious to you that Francis was a heretic before being elevated to the Apostolic See, but this has no bearing upon the essential criteria for canonical status with the Church as a formal heretic. The canonical admonishments by the competent ecclesiastical authorities are required, which Saint Paul himself has confirmed.
Now, you mentioned something about guts. I am involved, under my real name, with political activity to christen my fatherland, and to destroy the false principle of the secular state. What are you doing exactly, Sedevacantist? You are wasting your time making the Episcopate disappear; time that could be applied fruitfully to serve the Church and your nation.
Do not talk to me about guts.
No, it is you who are missing the point. What I am saying is that Bergoglio is a heretic. All post-conciliar catholics who believe in Vatican 2 are heretics. They are heretics because they believe things that were condemned in prior infallible councils. What would a trial do if the trial is conducted by heretics? That's like Stalin's show trials. If the tribunal says that 2+2=5 that doesn't make it so.
What you are saying now, since you've changed your stance about the orbs catholicus, is that heresy cannot be determined by the faithful! You have just switched your position, because now you claim that a tribunal of experts is required. A tribunal of experts would find that bergoglio is a pertinacious heretic, but such a tribunal will not take place i can assure you. You are a coward. If you think Bergoglio is the pope then you think that anyone elected as pope is the pope, no matter if he declares Jesus to be a cross dressing female and that the trinity is actually a quartet. You find safety in numbers, you seek funds from people who will not give you money if you say bergoglio is not the pope. Cowardice and funding needs determine your stance. The episcopate is live and well, but it is not in the safe crowds of heretics that you like so much. You are infested with heresy, as is the entire newchurch, which I shall not call the RCC.
-
I have not changed my stance on anything. The whole Church cannot become schismatic by adhering to a false pope. Period. That would be against the indefectibility of the Church. It has nothing to do with "changing doctrine". Ironically, you are the one who is changing it. Universal recognition does not determine the validity of the Pope, but proves the pre-existent fact. It is in vain that you attempt to ascribe ecclesiastical democratism to what I have written.
You sound like someone who only reads translated snippets from theologians and canonists displayed on Sedevacantist websites without ever actually reading integral pages from original texts. You are making a fool out of yourself by acting as if you have indepth knowledge on the subject.
Cowards are the ones who enter into your sect. Corrupt Bishops do not fear you, who hide yourselves in your illegal chapels, far away from the Church. They fear those who stay within the Church to wage a relentless combat against heresy, and who strive for reform.
-
The kind of gibberish that you see emanating from people like qeddeq is typical of Sedevacantism. The more intelligent among them try to pretend that this phenomenon does not have their theological position as its cause, but vainly. I have been a Sedevacantist in the past, and I guarantee all readers that Sedevacantism is truly the cause of this kind of stupidity that you see around here.
-
Are you totally oblivious to the fact that the uttering of heresy does not by itself constitute a canonical status of being a formal heretic? If you do not even know these elementary principles, then why do you pretend to know anything on the subject at all?
-
Are you totally oblivious to the fact that the uttering of heresy does not by itself constitute a canonical status of being a formal heretic? If you do not even know these elementary principles, then why do you pretend to know anything on the subject at all?
So you admit that Bergoglio is uttering heresy.
-
If you read carefully what I have written, then you will see that I have not denied that the Pope is spreading heresy. My point is that the fact alone of the Holy Father spreading it does not give you the right to pretend that the Holy See is vacant.
The implications of Sedevacantism are that the orbs catholicus, the Catholic World, has vanished, with the whole visible episcopal communion. Transmitting sacramentally valid episcopal orders does not remedy that. It is a hideous doctrine, which seeks to extinguish the light of authoritative apostolic preaching from the face of the earth, and which seeks to make the Christ-mystical, the Church, disappear, even though Sedevacantists erroneously pretend that she survives among them.
Myrna has said in this thread that the whole Church can become schismatic, and that such a doctrine is contained in Sacred Scripture. She has uttered heresy. By your own logic she would now have to be considered canonically a formal heretic, without any intervention from ecclesiastical authority. It simply does not work this way. It is this way of thinking that makes some Sedevacantists think that they, and perhaps two or three other persons, are the last canonical Catholics on earth.
-
It used to be an obligation for all to denounce adherents to heresy to the competent ecclesiastical authorities, so that they could have a canonical trial. Sedevacantists shove all of that aside as unnecessary, and simply act on their own private authority. They are trying to escape from a reality where the nefarious influence of the secret sects has reached even unto the summum of all ecclesiastical positions, but if you study their machinations throughout history, then you will see that they have been plotting this for a long time, and that Popes have been fearing such a state of events as the one in which we live today.
The powers of evil are frustrated that, even now, they do not succeed in destroying the Church, which is why they are growing increasingly aggressive towards her. In Spain, they have been trying to imprison the Archbishop of Valencia because he does not want to bow before the devil of sodomy.
I am wondering what most Sedevacantists will do when a Successor to Pope Francis begins to drive out the massonists, extirpate heresy across the world and to restore the old Roman Rite throughout the whole Latin Church. Will they simply begin to give allegiance to him, or will they say that they have to separate from him, because he was elected by whom they pretend to be "false cardinals"?
-
the only person in the church with the power to excommunicate is the pope himself. It is well known by all educated catholics that a notorious heretic ceases to be in the church, and that includes the pope. If you do not believe me on this, then I can only say that you must do the research, which can be done in a few minutes. There are not many writings on the issue of papal loss of office due to heresy, although some doctors of the church did write thus. Bellarmine and Suarez are good examples. You can also find the notorious heretic clause in the Catholic Encyclopedia in the section on heresy.
I think that you were not a good sedevacantist because you don't know anything. All your ideas on heresy and the papacy are erroneous and confused, mixing canon law and theology.
If you are associated in any way with the post-conciliar church then you are a material heretic. If you persistently deny the errors you make then you are a formal heretic. Since you have stubbornly refused to accept doctrine, i conclude that you are a formal heretic. I suspect that you are not capable of seeing that the true church is not the buildings, the false bishops with their vestments. The true church is the faithful together with the faithful episcopate. No one said how large that church would be at any time. We lack a pope, but we are subject to the papacy. when one shows up we will recognize him as catholic dogma requires. Francis is what is called a "notorious heretic". A notorious heretic cannot be the head of the visible church because he is not in the church. If Francis is not a notorious heretic then there is no such thing as a notorious heretic. Since church doctrine clearly states that there is such an entity, then Francis is notorious heretic. He is not the pope. Nearly all of the bishops of the church are material or formal heretics. The schismatics are not the SV's. We never stopped being faithful.
