Quote from: J.Paul

It is unquestionable that recognize and resist is as Mr. Vere comments is internally inconsistent. Upon an objective analysis of the Archbishop, I believe there is strong evidence that he acted in an inconsistent manner in certain areas.

[...]

And to clarify, I am not advocating the sedevacantist position as it too has its own contradictions and inconsistencies.

This false choice which is presented by this either or controversy

You should not be too hard on the Archbishop when you yourself appear to have no solid answer to the the question that he and every other thinking Catholic faced. There are no true contradictions in nature, yet many topics can appear contradictory without full understanding of the context. The Trinity is an obvious example. The Church has never before confronted a situation where almost the entire hierarchy and most of the faithful surreptitiously abandoned orthodoxy and remained in that condition for several decades (and counting). Therefore, no clear precedent exists for a remedy. We try out different strategies hoping to find a way to reestablish the hierarchy. If one strategy appears not to work, we sometimes try another. That is not necessarily contradictory unless one attempts to dogmatize a particular unproven strategy like some of the sede's.

Absolutely, the Church has never had to fathom this unheard of situation, and yet it cannot be faced without looking directly into it.

The strategy of recognize and resist is objectively contradictory and in the context of 50 years it is obvious that it has made no progress in helping the Church fight the Conciliar sect. It has shown itself to lean more towards enabling the revolution to continue on under concepts of obedience which are ill suited to the task which we ask of them.

With the Society there has been no trying of another, it has been dogmatic adherence to the original idea for many decades. The resistance is as rigid in its doctrine of recognize and resist.

The Archbishop started out within a particular context in which this all appeared to make sense however, the circuмstances and context have changed so radically as to leave his original position as a canoe running the rapids with no paddle.

We are in a time that is confusing and immoral.  Every which way there is something there ready to apostate us to deny Christ.  As the Shepherd is struck (the Pope), the sheep are scattered.  

In this confusing time, there is such dis-unity and factions all throughout the Catholic Church.  Opinions fly of one sort to another.  It is true that we all are suffering under the scourging, disfigurement, and crucifixion of Christ’s Bride -the Catholic Church.

Because the Pope has been struck with the revolution, it is necessary to discern what he is saying and what he is not saying.  Many people are trying to get informed and distill the propaganda that is in abundance.  It is hard to discern the accuracy of such statements; true or false.  Even more so, is what he said a “Formal heresy”?  None the less, because we are talking about souls, the pontiff is God’s anointed one; we have to have due diligence to protect God’s interest in the authority of His Chair.  As someone said recently, we do not follow the man of the Pope, we follow the Petrine Office.

While so many of us are speaking about the Pontiff, it is certainly a very serious thing.  We have to be careful, as scripture shows, “…the people had murmured against God’s anointed.”  They murmured against Moses, Solomon, Samuel, David, Saul, Abraham, Jacob, and many others.  Human nature is fickle; we are always “upset” about something.  Especially when a group gets fermented, they can upset God's order, like they did to Christ: ”Crucify Him…”

I wish to reiterate why it is so imperative to examine this present situation that we find ourselves in with the reigning Pontiff and the Petrine Chair.  The only Scriptural answer to any question of high authority is to “recognize and resist” until God makes it manifest to do otherwise; not to abandon God’s order.  It is God who governs and controls His Church; not us.  As Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned in 1979:

"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one.”

Sedevacantism, by its nature, is also a dead end road; there is no conclusion.  It just runs around in circles because it can only provide “evidence”; there is NO authority to judge.  So for someone to physically put their foot, and their children’s feet, in a sedevacantist camp is to cut yourself off from the Petrine office -which makes it a schismatic mentality- as Archbishop Lefebvre had mentioned above.  And I will add, it is a mentality that is parallel of a protestant spirit; a spirit of independence.

Further, sedevacantist are so quick to say that there is no pope in the religious realm; in God’s realm; as to totally disregard everything of what the “rejected” Pope does; while exclaiming with private interpretation that he is a heretic.  Yet, in the secular realm, everyone knows that the present U.S. president holding office -Obama- is a deliberately installed fake and is totally unauthorized to be the president of the U.S from his forged and foreign birth certificate (…); it is against the protocols of the U.S. Constitution.  But the same sedevacantists will still follow the secular Obama and his executive orders…but will put the Pope on the street.  Rather a hypocritical judgment isn’t it?

There is also another natural hallmark of Sedevacantism.  It is a vibrant body of intellectual “legalism”, like the Sanhedrin.  

