Author Topic: Yet another ignorant comment about SVs (Read 9583 times)

2Vermont · « **on:** November 03, 2013, 07:13:22 AM »

Sedevacantists just wish to take the easy way out. Rather than deal with the turmoil of the Post V-II era, they just ignore the authority of the Church

Brought to you by another ignorant poster at FE.

Thank you Geremia for your most excellent response:

According to them, those who appear to many to have authority actually do not because they have lost the faith, so sedevacantists aren't ignoring "the authority of the Church"; quite to the contrary, they uphold this authority as it has historically and properly been exercised.

And the "easy way out"? I wish it were that "easy". Stupid comments like this just get me angry.

soulguard · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2013, 07:33:08 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Sedevacantists just wish to take the easy way out. Rather than deal with the turmoil of the Post V-II era, they just ignore the authority of the Church

Brought to you by another ignorant poster at FE.

Thank you Geremia for your most excellent response:

According to them, those who appear to many to have authority actually do not because they have lost the faith, so sedevacantists aren't ignoring "the authority of the Church"; quite to the contrary, they uphold this authority as it has historically and properly been exercised.

And the "easy way out"? I wish it were that "easy". Stupid comments like this just get me angry.

I don't think anyone would deny that Francis 1 is a heretic... but whether or not he is the pope depends on whether or not he is formal in his heresy.
Formal means declared heresy. He is currently a material heretic because the matter of heresy is present, and has been present in all conciliar "popes". But he is not a formal heretic unless, as Fr Hesse says, he says something like "the catholic church teaches X, but I say ..."

Fr Hesse then adds to this the notion that no one can judge the pope, except God. Yet elsewhere it is thought that if anyone in the church is a heretic, they fall out of the church, and maybe even are excommunicated. So God who is the only superior of the pope, has judged this man, and has by his divine law caused him to be outside the church for his apostasy. Fr Hesse's arguments seem to be based on attributing more weight to some teachings and deeming others to be irrelevant. It is thought that a heretic cannot be pope, because they are not part of the church. This is how the church defends itself from heretical claimants to the papacy. I don't see why this teaching suddenly ceases to apply today when it applied in the past.

Bergoglio has expressed his heresies with words, therefore he declares his heresy, he declared something different than Catholic doctrine to be the case, and he does this with virtually everything he says.
If he was a material heretic only, like Benedict going into ѕуηαgσgυєs and Jp2 in the mosque kissing the Koran, then he would need to defend his actions with words before he becomes a formal heretic.

He has formally said that he believes in a God other than the one known by the Catholic church, "I believe in God, but not a Catholic God".
This is one example of formal heresy, and is apostasy.

He is definitely, absolutely, incontrovertibly, with a doubt, NOT the pope, because he is a heretic and an apostate.

Also, he has not been challenged by the cardinals because many of them are freemasons, and this is a fact that they freely admit and don't bother to hide.
Anyone who would rely on the upper hierarchy of the Vatican church to depose Francis 1 is not looking at the facts. These people admit to be freemasons and go to their lodges and are listed as members of lodges on freemason websites. They are in those positions exclusively to erase what is left of Catholic doctrine because as the famous freemasonic lodge the Alta Vendita stated: Our mission is not just the destruction of the church, but the eradication of the Christian ideal.

Francis is an enemy to every Catholic, and his claims of humility and his utter stupidity don't excuse him. Just because he was elected by freemasons and wears white does not mean he is the pope. The church is not tied to any particular place.

The true faithful must break away and when our numbers are large enough, elect our own pope.

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2013, 10:17:01 AM »

Quote from: soulguard

I don't think anyone would deny that Francis 1 is a heretic... but whether or not he is the pope depends on whether or not he is formal in his heresy.
Formal means declared heresy. He is currently a material heretic because the matter of heresy is present, and has been present in all conciliar "popes". But he is not a formal heretic unless, as Fr Hesse says, he says something like "the catholic church teaches X, but I say ..."

Where did Fr. Hesse learn this? One must state a heresy in a particular formula?

What you're saying is that only heretics condemned by name are real heretics. There is no source for this interpretation. A Catholic who mistakenly holds a heretical position isn't a "material heretic," he just holds a material heresy without the pertinacity that would make him a heretic.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2013, 11:33:06 AM »

Quote from: soulguard

I don't think anyone would deny that Francis 1 is a heretic... but whether or not he is the pope depends on whether or not he is formal in his heresy.

I know quite a few people who would absolutely deny that Bergoglio is a heretic, and many of them are traditional Catholics. They say he is "in error" or "insane" or his mind is "Modernist" and simply cannot see the truth, but they absolutely deny that he is a heretic.

He is, however, most certainly a heretic and, while the Church has not yet condemned him by name (though one day he and all the Conciliar popes will be) he is certainly a heretic both materially and formally. He absolutely knows what the Catholic Church teaches and he absolutely rejects what the Catholic Church teaches and substitutes his own teaching.