-
Where have I said that the Church can excommunicate Popes? The Church must establish in some way, however, whether Pope Francis is a formal heretic. If it is determined, not by you or some other Sedevacantist, but by the ecclesiastical hierarchy, that he is, then he will either lose the Papacy ipso facto (thesis of Bellarminus), or God will depose him with the Church exercising a ministerial role in the process (according to other theologians). But no reputed theologian has claimed that the Pope would lose his office without the Church knowing about it. Such a position is absurd and stupid.
Please indicate to me the scope of what you have read directly from authorised theological works. As I have indicated earlier, I suspect that you have never read an actual treatise on ecclesiology, but absorb snippets scattered across Sedevacantist websites. Do you actually read through integral pages from works by various theologians, or are you simply parroting names that you picked up on some website?
Here is another challenge for you. You claim that the Episcopate lives on through people like Mark Pivarunas. Now, a Bishop formaliter is necessarily in possession of an episcopal see. The see is the scope of his jurisdiction, and this ordinary jurisdiction is the apostolic authority that makes the Bishop a formal Successor to the Apostles. Sedevacantist bishops do not even claim to possess sees.
But aside of that: The early Sedevacantists who had themselves receive episcopal orders were acting on the false premise that the Episcopate had disappeared into heresy, and that they thus had to restore a legitimate one through their reception of valid episcopal orders.
How, according to you, was the Episcopate "alive and well", during the time before your founders created the new one after the alleged fall of the old? Did the Church take a short break from existing, to reappear later in the new democratic and dioceseless form of the Sedevacantists? You have visibly left the historical Church, and have constructed a new one. You cannot escape that fact.
-
Exilen.... says of me: "Myrna has said in this thread that the whole Church can become schismatic"
However he misunderstands or sees what he wants to see. There is a remnant and there will always be a Catholic Church, I even quoted what the Bible says, when Our Lord returns will He find Faith in the world, MEANING IT HIS CHURCH WILL BE SMALLER.
Please show us anywhere it indicated the Church will always be innumerable.
St. Augustine says even there were only a few with the Faith left on earth, there is the Church.
You said at one time you accepted the sedevacantism position, it seems you are now going backward back into the new church you defend, I wonder why?
It is so simple, the new church does not have the Faith, nor do they teach it, the sin greatly by omission. Ask anyone who graduated lately from a so called Catholic school, they do not even know what Sanctifying grace is.
If they no longer have nor teach the Faith, they are not the Church.
Ask yourself or research, what is the MISSION OF CHRIST'S CHURCH.
-
Myrna,
If you think that there is no one within the Catholic Church who knows what sanctifying grace is, then that only proves how deluded Sedevacantists are.
And the kind of remnant-ecclesiology that you ascribe to the words of Christ is a protestant notion.
As for what I wrote about you erroneously conceding the possibility of the whole Church becoming schismatic:
Such a one cannot be a false pope, because that would render the whole Church schismatic, which is impossible.
This is what the Great Apostasy IS. Apostasy means "a falling away from the True religion to follow another" or you might say, the GREAT SCHISM.
-
Myrna,
If you think that there is no one within the Catholic Church who knows what sanctifying grace is, then that only proves how deluded Sedevacantists are.
And the kind of remnant-ecclesiology that you ascribe to the words of Christ is a protestant notion.
As for what I wrote about you erroneously conceding the possibility of the whole Church becoming schismatic:
Such a one cannot be a false pope, because that would render the whole Church schismatic, which is impossible.
This is what the Great Apostasy IS. Apostasy means "a falling away from the True religion to follow another" or you might say, the GREAT SCHISM.
I can only speak for myself. I went to Catholic ecducation after school every wednesday when I was growing up. I never learned what sanctifying grace was. I also never learned any prayers except for the Hail Mary and the Our Father and the Glory Be which my mother taught me at home. So I never learned nearly anything about the faith even though they were supposed to teach it to me every Wednesday during the school year for eight years or so. Although I remember a habitless nun mentioned the Rosary one time I never prayed it and neither did any of my classmates and when I came to tradition a few years ago I couldn't even say the Rosary because I didn't know how. I learned a lot after I came to tradition because I learned about it on the internet. But the Novus Ordo taught me nothing about the faith at all. It is a scam. I don't even know why anyone supports it except for a few older people who actually were taught the faith and are confused by everything and still think it is the true Church of Christ outside of which there is no salvation.
-
Myrna,
If you think that there is no one within the Catholic Church who knows what sanctifying grace is, then that only proves how deluded Sedevacantists are.
I never said "NO ONE" I said they are not teaching in the Catholic schools TODAY, ask a student that is attending. Of course there are those who are retaining from either reading or their grandparents taught them.
And the kind of remnant-ecclesiology that you ascribe to the words of Christ is a protestant notion.
Tell that to St. Augustine
As for what I wrote about you erroneously conceding the possibility of the whole Church becoming schismatic:
Such a one cannot be a false pope, because that would render the whole Church schismatic, which is impossible.
This is what the Great Apostasy IS. Apostasy means "a falling away from the True religion to follow another" or you might say, the GREAT SCHISM.
Do you deny the Bible says there will be a Great Apostasy, what in your mind do you think that is?
Mission of the Church:
When about to ascend into heaven He sends His Apostles in virtue of the same power by which He had been sent from the Father; and he charges them to spread abroad and propagate His teaching. "All power is given to Me in Heaven and in earth. Going therefore teach all nations....teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. xxviii., 18-1920).
-
Myrna,
If you think that there is no one within the Catholic Church who knows what sanctifying grace is, then that only proves how deluded Sedevacantists are.
And the kind of remnant-ecclesiology that you ascribe to the words of Christ is a protestant notion.
As for what I wrote about you erroneously conceding the possibility of the whole Church becoming schismatic:
Such a one cannot be a false pope, because that would render the whole Church schismatic, which is impossible.
This is what the Great Apostasy IS. Apostasy means "a falling away from the True religion to follow another" or you might say, the GREAT SCHISM.
I can only speak for myself. I went to Catholic ecducation after school every wednesday when I was growing up. I never learned what sanctifying grace was. I also never learned any prayers except for the Hail Mary and the Our Father and the Glory Be which my mother taught me at home. So I never learned nearly anything about the faith even though they were supposed to teach it to me every Wednesday during the school year for eight years or so. Although I remember a habitless nun mentioned the Rosary one time I never prayed it and neither did any of my classmates and when I came to tradition a few years ago I couldn't even say the Rosary because I didn't know how. I learned a lot after I came to tradition because I learned about it on the internet. But the Novus Ordo taught me nothing about the faith at all. It is a scam. I don't even know why anyone supports it except for a few older people who actually were taught the faith and are confused by everything and still think it is the true Church of Christ outside of which there is no salvation.
Matto, it is not only YOU, that is the way it is today!