While the Sanhedrin always went off with their theories, it was also the same group that constantly tried to trip up our Lord.  Remember one of their many, in their trap of the coin of Caesar; to whom do we give tribute to…?  

The answer is always in our Lord’s Wisdom; have the foundation of humility and give your understanding and suffering to God the Father who awaits Paternally for our needs, wants, and sacrifices.  Ultimately, for our surrendered, unattached, and unfettered soul.  “…Give to God the things that are God’s.”

When Peter in the beginning was in the boat with the other Apostles, he passionately went out to our Lord walking on water; then he began to sink because he took his eyes off of the Lord and onto his own concerns and conclusions.  Peter was only saved from drowning because he reached back out to our Lord with the correct humility and vision of the Faith again.  “Lord I am drowning…”  The focus was returned back on our Lord’s Power and His Authority to calm the sea.  

In finishing the rest of the quote of Archbishop Lefebvre: “And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."

And St. Peter was in prison, in chains: “But prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for him… And the chains fell off from his hands.”  (Acts 12:5-7).

That is unity in the body of Christ; that is the Faith in practice for those who suffer.  

The Pope needs our attention yes; not to split the Church even further.

Viva Christo Rey…

It is unquestionable that recognize and resist is as Mr. Vere comments is internally inconsistent. Upon an objective analysis of the Archbishop, I believe there is strong evidence that he acted in an inconsistent manner in certain areas.

As I mentioned earlier he signed the bulk of the Council docuмents some of which were just awful and heretical in their practical sense, and yet he drew a line at a certain two docuмents which, while they were poisonous, were not worse than others which he did sign.

If he could see the danger in these few, why did he not act against the evil import of the others. Why did he sign any of them, or instead sign all of them? Either act would have been consistent.

That was demonstration of inconsistency so it is not out of character that he would hold to the recognize and resist idea.  

Objectively it is a position in which one must exist in a state of duality of mind in order to hold and have it appear to be non-contradictory, for if you look at each component side by side and, it is clear that one nullifies the other. Only when one keeps them insulated from each other can you keep from drawing the logical conclusion that they point to.

Duality of thought is how the Neo-Catholic novus ordo carries on as if nothing is really wrong with the Church or the popes. This is the same in the Ecclesia Dei groups. The SSPX position is simply a more diluted and less compliant form of the same dual mindedness.

And to clarify, I am not advocating the sedevacantist position as it too has its own contradictions and inconsistencies.

This false choice which is presented by this either or controversy, that you must accept contradiction over here, or the Church will disappear if you go over there, is not a well reasoned argument. It is a position which is born out of fear and uncertainty.
The crisis in the Church will never be resolved by hiding from the whole truth and reality of it.

Michael Davies is a most perfect example of this duality of thinking in practice, as he demonstrates the reality of the apostasy in the Church, he always leaves the door open enough so that one can quickly escape before having to make a conclusion from his presentation. And so it is with the Remnant and indult crowd, and so it is with the SSPX and the resistance.

It is only unquestionable to you.

And Pete Vere.

And anyone else who has not the ability or disposition to read the article on the doctrine of necessity.

Like Menzingen accordistas, you turn a blind eye in order to protect your self-imposed ignorance, and maintain your position.

I can't reply to everything that M. Davies wrote in this article right now, but I must make a few observations:

I suppose his salient point is that while sede vacante is not intrinsically impossible, he believes one of this length (so, say forty years or so) is impossible because "there would be no visible source of authority capable of convoking a conclave to elect a new pope."  Just because Davies doesn't know who the hierarchy are doesn't mean they don't exist.  It's a matter of fact that bishops still exist who were lawfully appointed, and it's a matter of faith that the hierarchy cannot cease to exist: this would be a defection of the Church.  If one considers the Church at Pentecost, the hierarchy was unknown to the VAST majority of the world.  Was it invisible?  Or, consider the Japanese Catholics who were cut off from any clergy for what, a hundred years?  Two hundred years?  The hierarchy did not cease to exist.  Nor did it while the Maronites were cut off from it.  I have to admit that of all the apparent difficulties posed by an indefinite interregnum, this is the one to pick on, but once one correctly understands that "visible" doesn't mean the same as "known to you, specifically" then the difficulty disappears.  For anyone who accepts that the revolutionary victory of the modernist mafia at VII and in the wake of it was the result of ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic scheming and conspiracy, likely a plot that at least vaguely existed for an hundred years or longer, it should not be difficult at all to accept that whatever members of the hierarchy remain are drastically diminished in the public realm, known to very few-- for with them lies the continuation of the Church as a body, and the enemies of the Church want nothing more than to set their heads on pikes.  