Memento · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2013, 01:41:04 PM »

Can the excerpts below from St. Thomas Aquinas' De Veritate apply to the question as to why he could or would be a heretic if he says something ignorant of the faith?

Question 14
Excerpts

..."However, in the time of grace, everybody, the leaders and the ordinary people, have to have explicit faith in the Trinity and in the Redeemer. However, only the leaders, and not the ordinary people, are bound to believe explicitly all the matters of faith concerning the Trinity and the Redeemer. The ordinary people must, however, believe explicitly the general articles, such as that God is triune, that the Son of God was made flesh, died, and rose from the dead, and other like matters which the Church commemorates in her feasts. "

..." 6. That some of the faithful must believe explicitly what others have to believe only implicitly does not come from a difference in the habit of faith, but from different duties. For one who is made a teacher of the faith should know explicitly those things which he must or ought to teach. And the higher his position is, the more perfect a knowledge of matters of faith he should have."

2Vermont · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2013, 03:28:49 PM »

Quote from: Memento

Can the excerpts below from St. Thomas Aquinas' De Veritate apply to the question as to why he could or would be a heretic if he says something ignorant of the faith?

Question 14
Excerpts

..."However, in the time of grace, everybody, the leaders and the ordinary people, have to have explicit faith in the Trinity and in the Redeemer. However, only the leaders, and not the ordinary people, are bound to believe explicitly all the matters of faith concerning the Trinity and the Redeemer. The ordinary people must, however, believe explicitly the general articles, such as that God is triune, that the Son of God was made flesh, died, and rose from the dead, and other like matters which the Church commemorates in her feasts. "

..." 6. That some of the faithful must believe explicitly what others have to believe only implicitly does not come from a difference in the habit of faith, but from different duties. For one who is made a teacher of the faith should know explicitly those things which he must or ought to teach. And the higher his position is, the more perfect a knowledge of matters of faith he should have."

Yes, rightful leaders should have explicit knowledge and I would argue that when one has a more perfect knowledge of the Faith that off-the-cuff comments still actually impart the Faith.

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2013, 03:34:13 PM »

Oh, snap. And here is the FE rebuttal:

They deny the authority of the Pope, the head of the Church. Ergo, they deny the Church's authority. V-II, as horrendous as it was, was not a loss of faith on the part of the Church. Sedevacantists are not upholding anything. The SSPX, on the other hand, is

You mean a heretical pope?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2013, 04:38:40 PM »

What's at issue here, though, is NOT the personal heresy of Bergoglio. On one level, I could hardly care less if he spouted heresy every single day from sunrise to sunset. This is about the indefectibility of the Church. I have a serious problem with saying that Popes and a General Council could use their divinely-protected authority to lead the entire Church into grave error and heresy. What then does the Church's indefectibility mean? What does it mean that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church?

If you were to hold the SSPX position 75 years ago, and say that it's possible for this to happen, you would have been condemend for heresy. Theologians even unanimously taught that it was de fide that the Church could not err in matters of universal discipline, so that saying that the Church promulgated a Rite of Mass that's essentially corrupt and harmful to the faith, that would have been considered heretical by the unanimous consensus of all theologians.

In one lengthy conversation I once had with Bishop Williamson, I mentioned this to him. His Excellency replied that the theologians could not have envisioned the circuмstances that apply today. But I asked, Don't the principles involved still apply? What are the appropriate distinctions here?

It's a very tough problem. I'd have an easier time believing the imposter Paul VI theory than that True Popes and an Ecuмenical Council taught grave error to the Church. What an unspeakable blight that would be upon Holy Mother Church? That opinion simply isn't compatible with my faith in the Catholic Church.

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2013, 05:07:51 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

What's at issue here, though, is NOT the personal heresy of Bergoglio. On one level, I could hardly care less if he spouted heresy every single day from sunrise to sunset. This is about the indefectibility of the Church. I have a serious problem with saying that Popes and a General Council could use their divinely-protected authority to lead the entire Church into grave error and heresy. What then does the Church's indefectibility mean? What does it mean that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church?

If you were to hold the SSPX position 75 years ago, and say that it's possible for this to happen, you would have been condemend for heresy. Theologians even unanimously taught that it was de fide that the Church could not err in matters of universal discipline, so that saying that the Church promulgated a Rite of Mass that's essentially corrupt and harmful to the faith, that would have been considered heretical by the unanimous consensus of all theologians.

In one lengthy conversation I once had with Bishop Williamson, I mentioned this to him. His Excellency replied that the theologians could not have envisioned the circuмstances that apply today. But I asked, Don't the principles involved still apply? What are the appropriate distinctions here?

It's a very tough problem. I'd have an easier time believing the imposter Paul VI theory than that True Popes and an Ecuмenical Council taught grave error to the Church. What an unspeakable blight that would be upon Holy Mother Church? That opinion simply isn't compatible with my faith in the Catholic Church.

How does a heretical pope support indefectibility of the Church? The issue is a real pope wouldn't lead the Church into heresy. Hence, SV.