I know, I checked this out before I realized what the Great Apostasy is, they are NOT OBEYING The Mission that God gave them.
THEY ARE NOT SENT BY GOD.
-
Upon reading some of the past true popes encyclicals one can prove that the novus ordo is a false church:
Speaking of man made religions of which the novus ordo is, st Augustine had this to say; Another head like to Christ must be invented - that is, another Christ if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. "See what you must beware of - see what you must avoid - see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member" (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n.
The novus ordo no longer teaches UNITY, which is why people who are searching go from one parish to another, they jump from FSSP, to some conservative priest somewhere, to SSPX and back again to FSSP or indult somewhere. They forget the Mission of the Church, it’s the Divine wisdom of Christ when He ordained His Church.
Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith.
Instead Francis and his ilk, continue to BREAK the First Commandment and embrace ALL FAITHS with opened arms, and never even think of converting them.
Yet you call Roman Catholics who embrace the sedevacantism position PROTESTANT like.
-
This is what Our Lord says of those who run back to the novus ordo.
"Our Lord Jesus Christ, when in His Gospel He testifies that those who not are with Him are His enemies, does not designate any special form of heresy, but declares that all heretics who are not with Him and do not gather with Him, scatter His flock and are His adversaries: He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth" (S. Cyprianus, Ep. lxix., ad Magnum, n. I).
-
I can only speak for myself. I went to Catholic ecducation after school every wednesday when I was growing up. I never learned what sanctifying grace was. I also never learned any prayers except for the Hail Mary and the Our Father and the Glory Be which my mother taught me at home. So I never learned nearly anything about the faith even though they were supposed to teach it to me every Wednesday during the school year for eight years or so. Although I remember a habitless nun mentioned the Rosary one time I never prayed it and neither did any of my classmates and when I came to tradition a few years ago I couldn't even say the Rosary because I didn't know how. I learned a lot after I came to tradition because I learned about it on the internet. But the Novus Ordo taught me nothing about the faith at all. It is a scam. I don't even know why anyone supports it except for a few older people who actually were taught the faith and are confused by everything and still think it is the true Church of Christ outside of which there is no salvation.
Listen, friend. I know that there is a vast amount of people out there today who do not know the basics of the Faith, but to posit that the whole Church has become this way is simply false. It is an emotional but delusional reaction to a vast problem that exists within the Church today.
People who should be on the battlefield are hiding behind imaginary sedisvacancies and antipapacies. They have created an inexistent crisis in an erroneous attempt to resolve a real problem. For us, who recognise the Pope as Pope, and the Bishops as Bishops, reform is not only possible but certain. But for you, there is nothing left. You have an assembly of pseudobishops who have grasped mitres on their own authority, and who are visibly estranged from the historical Church of Christ. You have created a mental vacuum out of which there is no escape, and it is a gateway to full apostasy.
Look at the responses on here. It is emotional drivel without a theological foundation.
I hope your heart is doing better, Matto. I have read a while ago that you were having heart related health problems.
-
I hope your heart is doing better, Matto. I have read a while ago that you were having heart related health problems.
Thank you for your concern. I am on medicine for my heart and the doctor said I was doing better the last time I saw him. So that's good. When I first found out about my heart problems the doctor was very pessimistic and I thought I was dying.
-
Yet you call Roman Catholics who embrace the sedevacantism position PROTESTANT like.
Sedevacantists resemble Protestants in a very real way. Perhaps the United States are a breeding ground for such groups because people there have breathed too much protestant air.
-
Thank you for your concern. I am on medicine for my heart and the doctor said I was doing better the last time I saw him. So that's good. When I first found out about my heart problems the doctor was very pessimistic and I thought I was dying.
I am glad to know that your situation has been improving, and I hope that God may grant you full recovery, if his adorable will permits it. It is indeed natural to be afraid when diagnosed in such a way.
-
reform in the church? this is a pipe dream. Where will these reformers come from? The seminaries are teaching ever deeper levels of heresy. The bishops by and large are formal heretics. When I was in the novus ordo you wouldn't believe the things I was told. I was told that all religions are equal, including the muslims. They go to heaven too. I was told that the baptists and methodists are going to heaven just as easily as catholics. I was told that original sin is no longer taught by the church. I was taught that the baltimore catechism, the catechism of pius X, are to be avoided, because the teachings of the church have changed! Further I was told that the latin mass was degenerate and had to go, because the people had no clue as to what was going on, and that latin is dead and has no place in the church. I could go on and on.
You do not believe me? Look at francis. Now he says that public sinners can receive communion. How is that even remotely possible? You know what public sinners are? People who are shacking up, or committing adultery, they can continue to sin and be ok in francis's church.
-
People who should be on the battlefield are hiding behind imaginary sedisvacancies and antipapacies. They have created an inexistent crisis in an erroneous attempt to resolve a real problem. For us, who recognise the Pope as Pope, and the Bishops as Bishops, reform is not only possible but certain. But for you, there is nothing left. You have an assembly of pseudobishops who have grasped mitres on their own authority, and who are visibly estranged from the historical Church of Christ. You have created a mental vacuum out of which there is no escape, and it is a gateway to full apostasy.
Look at the responses on here. It is emotional drivel without a theological foundation.
Should read: People who should be on the battlefield are hiding behind imaginary novus ordorites and nopes. We the Modernist have created an existing crisis in an erroneous attempt to destroy the Church a real problem. For us Modernists, who recognise the Pope as Pope, and the Bishops as Bishops, reform is possible but very uncertain. But for us within the novus ordo, there is nothing left. We have an assembly of infiltrator pseudobishops who have robbed mitres on our own authority, and are now visibly estranged from the historical Church of Christ. We Modernists have created a mental and physical vacuum out of which there is no escape, and we have them now where we want them those, who are striving to keep the faith, by having nothing to do with us. We who are the gateway of full apostasy, and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
-
The commission of certain very grave crimes has the effect of expelling the culpable religious ipso facto, that is, the religious is dismissed by the law itself. The terms of this canon are to be interpreted strictly, that is, all the conditions laid down must be actually present before such a grave penalty can be said to be incurred. A crime of this type would be A religious who has publicly apostized from the Catholic faith (c. 646, §1, 1°): Apostasy is defined in canon 1325, §2, as the complete abandonment of the Christian faith. The apostasy from the Catholic faith must be public, which means according to canon 2197, 1°, that either the fact is already known by a large number of people, or that the circuмstances of the apostasy are such that one must prudently judge that it will easily become known.
-
How?
Is your question referring to the first or the second sentence?
-
How?
Is your question referring to the first or the second sentence?
Why not answer both!
-
Why not answer both!