Davies says "the Church that [Jesus Christ] founded cannot fail, for it is indefectible (i.e. it cannot fail). It will continue to exist until the Second Coming as a visible, hierarchically governed body, teaching the truth and sanctifying its members with indubitably valid sacraments."  Of course this is true.  But would he have us believe that this Church is the Novus Ordo?  Don't make me laugh.  Teaching the truth, sanctifying its members with indubitably valid sacraments?  The Novus Ordo doesn't even fulfill ONE of these requirements, much less all three!  Teaching the truth?  Unless VII is the truth, strike one.  Sanctifying its members?  Unless the NOM is pleasing to God as the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary as a propitiation for our sins, strike two.  Indubitably valid sacraments?  The changes to holy orders cast doubt onto the validity of all sacraments requiring a sacramentally imbued minister (confession, the mass, holy orders and extreme unction), strike three-- the Novus Ordo Church is out!  

It is true that there is disagreement on the part of theologians as to whether or not a pope could fall into heresy, but none of the theologians who entertain the idea say that if he did, he would retain office.  And the idea that a pope can't become an heretic (and therefore lose his office) is certainly nothing more than a theological opinion, unlike the effect of heresy (severance from the Body of Christ, rendering one a non-Catholic) which is an effect of divine law.  So it is wrong for Davies to preface "if a pope became an heretic" with "per impossible."  It's not impossible.  There are just a few theologians who don't think it could happen-- but not thinking it can happen is not the same as thinking it's impossible!  If St Robert Bellarmine thought it was impossible and violated the deposit of faith, he wouldn't entertain what would happen if a pope DID become an heretic!

Then Davies conflates "deposing" a pope with simply recognizing he is an heretic, and therefore not the pope.  If a person looks at Rome, and sees that the man who purports to be pope is not Catholic, and therefore can't be pope, he does not "depose" the pope.  He realizes a fact that is apparent, a fact that causes moral certainty for him on the state of the Holy See, and responds in kind.  Davies would have us believe that some sort of declaration is necessary to arrive at this conclusion, but this is not the case.  Canon 188/4 teaches that an office holder who publicly adheres to a false religion resigns his office.  The same CIC teaches that by the fact of their heresy, public heretics incur a latae sententiae excommunication (this effect has the same result-- loss of office-- but is a distinct effect from canon 188).  Thirdly, by Divine Law (both scripture and the universal ordinary magisterium) heretics are not Catholics and non-Catholics cannot participate in the economy of salvation, which includes the governance of the Church (again, this effect is distinct from the prior two).  Finally, public heretics may have an excommunication inflicted upon them by a lawful superior.  These are four distinct effects of an office holder who is an heretic.  Davies is only addressing the last of these four.  He briefly makes an attempt at distinguishing a formal heretic (otherwise called manifest, public, or simply heretic) and one who materially holds an heresy.  The distinghisghing mark between these two very different species is pertinacity, which is knowing that the Church teaches X, and electing to teach or profess Y (which is contrary to X) publicly.  It is preposterous to think that any of the conciliar pontiffs don't KNOW that the Church teaches there is no salvation outside of Her, or that there is ONE Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.  Because they have all publicly denied this and professed something contrary to both of these doctrines.  

Davies plays a copy and paste game, conveniently leaving something important out.  He quotes Bouscaren and Ellis "...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."  In the next sentence, Davies says "No doctrine is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proven," as if to make the reader conclude that nothing that hasn't been solemnly defined is to be regarded with divine and Catholic faith.  HOWEVER: he is not citing the whole passage.  I own Bouscaren and Ellis' commentary.  The sentence that goes between these two is "To pronounce a solemn definition is the part of an ecuмenical council or of he roman pontiff speaking ex cathedra."  THAT is what must be proved to be "dogmatically defined."  The ordinary magisterium must still be believed by divine and Catholic faith, even though much of it is NOT dogmatically defined in this way.  Additionally, I have no idea what he means in his (13) footnote because p 724 deals with forbidden books.  

As regards the doctrine of necessity, it treats epikeia and how according to circuмstance, a given law may cease to bind; taking into consideration the benevolence of the lawmaker, and that in a given situation the lawmaker would not wish the law to bind, a decision is made contrary to the letter of the law while maintaining its spirit.  The docuмent put out by the SSPX is a good synopsis of this doctrine, but it does not at all address whether or not an heretic (who is not Catholic) can hold office in the Church.  