Cantarella · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2013, 05:23:50 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

How does a heretical pope support indefectibility of the Church? The issue is a real pope wouldn't lead the Church into heresy. Hence, SV.

How does an invisible pope support indefectibility of the Church?

The Indefectibility of the Church means that the Church cannot defect. No matter how you slice it, the sedevacantist position (the idea that the Church has been decapitated for half a century, thus producing invalid sacraments, a false priesthood and an ecclesiastical structure totally devoid of grace) is totally contrary to the Church’s indefectibility.

The Church’s Indefectibility and her perpetual Visibility (in which the Supreme Pontiff is head) are totally related.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2013, 05:25:51 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

How does a heretical pope support indefectibility of the Church? The issue is a real pope wouldn't lead the Church into heresy. Hence, SV.

You're conflating the two distinct SV arguments, the one modo tollentis the other modo ponentis. It's important to keep them separate.

MT --

Major: Legitimate Popes cannot teach heresy ex cathedra.
Minor: Paul VI taught heresy ex cathedra.
Conclusion: Paul VI cannot have been a legitimate pope.

MP --

Major: Heretics cannot be popes.
Minor: Paul VI was a heretic.
Conclusion: Paul VI was not a pope.

MP argument is much more difficult, fraught with difficulties in establishing formal heresy.

MT argument represents the REAL problem here.

MP issue is also less important in the sense that even if a pope happened to be a heretic, it doesn't impact the Church if he doesn't teach any heresy ex cathedra.

Sedevacantists tend to make this a bitter personal crusade rather than an issue of principle.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2013, 05:27:37 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: 2Vermont

How does a heretical pope support indefectibility of the Church? The issue is a real pope wouldn't lead the Church into heresy. Hence, SV.

How does an invisible pope support indefectibility of the Church?

The Indefectibility of the Church means that the Church cannot defect. No matter how you slice it, the sedevacantist position (the idea that the Church has been decapitated for half a century, thus producing invalid sacraments, a false priesthood and an ecclesiastical structure totally devoid of grace) is totally contrary to the Church’s indefectibility.

The Church’s Indefectibility and her perpetual Visibility (in which the Supreme Pontiff is head) are totally related.

It is absolutely NOT contrary to the Church's indefectibility to have an extended period of sedevacante. What's REALLY contrary to the Church's indefectibility, and I would argue at least proximate to heresy, is to say that a legitimate Pope and legitimate Ecuмenical Council can lead the entire Church into error and heresy.

2Vermont · « **Reply #12 on:** November 03, 2013, 05:32:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
How does a heretical pope support indefectibility of the Church? The issue is a real pope wouldn't lead the Church into heresy. Hence, SV.

You're conflating the two distinct SV arguments, the one modo tollentis the other modo ponentis. It's important to keep them separate.

MT --

Major: Legitimate Popes cannot teach heresy ex cathedra.
Minor: Paul VI taught heresy ex cathedra.
Conclusion: Paul VI cannot have been a legitimate pope.

MP --

Major: Heretics cannot be popes.
Minor: Paul VI was a heretic.
Conclusion: Paul VI was not a pope.

MP argument is much more difficult, fraught with difficulties in establishing formal heresy.

MT argument represents the REAL problem here.

MP issue is also less important in the sense that even if a pope happened to be a heretic, it doesn't impact the Church if he doesn't teach any heresy ex cathedra.

Sedevacantists tend to make this a bitter personal crusade rather than an issue of principle.

I do not understand what you're saying. One minute you seem to be anti-SV and the next you seem to be supporting the SV position.

As for the "bitter personal crusade" comment, yes, let's continue to spout that ignorant insult too.

Cantarella · « **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2013, 05:34:52 PM »

Sedevacantism is solely based on speculations. The vacancy of the Pope has not been proved by the due authority. The Holy Mother Church. The Catholic who refuses his submission to the pontiff is in grave danger of the mortal sin of schism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 03, 2013, 05:35:14 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: 2Vermont

How does a heretical pope support indefectibility of the Church? The issue is a real pope wouldn't lead the Church into heresy. Hence, SV.

How does an invisible pope support indefectibility of the Church?

The Indefectibility of the Church means that the Church cannot defect. No matter how you slice it, the sedevacantist position (the idea that the Church has been decapitated for half a century, thus producing invalid sacraments, a false priesthood and an ecclesiastical structure totally devoid of grace) is totally contrary to the Church’s indefectibility.

The Church’s Indefectibility and her perpetual Visibility (in which the Supreme Pontiff is head) are totally related.

Given your theology here, please cite the exact numbers of years after which an extended period of sedevacante would cause the Church to have cased and to have defected. We've had some several-year sedevancate periods. Give an exact number please.

On the contrary, you would have us believe in a Pope that positively teaches error to the Church. Let's say that for some political reason (e.g. a Soviet nuking of the Vatican and takeover of Europe), no pope had been elected since Pius XII. Yet you had people all over the world continuing to practice the Faith in the form that it took in 1958. At what point would the Church have ceased to exist? On the other hand, we have "Popes" positively destroying the Faith, the Church, and the Mass.