On the first sentence:
Sedevacantism resembles Protestantism and its precursors very closely, especially in the urge of their adherents to having the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy deposed manu divino in their minds, to then arrogate to themselves special missions to remedy what they perceive as the situation of Religion. John Hus, Luther, Calvin; they all had it in common. Add to that the practice of Sedevacantists of proposing private interpretations regarding Sacred Scripture, especially on the End Times, divorced from the immutable boundaries of the Holy Fathers that surround authentic biblical exegesis.
On the second sentence:
Northern Americans have a collective susceptibility to producing weird sects, as exemplified by those "televangelists" and other such groups. Nations and peoples have virtues and weaknesses, and this is certainly one of the weaknesses of your people. I think this is at least partially due to the individualist spirit of Protestantism that has been deeply rooted in your nation for centuries.
Is it a coincidence that Eric Gajewski is a Northern American? Mormons? Watchtower sect? Both sects were born in America. The only Sedevacantist bishop in my nation, Geert Stuyver, received his sacerdotal and episcopal orders from... an American. It is as if you have factories generating these sorts of individualist groups, claiming divine mandates to do what they do, of course without being able to do one miracle to vindicate them.
I do not think that it would be wrong to posit that Sedevacantism is largely an American phenomenon. They have somewhat of a small voice in France, but are virtually unknown throughout the rest of Europe, for as far as I can tell. When I myself was first seduced by the fallen spirit of Sedevacantism, it was through American websites. Another coincidence? As for the rest of the world, you do not seem to have much of a presence there, either.
Recall that Saint Bellarmine declared that the Church of the living God is as visible as the Kingdom of France. Sedevacantism, though, is no kingdom, but a backyard. And, as we have seen, a predominantly American one, I might say.
-
He wasn't content to calumniate sedevacantists, he felt an irresistible urge to defame Americans on Independence Day weekend. Apparently Germany doesn't have any pressing problems for him to solve. In any case, I would like to thank the German people for having given to the world one of the brightest young thinkers on the sedevacantist side of the traditional Catholic movement, namely Mario Derkson, who since moving to the United States has been at the forefront of the battle to educate Catholics about the Church's traditional ecclesiology concerning the papacy and the effects of public heresy. May God bless the German people.
-
excuse me, but where did protestantism originate? I suppose you'd like to lay that one on the US too.
-
Clemens Maria,
I have not calumniated, nor defamed. And I am not anti-american; I know how to appreciate legitimate American culture, traditions and identity. For example, various aspects of rural life that have been preserved among you in many places.
I should mention that I am a Belgian, and not a German. I know that the resemblance of the Belgian trois-couleurs with the German flag may cause some confusion with non-europeans. Perhaps the administrator could give me a Lion of Brabant (without the Belgian unionist slogan) as a drapeau, since I am not a republicanist anyway.
qeddeq,
If you read carefully, you will see that the origins of Protestantism are beside the point.
-
Sedevacantism is like Protestant, is it?
Here please watch this novus ordo service... opps! I mean Lutheran
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/CwCv0rjLCeM[/youtube]
Now see here the Lutheran Service ... opps! I mean Catholic
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/s2jI7k7qdgw[/youtube]
Out of respect, I didn't choose the clown Mass, even the Protestants don't go that far, at least I don't think so.
-
"Why can't we take the Pope's office away? We are individuals too!"
By all means, resist errors, heresies and eucuмenist liturgical rites. But do not pretend to rob the Pope of his authority because you are an "individual", and make the whole Teaching Church disappear while you are at it.
Come on, people. Do you not at all see the huge void in your reasoning, and in your interpretations of theologians and canon law?
-
I have already adressed the loss of office in the case of a Pope and the validity of papal elections in this very thread, and I am not going to repeat myself again. I hope that you will at some point stop trying to make the Church vanish from the face of the earth, and begin to contribute to her exaltation by God, which must be desired by all.
-
Meditate on this:
David Bawden also thought that he could declare the Pope bereft of his office because he was an "individual". He went a step further and applied his supreme private pseudo-authority to have himself elected to the See of Peter by his parents. Because, you know, he is an "individual", and can make private decisions based on Catholic dogma!
And do not come and tell me that declaring the Holy See vacant is not an act. It is an act, and one of the same gravity as the act of electing a Pope. Garage elections such as that of David Bawden are as absurd as deciding by yourself that the Holy See is vacant starting from a specific moment, also decided by you. The absurdity of the do-it-yourself popes simply sticks out more.
-
And do not come and tell me that declaring the Holy See vacant is not an act. It is an act, and one of the same gravity as the act of electing a Pope.
Only if you don't come and tell me that declaring which of each and every papal declaration, law, teaching, and comment is "valid" is not an act.
You anti-sedevacantists crack me up. You complain we recognize one thing: The man you say is pope is a heretic and then we apply Catholic doctrine upon that recognized fact. Then you reject Catholic doctrine by making yourself the arbiter of when the man you say is pope is actually acting within the capacity of his office--only you have to do it every single day, multiple times a day.
Exilenomore, read what you are saying and see how absurd it really is. Your Doublethink is getting tiresome.
-
Meditate on this:
David Bawden also thought that he could declare the Pope bereft of his office because he was an "individual". He went a step further and applied his supreme private pseudo-authority to have himself elected to the See of Peter by his parents. Because, you know, he is an "individual", and can make private decisions based on Catholic dogma!
And do not come and tell me that declaring the Holy See vacant is not an act. It is an act, and one of the same gravity as the act of electing a Pope. Garage elections such as that of David Bawden are as absurd as deciding by yourself that the Holy See is vacant starting from a specific moment, also decided by you. The absurdity of the do-it-yourself popes simply sticks out more.
I got two words into your meditation and then spent the next fifty-seven praying for you. The condition of sede vacante is obvious. How people react varies; Denial, departure, duress... God alone knows their heart. Your responsibility is to reason through this. Gather your facts, consider the perspective of others, pray unceasingly. We are all in this together. You alone are accountable, not to me or anyone here, but to God.
-
Only if you don't come and tell me that declaring which of each and every papal declaration, law, teaching, and comment is "valid" is not an act.
As if rejecting heresies is comparable to imposing a public status as a formal heretic on a Pope. Saint Paul has clearly stated that heretics must be avoided "after the first and second admonition". He directed these words to Saint Titus, a canonical Bishop. This is all elementary to Canon Law, but you Sedevacantists simply do not grasp it, because you do not understand the mechanisms of the loss of ecclesiastical office ipso facto through deviation from the Faith.
In the case of the Pope, there can be no canonical admonitions, since the Roman Pontiff is above Canon Law iure divino, but there must nevertheless be formal and public admonitions by the Church. Not by you, Myrna, or "Pope Michael", but by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is elementary to public order within a society, but you are too influenced by the protestant notion of private authority to grasp this. Guérard des Lauriers did grasp it, which is why he developed the absurd Cassiciacuм Thesis in an attempt to circuмvent it.