Sean Johnson,

Quote

It is only unquestionable to you.

 And Pete Vere.

 And anyone else who has not the ability or disposition to read the article on the doctrine of necessity.

 Like Menzingen accordistas, you turn a blind eye in order to protect your self-imposed ignorance, and maintain your position.
 .........................
 

The doctrine of necessity allows one and can even compel one to act according the will of the Church and against an authority within the Church.
However it does not compel one to recognize an authority which by objective measure might not be legitimate.

The doctrine of common sense and reason compels one to reject the notion that a thing can be and not be at the same time. That is the only position that I maintain.

Holding two contradictory concepts simultaneously,
1) I accept that this authority is legitimate
2) I am free to selectively limit my submission to this authority, does not seemed to have worked for the last fifty years.

I do not have enough of the doctrinal certainty of the Menzinista or indult mind to keep the contradiction of these ideas at bay any longer.

Standing in the middle of the stream while the ground is eroding under foot is no longer an option. God has promised to vomit forth the lukewarm middle of the streamers.
If you cannot see what is before you, then perhaps you should ponder you own words about blindness and self-imposed ingnorance.

J. Paul, the difficulty you are having is that you set for yourself "two opposing concepts".

The first is correct; because it is God's order.  We lay faithful have NO say in God's process of raising someone to His Chair of authority; nor personally to disregard His selection.

Your second one is the erroneous one that is carried in the world; it has no place in Catholicism.  No baptized soul is "free to selectively limit my submission to this authority."  We lay faithful have NO authority to judge what God had set up.  It is on God's authority that it happened; nothing happens outside of God’s control.  When one starts to feel "free to selectively limit my submission to this authority", like Scripture shows, one begins to show the "independence" of that soul to God's order and suffers God’s wrath.  “…the people murmured against God’s anointed one.” Whether we like that person or think he is the right one or not.  We have NO say in the matter!

This is very simple.  This is God's order; not ours.  We can personally complain to the things we see.  But that complaint is to God; not to disturb other souls off axis and to have them also stop following God’s order; that is Sedevacantism and Protestantism!

Our duty is to suffer with the consequences that God has placed for His people; like He has done many times in both the Old and New Testaments.  Certainly, this is a chastisement; and well deserved; with more to come.  Shown both in the Old and New Testament, the cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs are being prepared…

This is God's world and creation; it is His Will that guides the drama of human history.  As a Conductor of an orchestra selecting his players, setting the tone for the music, making the story line, then executes His will.  We players either make that sympathy beautiful to His order, or fall out of tune with musical notes that vibrate through space and time for all of eternity disturbing what God’s has set-up to chastise us with and to prepare for His Son, prophesied in Holy Scripture, for His Second coming.

Peace my friend…it is in God’s Hands.  He is in perfect control over all events to do His Will.

This is a good post, but I respectfully disagree with Sean, with Machabees and with J. Paul.

The true recognize and resist position, upheld by Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society to this day, and taught by the Saints and Doctors of the Church is this - we may resist individual evil commands by the Pope or bishops as abuses of authority, these commands cannot bind and have no effect. But in order not to refuse the authority itself, we can and must obey when the object commanded is good.

An illegal suppression is an injustice and does not bind. But a canonical regularization is by itself something good, if legitimate authority commands something good, this cannot be refused outright without in a sense implicitly refusing the authority itself.

This is the reverse side of the doctrine of necessity. It is unheard of in the history of the Catholic Church that a Pope can order the correction of an injustice and in commanding something good be refused.

So if someone is dogmatically opposed to canonical regularization, then obviously the sedevacantists will quite logically point out the internal inconsistency and intellectual incoherence of that position, and rightly say that that position is implicitly sedevacantist, since it rejects not specific evil commands only, but objects commanded that are both good and evil, which is a rejection of the authority itself.

As reason and experience shows, nothing is so conducive to good Catholic souls unhappily falling into the sedevacantist confusion as the inconsistency of non-sedevacantist Catholics.

As for why sedevacantism itself must be rejected as heterodox, that is easy to show.

It is very simple to see that sedevacantism leads to heretical conclusions when the sede vacante is indefinitely extended, specifically it leads to no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and therefore compromises irremediably the visiblity and Apostolicity of the Church.

