Author Topic: Yet another ignorant comment about SVs (Read 12959 times)

Mabel · « **Reply #80 on:** November 06, 2013, 04:53:11 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote
I believe the traditional bishops could elect a valid Pope. Nothing wrong with being a "conclavist". The Catholic Church is conclavist.

If some or all of the traditional bishops usurp the power of election, I will immediately cut myself off from them, as they will be schismatics. I know many like myself who would do the same.

We would witness the birth of another antipope.

Right there with you. I want nothing to do with an unlawful conclave. How do you think we got Pope Michael and Pius XIII?

On the other hand, I'd be willing to do anything to aid the legitimate electors in a conclave.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #81 on:** November 06, 2013, 06:02:47 PM »

Quote from: SJB

The true opinion is the fifth.

That's your opinion.

...

There are in fact quite a few serious problem with "the fifth".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #82 on:** November 06, 2013, 06:13:45 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Your posts do intrigue me though because you don't seem to fall into either camp (SV or non-SV) and I'm still left wondering where you stand. If I'm accurate in stating this, exactly how do you explain the crisis? Is there some other option I'm not considering?

I would call myself tongue-in-cheek a "sede-doubtist". I personally believe that it's extremely likely, almost virtually certain, that the Holy See is vacant. But I also believe that the Church must make definitive judgment on the matter and that I cannot usurp the authority of the Church in that regard. I believe that Cardinal Siri was most likely elected in 1958 and that the subsequent elections through 1989 (the death of Siri) were invalid. Then you have Benedict XVI who most likely did not possess valid episcopal consecration, and Francis I, who may not even have valid priestly ordination.

Legitimacy of a pope is a dogmatic fact and must therefore be known a priori with the certainty of faith.

Here's my illustration of the problem. Let's say I'm living at the time of Pius IX and believe that the dogma of infallibility is heretical. All I would have to say is that Pius IX was a heretic in order to reject the dogma of infallibility.

If anything, I find the Cassiacuм theory appealing (formal-material pope distinction); it makes the most sense to me.

I'm not convinced of the St. Robert Bellarmine position regarding heretical popes, but I personally consider it objectively heretical to say that a legitimate Pope could promulgate a harmful rite of Mass and that an Ecuмenical Council certified by a legitimate Pope could teach grave error to the Church.

And THAT is my biggest problem with Traditional sedeplenism; I would have been universally condemned as a heretic 75 years ago if I held that the Church could do this.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #83 on:** November 06, 2013, 06:56:30 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: gooch
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: gooch

T

not sure about that

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#12), Jan. 6, 1873, Definition of a Schismatic: “For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 39, A. 2: “Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit. Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church… Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”

The reason that the SSPX is not in schism is due to the very thing that they deny. One cannot be a schismatic for resisting an antipope.

You may say, "but they say he is pope," and you are right, but they are still not schismatic, as these are antipopes, not popes.

it's funny I was thinking that very thought today, they aren't schismatic since there is no true pope, but it shows how ridiculous their position is, if they do claim he is a true pope they then condemn themselves as schismatic...I don't see how they get around this issue

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #84 on:** November 06, 2013, 07:08:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

But I also believe that the Church must make definitive judgment on the matter and that I cannot usurp the authority of the Church in that regard.

I agree with that. I would also add that not only can I not usurp the authority of the Church but neither can any Catholic who wishes to remain in the state of grace. But what does it mean to usurp the authority of the Church? It was asked earlier in this thread, who can remove the pope today? I think most traditionalists would agree that even if the Novus Ordo hierarchy wanted to remove the pope, would they have any credibility among traditionalists? Maybe. But given the doubts about their own orthodoxy and even the doubts about their orders, it would make for a very doubtful resolution. So if most or all of the novus ordo cardinals and bishops are excluded who does that leave? But then if we insist that traditional bishops and clergy have no authority to depose the pope and elect a new one then we are at an impass. I would argue that Our Lord would not put his Church in the position of being in an unsolvable situation. So either the NO hierarchy is competent to remove the pope or traditional clergy are. It simply cannot be that NOBODY has the authority to remove a heretic from office.