You abuse snippets from Catholic theologians and canonists to make the Teaching Church disappear, radically in contradiction with her indefectibility, and you come here talking about the 'absurdity' of those who reject this actual absurdity. You have become blind to how ridiculous it really is.
-
An even Seven,
More snippets! You insult me if you are presuming that I have not read these before.
The citation attributed to Saint Athanasius has been proven to be inauthentic, I should mention. Take a look at the Collectio selecta of Caillau and Guillon to which it is attributed, if you do not believe me. It is not in the actual letter.
-
An even Seven,
More snippets! You insult me if you are presuming that I have not read these before.
The citation attributed to Saint Athanasius has been proven to be inauthentic, I should mention. Take a look at the Collectio selecta of Caillau and Guillon to which it is attributed, if you do not believe me. It is not in the actual letter.
Strange I had a copy of this letter prior to the public having the Internet.
http://sspx.org/en/letter-st-athanasius
Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock
May God console you! ...What saddens you ...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises?but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?
True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.
-
Well put Myrna !
-
Read the Latin version of the letter, Nick. I have, and it is not in there.
-
You might find it in his Syriac Aramaic writings.
-
Meditate on this:
David Bawden also thought that he could declare the Pope bereft of his office because he was an "individual". He went a step further and applied his supreme private pseudo-authority to have himself elected to the See of Peter by his parents. Because, you know, he is an "individual", and can make private decisions based on Catholic dogma!
And do not come and tell me that declaring the Holy See vacant is not an act. It is an act, and one of the same gravity as the act of electing a Pope. Garage elections such as that of David Bawden are as absurd as deciding by yourself that the Holy See is vacant starting from a specific moment, also decided by you. The absurdity of the do-it-yourself popes simply sticks out more.
I got two words into your meditation and then spent the next fifty-seven praying for you. The condition of sede vacante is obvious. How people react varies; Denial, departure, duress... God alone knows their heart. Your responsibility is to reason through this. Gather your facts, consider the perspective of others, pray unceasingly. We are all in this together. You alone are accountable, not to me or anyone here, but to God.
Yes, the position is obvious. The smell of the stench-church is undeniable. BTW, I read latin too and I agree with Exilenomore that the sentence is not in the letter of St. Athanasius. So he is right. However, the inference is justified from the letter that it can be a small church.
-
The Church is called the Ecclesia Magna, the Great Church, by the Psalmist. You are falsely ascribing things to Saint Athanasius, a Church Father, who was in his teachings in complete accordance with Sacred Scripture. A particular Church can be reduced to a handful, but not the universal Church. Learn to make necessary distinctions.
You cannot use theologians, canonists, Church Fathers, or Popes to make the Teaching Church vanish. Where was the sedevacantist episcopate before Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga founded the sedevacantist church? Those first Sedevacantists who had themselves ordained to the episcopate were acting on the false premise that the Catholic hierarchy had been destroyed by heresy, and that they had to restore an episcopate by their reception of episcopal orders. They still speak this way today. Mr. Pivarunas, for example, has claimed that they must somehow be Successors to the Apostles because the Succession cannot be extinguished, thereby affirming that he considered the old hierarchy to have disappeared.
Aside from the fact alone that not occupying an episcopal see renders formal Apostolic Succession impossible, they are irreversibly stuck with a historical vacuum in their pretended succession, because there was no sedevacantist episcopate between the beginning of their alleged papal sedisvacancy until the first sedevacantist episcopal consecrations took place.
-
the magisterium hasn't vanished. It just has nothing to do with the new religion created after the death of Pius XII. The novus ordo is an entirely new religion. It has no relationship to the catholic church. You might as well belong to a protestant sect. The novus ordo is the equivalent of the protestant churches created during the reformation. I am concerned for the future of your soul exilenomore, because you belong to a new age loosey goosey religion in which there is no salvation. The absolutions in the stench-church are not valid. You had better rely then on perfect contritions or commit no mortal sins because you have no access to the sacrament of penance. Look to your soul.
-
BTW, I read latin too and I agree with Exilenomore that the sentence is not in the letter of St. Athanasius. So he is right. However, the inference is justified from the letter that it can be a small church.
In your opinion, how do you want me to correct the article?
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Letter_to_his_Flock.html
I can add a note to the page with your observations.
-
An even Seven,
I am not deflecting at all. You people are the ones who simply ignore refutations of your position by answering with small citations that actually do not disagree with what I have written.
Simply copy-and-pasting citations scattered on sedevacantist websites does not prove your false assertions. You need to study the actual texts, whence these citations originate, in their integrity, and contextualise them within the broader scope of the sacred sciences. Someone who is unable to do that does not have the competence to mingle himself into controversies on faith and morals. Do you understand the purpose of formal training in theology and Canon Law?
Not that I have received such training, but I make it a rule for myself not to write on anything of which I possess insufficient knowledge.
Are you planning to address my most recent post on the historical gap within your mutilated view on Apostolic Succession, or are you going to... deflect by silence?
-
the magisterium hasn't vanished.
Tell me, o self-appointed Inquisitor of the Two Americas and the vassal states of Europe; where was your sedevacantist magisterium before the first episcopal orders were received by Sedevacantists? Go ahead, fill the historical vacuum with the irresistable floods of your wisdom.
-
First, the sedevacantist position is not based on Jurisdictional law. It is based on Divine Law that a heretic is not in the Church. Second, there's much evidence out there that shows Apostolic Succession for Sedes.
Of course there is much evidence, God does not make mistakes, and the Papacy, the office is still there.
-
First, I am not ignoring anything. Second, most of my citations come from non Sede sites and a lot from the Vatican sites. Third, I doesn't matter how small they are if they prove the point.
1. You are ignoring most of what I have written in this thread.
2. These citations have been circulating on sedevacantist websites and more or less related forums for years. If you are relatively new to Sedevacantism, then I have probably read most of the citations that you have stored up even before you became a Sedevacantist.
3. Copy-and-pasting snippets from books, docuмents etc. without being able to construct arguments based on a more or less vast knowledge acquired either through public or private study, is a very unscientific method. Citation should accompany the latter, not replace it. And, while the theologians and Popes, whom you cite, prove many points, they are most certainly not your pretended points. Read the life of Saint Bellarmine to see how very far he was from the spirit of Sedevacantism. He was not anywhere close to concede a possibility of the Ecclesia docens vanishing into thin air, and he would have preferred death rather than to separate himself from it through schism.
First, prove that these citations were taken out of context. Second, the dogmas are defined in plain language so that all can understand. You don't need formal training to understand that a heretic is not in the Church, and when someone says something that is clearly contrary to dogma (even ambiguously) you must consider that person to be non-Catholic, no matter who that person is.
As I have already mentioned, the Blessed Apostle Paul stated that a heretic must be avoided after they have spurned canonical admonitions. One does not receive a canonical status as a public heretic with the Church by merely uttering a heresy, even if the person is obviously of bad faith and does not look in any way as if he is going to mend himself. Even the worst heretics have been tried by legitimate authorities before they were delivered to the secular arm. Why do you think the Inquisition was founded? To you, all of that is not important. Seminary training? Oh, who needs that! Everyone is a canonist and a theologian! Ecclesiastical trials? Who needs that when we have qeddeq and An even Seven? You do not think according to the spirit of the Church.
Allow me to cite from a very reputed theologian myself now. From Scavini's "Theologia Moralis Universa" (Tractatus de Fide.): "cuм hæresis sit crimen contra Religionem, judex legitimus in eo esse non potest, nisi Ecclesia : et jure definitum est. Sunt nempe : - 1. Pontifex pro toto orbe, et S. Congregatio Cardinalium generalium Inquisitorum ideo instituta; - 2. Episcopus pro sua Diœcesi, cui demandatum est gregem suum a venenatis pascuis avertere : imo ei facta est delegatio a Pontifice etiam contra Regulares exemptos, si opus sit. Ut tamen de hæresi cognoscat, Episcopi Vicarius, commissionem ab eo accipere debet; - 3. Vicarius capitularis, Sede vacante : huic tamen probabilius negant auctoritatem procedendi contra exemptos sine speciali apostolicæ Sedis delegatione; quia ipse non succedit Episcopo, nisi in iis, quæ sunt de jure ordinario : non autem in potestatem jurisdictionis delegatam, uti est præsertim quæ a Tridentino tribuitur Episcopis, tamquam Sedis Apostolicæ delegatis."
While this was written in the 19th century, and some of these jurisdictions can change over time, what is essential and immutable in the above citation is that it belongs only to the Church to judge heresy, with the Pope possessing the jurisdiction to do so in the whole Church, and the Bishops in their Dioceses. "Since heresy is a crime against Religion, its legitimate judge can be no other than the Church".
First, the sedevacantist position is not based on Jurisdictional law. It is based on Divine Law that a heretic is not in the Church. Second, there's much evidence out there that shows Apostolic Succession for Sedes.
"Episcopi sunt Apostolorum successores atque ex divina institutione peculiaribus ecclesiis praeficiuntur quas cuм potestate ordinaria regunt sub auctoritate Romani Pontificis." [Canon 329, § 1, from the pio-benedictine Codex]
Jurisdiction resides in the Church by divine institution. In the above Canon, formal Bishops, that is, Apostolic Successors are defined by divine law as being in possession of episcopal sees under the authority of the Holy Father. No episcopal see means no actual Apostolic Succession.
These Apostolic Successors must exist in the Church in an unbroken way from the days of the Apostles unto our days. The sedevacantist world is not only bereft of an episcopate that even claims to possess episcopal sees, but in their mutilated view on Apostolic Succession, there has been a historical void where they had no bishops at all from the beginning of their imaginary vacancy until the first sedevacantist episcopal consecrations.
Why do you not give me five names or so of sedevacantist 'apostolic successors' before the aforementioned sedevacantist episcopal consecrations took place? You cannot give me an answer, because these names do not exist. It has been a primary matter of discussion among yourselves for years, and it is known among you as "the question of apostolicity". You have a huge gap in your pretended recent history of Apostolic Succession, and you will never be able to fill it up. It is one of the indelible marks of schism and breach from the historical Church of Christ, deeply impressed on the forehead of your new anarchist church, constructed by human hand.
I will add some more to this. In the small world of Sedevacantism, every person is required to be a master in the principle of equity (epikeia), where everyone must decide for himself whether this or that law is still binding, whether this or that bishop may be approached for the Sacraments, whether the Index librorum prohibitorum still binds under pain of excommunication, and so forth. This is not at all practically equal to resisting condradictions with the spirit of the Church while recognising the legitimate authorities, because this means resisting what is clearly irreconcilable with the past. When the authorities command something which is not clearly detrimental to the good of the Church, the presumption is on the side of the legitimacy of the command, and so we are able to put our consciences at rest. But for you there is no rest, as you have called a weight and responsability upon your shoulders that is unreal and insupportable for men.
-
To break it down to simple terms Exilenmore is saying it matter NOT what the pope says, does, or thinks; because he has been elected, therefore, he can say anything he wants at any given time. Travel to this place or that place embrace all people by opening his arms without any thought of correcting sinful behaviors. The Mission of the Church THAT CHRIST STATED is now somewhere in the past centuries. The farthest thing in A POPES MIND is not the salvation of the souls of his flock today. TODAY WE FOLLOW THE MASON SLOGAN We live in the days of Enlightenment Fraternity, Liberty, and Equality the Masonic slogan.
The only qualification of being a True Pope, is that to have been elected. It matters not who elected the man be they themselves are Catholic or not. Today the thinking of Exilenmore and others who are like-minded is the ELECTION period.
All emphasis is on the fact that someone elected this man, and so be it!
-
Read the life of Saint Bellarmine to see how very far he was from the spirit of Sedevacantism. He was not anywhere close to concede a possibility of the Ecclesia docens vanishing into thin air, and he would have preferred death rather than to separate himself from it through schism.
Your blindness is mind-boggling! Are you seriously proposing that St. Robert Bellarmine would repudiate his own teaching in order to embrace the idea that it is permissible to disobey and separate from our head, the Pope? This is precisely what the SSPX (R&R) ecclesiology is proposing. But St. Robert Bellarmine specifically addressed that position and concluded that it is impossible. Rather he concluded that in the case where the pope falls into public heresy, he loses his office immediately and it is then permissible to separate from him (as it is necessary that we Catholics have nothing to do with public heretics). The SSPX has indeed separated itself from the Conciliar hierarchy (that's good!) but their explanation for how that is possible, is not based on the Church's traditional ecclesiology going back to St. Robert Bellarmine's time. And don't try to tell me that the R&R folks have not separated from the Conciliar hierarchy. You will only discredit yourself further.
Any claim by an R&R person that SVs are schismatic is hypocrisy plain and simple.
-
Clemens Maria,
I am not a follower of the SSPX. I want to live within the jurisdiction of the Pope and the Episcopate, while resisting the modern heresies and nefarious praxis. I do not support constructing separate church-structures like the SSPX, and no where in my writings above have I mentioned them. Neither have I stated that we must become freemasons, like Myrna would like to read in my words.
And I completely reject the notion that Sedevacantism is the teaching of Saint Bellarmine, so I am not at all proposing that he would repudiate any of the teachings or opinions that were actually his.
I do not expect any of you to actually address anything of what I have written in my most recent post.
-
And, indeed, I disobey the Roman Pontiff when he tells me to stop being Catholic. Cry me a river.
-
I did not assume nor mean that those who have followed into the new church have actually, in reality, became Freemasons.
The point is your "pope" had adapted to the world and has either submitted to the slogans of the Masons or has been one all along. That is not the Catholic way! Many times in life the majority have been wrong, just because the novus ordo are larger in numbers, compared to those who will not adhere to them, does not mean they are correct.
-
And, indeed, I disobey the Roman Pontiff when he tells me to stop being Catholic. Cry me a river.
Yes, you are one of those people who truly are more Catholic than the pope! Congratulations!
-
Congratulations!
Thank you!
-
An even Seven,
I am not deflecting at all. You people are the ones who simply ignore refutations of your position by answering with small citations that actually do not disagree with what I have written.
Simply copy-and-pasting citations scattered on sedevacantist websites does not prove your false assertions. You need to study the actual texts, whence these citations originate, in their integrity, and contextualise them within the broader scope of the sacred sciences. Someone who is unable to do that does not have the competence to mingle himself into controversies on faith and morals. Do you understand the purpose of formal training in theology and Canon Law?
Not that I have received such training, but I make it a rule for myself not to write on anything of which I possess insufficient knowledge.
Are you planning to address my most recent post on the historical gap within your mutilated view on Apostolic Succession, or are you going to... deflect by silence?
We've been around long enough to know how newcomers to either the sedes or the sspx suddenly seem to know everything. No use trying to tell any one of them that what they don't know is a lot more than they do.
-
To break it down to simple terms Exilenmore is saying it matter NOT what the pope says, does, or thinks; because he has been elected, therefore, he can say anything he wants at any given time. Travel to this place or that place embrace all people by opening his arms without any thought of correcting sinful behaviors. The Mission of the Church THAT CHRIST STATED is now somewhere in the past centuries. The farthest thing in A POPES MIND is not the salvation of the souls of his flock today. TODAY WE FOLLOW THE MASON SLOGAN We live in the days of Enlightenment Fraternity, Liberty, and Equality the Masonic slogan.
The only qualification of being a True Pope, is that to have been elected. It matters not who elected the man be they themselves are Catholic or not. Today the thinking of Exilenmore and others who are like-minded is the ELECTION period.
All emphasis is on the fact that someone elected this man, and so be it!
Nice. He is no longer exiled from the Novus Ordo. Very sad.
-
Who's in Schism? You are the one who said that you "disobey the Roman Pontiff when he tells me to stop being Catholic." That says it all right there. I can't figure out why a POPE would tell someone to stop being Catholic. Unless he were not Pope at all.
You have a very puerile conception of what the words schism and disobedience mean. You act as if authority cannot be abused; that there is some kind of metaphysical impossibility of a Pope uttering blasphemies or commands that contradict the divine laws. But that is not how the Church understands authority.
It is very childish of you to pretend that a person can be in schism for not jumping into a pit at the command of a superiour. Even disobeying legitimate commands is not an act of schism, but simply an act of disobedience.
Well, I could take your false opinion as to what St. Paul means and what I'm supposed to do with a public heretic and whether I should wait around for the legitimate authorities to do something before I stop being subject to them; but I think I'll follow what St. Robert and St. Jerome say:
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”
Have you even read what you have cited? Bellarmine clearly states that a heretic is ipso facto deposed after the Church has established that he is a heretic. There is a difference between a sentence of excommunication and juridically establishing a fact of heresy. This is where Sedevacantists are confused; they blur the distinction and think that Bellarmine has said that the latter is unnecessary in being severed from the Church as a heretic. The contrary is the truth, however, and this is proven by the fact that he cites Saint Paul on canonical admonitions.
The citation from Scavini is sufficiently clear on the matter. And he was not some obscure theologian, but a very reputed one. The Blessed Pope Pius IX, Prisoner of the Vatican and the Pope of the Zouaves, praised his work as a faithful representation of the moral theology of Saint Alphonse Liguori.
Imagine what the Middle Ages would have looked like, had your opinion prevailed in those days. Secular princes could have employed that false principle to the fullest, and burn every one whom they considered to be heretics, even if it were simply to take their money, without being hindered by the necessity for ecclesiastical trials. Again, very protestant.
These seminaries that you speak of, are they the ones where heresy is taught from heretics. I have had Novus Ordo friends in those seminaries and they explained a lot to me. Way more than enough to know that they are dens of iniquity and heresy.
When I speak of the need for seminary training, I mean sound, authentic seminary training. Not some typically progressist seminary au modèle belge.
-
Who's in Schism? You are the one who said that you "disobey the Roman Pontiff when he tells me to stop being Catholic." That says it all right there. I can't figure out why a POPE would tell someone to stop being Catholic. Unless he were not Pope at all.
You have a very puerile conception of what the words schism and disobedience mean. You act as if authority cannot be abused; that there is some kind of metaphysical impossibility of a Pope uttering blasphemies or commands that contradict the divine laws. But that is not how the Church understands authority.
It is very childish of you to pretend that a person can be in schism for not jumping into a pit at the command of a superiour. Even disobeying legitimate commands is not an act of schism, but simply an act of disobedience.
Well, I could take your false opinion as to what St. Paul means and what I'm supposed to do with a public heretic and whether I should wait around for the legitimate authorities to do something before I stop being subject to them; but I think I'll follow what St. Robert and St. Jerome say:
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”
Have you even read what you have cited? Bellarmine clearly states that a heretic is ipso facto deposed after the Church has established that he is a heretic. There is a difference between a sentence of excommunication and juridically establishing a fact of heresy. This is where Sedevacantists are confused; they blur the distinction and think that Bellarmine has said that the latter is unnecessary in being severed from the Church as a heretic. The contrary is the truth, however, and this is proven by the fact that he cites Saint Paul on canonical admonitions.
The citation from Scavini is sufficiently clear on the matter. And he was not some obscure theologian, but a very reputed one. The Blessed Pope Pius IX, Prisoner of the Vatican and the Pope of the Zouaves, praised his work as a faithful representation of the moral theology of Saint Alphonse Liguori.
Imagine what the Middle Ages would have looked like, had your opinion prevailed in those days. Secular princes could have employed that false principle to the fullest, and burn every one whom they considered to be heretics, even if it were simply to take their money, without being hindered by the necessity for ecclesiastical trials. Again, very protestant.
You are either dishonest or ignorant in regards to the words you put in Bellarmine's mouth. They lose the office by the very fact of public heresy. He makes this very clear. Ipso facto, BY THAT VERY FACT. Quite trying to wish the facts away and daring to lead others astray by your wish.
-
You are creating discordancies between theologians where they do not exist. You simply do not seem to understand what you read, but that proves all the more that you should not be writing publically on religious matters at all, even if you would not be spreading Sedevacantism.
There is simply no discordancy between Bellarmine and Scavini regarding the necessity for ecclesiastical trials. Quite ironic that you are the one speaking of wishful thinking.
-
You are creating discordancies between theologians where they do not exist. You simply do not seem to understand what you read, but that proves all the more that you should not be writing publically on religious matters at all, even if you would not be spreading Sedevacantism.
There is simply no discordancy between Bellarmine and Scavini regarding the necessity for ecclesiastical trials. Quite ironic that you are the one speaking of wishful thinking.
What you say would be true were it not false.
-
I am subject to the Roman Pontiff, but even His Holiness does not have the right to tell me that I have to disobey God. And while disobeying legitimate commands from the Pope is a sin, it is nevertheless not an act of schism. Again, all very basic. That you are even unaware of the distinction between mere disobedience and schism, shows that you are not well read on sacred theology.
Furthermore, you are simply repeating your erroneous opinion on papal loss of office once again, without even addressing Scavini, who is very clear on the subject of heresy. I do not hold Catholic doctrine to be "trivial"; the truth is that you are misrepresenting and mutilating it.
You come across as someone who is not interested in attaining to the truth, but as one who is embittered because he has been confounded, trying to cover it up by insisting on having the last word.
No one said they should burn them, only that we recognize them for who they are (i.e. heretics) and avoid them accordingly.
It is licit for the secular arm to put heretics to death, but only after they have been tried by ecclesiastical authority. Since you discard ecclesiastical trials as unnecessary, it follows that your opinion would have potentially led to arbitrary killings in the Middle Ages, had it prevailed then.
-
There has been a lot of back and forth on the sede issue and the crisis in the Church but would it be possible for Knish to explain the sudden revert from sedevacantism?
Knish, please explain why you decided to renounce sedevacantism.
-
There has been a lot of back and forth on the sede issue and the crisis in the Church but would it be possible for Knish to explain the sudden revert from sedevacantism?
Knish, please explain why you decided to renounce sedevacantism.
Yes. This would be good. He kind of owes it to us doesn't he? I think it was pressure. You'll be damned type stuff they scared him with.
-
This is from M. Davies. Do you agree with him when he says that no conciliar popes have rejected doctrines de fide divina et catholica?
"There has never been a case of a pope who was undoubtedly a formal heretic, and it is unlikely in the extreme that there ever will be one. This will become evident if some consideration is given to examining precisely what constitutes formal heresy. The Code of Canon Law defines an heretic as one who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Catholic, pertinaciously doubts or denies one of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.(10) It teaches us that by divine and Catholic faith must be believed all that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its Ordinary Universal Magisterium.(11) No teaching is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved.(12)
A doctrine is de fide divina et catholica only when it has been infallibly declared by the Church to be revealed by God. Hence this term does not apply to doctrines which one knows to have been revealed by God, but which have not been declared by the Church to have been so revealed (de fide divina); nor to those which the Church has infallibly declared, but which she does not present formally as having been revealed (de fide ecclesiastica); nor to those which the Church teaches without exercising her infallible authority upon them. If a doctrine is not de fide divina et catholica, a person is not an heretic for denying or doubting it, though such a denial or doubt may be grave sin.(13)
3. The Conciliar Popes
It should now be apparent that there is no case whatsoever for claiming that any of the conciliar popes have lost their office as a result of heresy. Anyone wishing to dispute this assertion would need to state the doctrines de fide divina et catholica which any of these popes are alleged to have rejected pertinaciously. There is not one instance which comes remotely within this category. The nearest one can come to a formal contradiction between preconciliar and post-conciliar teaching is the subject of religious liberty. It has yet to be shown how they can be reconciled.(14) It is possible that the Magisterium will eventually have to present either a correction or at least a clarification of the teaching of Vatican II on this subject. Neither the pre-conciliar teaching nor that of the Council on religious liberty comes within the category of de fide divina et catholica, and so the question of formal heresy does not arise."
-
It would be nice if the anti-SV opponents would attempt to slay something other than strawmen, hollow men.Men like these in T.S. Eliot's poem:
The Hollow Men
Mistah Kurtz-he dead
A penny for the Old Guy
I
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us-if at all-not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
II
Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death's dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind's singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.
Let me be no nearer
In death's dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer-
Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom
III
This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.
Is it like this
In death's other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.
IV
The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms
In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river
Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.
V
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
-
This is from M. Davies. Do you agree with him when he says that no conciliar popes have rejected doctrines de fide divina et catholica?
"There has never been a case of a pope who was undoubtedly a formal heretic, and it is unlikely in the extreme that there ever will be one. This will become evident if some consideration is given to examining precisely what constitutes formal heresy. The Code of Canon Law defines an heretic as one who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Catholic, pertinaciously doubts or denies one of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.(10) It teaches us that by divine and Catholic faith must be believed all that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its Ordinary Universal Magisterium.(11) No teaching is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved.(12)
A doctrine is de fide divina et catholica only when it has been infallibly declared by the Church to be revealed by God. Hence this term does not apply to doctrines which one knows to have been revealed by God, but which have not been declared by the Church to have been so revealed (de fide divina); nor to those which the Church has infallibly declared, but which she does not present formally as having been revealed (de fide ecclesiastica); nor to those which the Church teaches without exercising her infallible authority upon them. If a doctrine is not de fide divina et catholica, a person is not an heretic for denying or doubting it, though such a denial or doubt may be grave sin.(13)
3. The Conciliar Popes
It should now be apparent that there is no case whatsoever for claiming that any of the conciliar popes have lost their office as a result of heresy. Anyone wishing to dispute this assertion would need to state the doctrines de fide divina et catholica which any of these popes are alleged to have rejected pertinaciously. There is not one instance which comes remotely within this category. The nearest one can come to a formal contradiction between preconciliar and post-conciliar teaching is the subject of religious liberty. It has yet to be shown how they can be reconciled.(14) It is possible that the Magisterium will eventually have to present either a correction or at least a clarification of the teaching of Vatican II on this subject. Neither the pre-conciliar teaching nor that of the Council on religious liberty comes within the category of de fide divina et catholica, and so the question of formal heresy does not arise."
If you really care about the truth of M. Davies please read the following link:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/daly-davies-an-evaluation.htm
He was intellectually dishonest which should eliminate him from consideration right there.
-
thanks. I took a look at that. free download.
-
thanks. I took a look at that. free download.
It is a great book and worth reading all the way through. He is incredibly thorough. If it is possible for that to be an understatement, it is. He leaves no question unanswered, a very satisfying read and highly informative.