Only a Pope can appoint a bishop to an office by apostolic mandate, give him office and ordinary jurisdiction and make him a successor to the Apostles.

So if someone held today that Pope Pius XII was not Pope and the See has been vacant for 74 years, he would already be a heretic. Why? Because in that case there are absolutely no bishops alive who were appointed under Pius XI.

There are a few (about 15) bishops alive appointed by Pius XII but almost all of these have resigned their offices. Formal apostolicity has then vanished under sedevacantism.

This is why it is defined dogma that Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the Roman Catholic Church. The Petrine succession and the Apostolic succession are interlinked and the implication of a sede vacante that is indefinitely extended is that when every bishop appointed by the last Pope dies off the Catholic Church will cease to be Apostolic, which is impossible.

Here is the correct and consistent recognize and resist position.

Quote from: Fr. Laisney

One no longer sees that those who hold office in the Church have received the authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church, and thus have received a good thing - indeed what Our Lord Jesus Christ has established is evidently excellent - the abuses of that authority do not take away from the goodness of that authority in itself, of that hierarchical order; and thus if the Pope wants to regularize the place of the Society of St. Pius X within that order, he wants something good (order is good) – therefore against which one has not the right to resist, in as much as he gives it with no evil conditions and with the sufficient guarantees so that this order be solid.

Quote from: Bp. Fellay

It Benedict XVI still the legitimate pope for you? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through his mouth? If the pope expresses a legitimate desire concerning ourselves which is a good desire and gives no command contrary to the commandments of God, has one the right to pay no attention and to simply dismiss his desire? If not, on what principle do you base your acting in this way? Do you not think that, if Our Lord gives a command, He will also give us the means to continue our work? Well, the Pope has let us know that his concern to settle our affair for the good of the Church was at the very heart of his pontificate, and that he also knew that it would be easier both for him and for ourselves to leave things as they presently stand. Hence it is a firm and just desire to which he is giving expression.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

So, I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out.

Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests—may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. . . . . It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable.

The calm logic, the precision, the consistency and the evident Catholic sense of this position is incontrovertible.

Nishant,

I do agree with what you have written; and we are very much saying the same thing.

In this thread, I am trying to bring to the forefront what is the Scriptural foundation to accept, or not to accept, God's authority and His chosen selection to sit on the Petrine Chair.  As God controls all things, and chooses and anoints others to rule over His people, and Scripture shows that some of them had been faithful to God's will; some have not.  And still, Holy Scripture shows over and over again that we must follow God's order...and the leader that He put over us; whether we like it or not.

What you have written, you have done well to develop on that Scriptural foundation, and started to show its practical foundation.

It is very simple to see that sedevacantism leads to heretical conclusions when the sede vacante is indefinitely extended, specifically it leads to no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and therefore compromises irremediably the visiblity and Apostolicity of the Church.

You need to docuмent that assertion or it is worthless.

Only a Pope can appoint a bishop to an office by apostolic mandate, give him office and ordinary jurisdiction and make him a successor to the Apostles.

It is my understanding that bishops have been consecrated and appointed and given a canonical mission/office during interegnums.  That would prove your statement to be false.

Also, isn't the idea that a bishop can be legitimately consecrated without a canonical mission a novelty?  Can you point to any other cases (aside from post-V2) in the history of the Church where a bishop was validly and licitly consecrated without a canonical mission?

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: J.Paul

It is unquestionable that recognize and resist is as Mr. Vere comments is internally inconsistent. Upon an objective analysis of the Archbishop, I believe there is strong evidence that he acted in an inconsistent manner in certain areas.

[...]

And to clarify, I am not advocating the sedevacantist position as it too has its own contradictions and inconsistencies.

This false choice which is presented by this either or controversy

You should not be too hard on the Archbishop when you yourself appear to have no solid answer to the the question that he and every other thinking Catholic faced. There are no true contradictions in nature, yet many topics can appear contradictory without full understanding of the context. The Trinity is an obvious example. The Church has never before confronted a situation where almost the entire hierarchy and most of the faithful surreptitiously abandoned orthodoxy and remained in that condition for several decades (and counting). Therefore, no clear precedent exists for a remedy. We try out different strategies hoping to find a way to reestablish the hierarchy. If one strategy appears not to work, we sometimes try another. That is not necessarily contradictory unless one attempts to dogmatize a particular unproven strategy like some of the sede's.

Absolutely, the Church has never had to fathom this unheard of situation, and yet it cannot be faced without looking directly into it.

The strategy of recognize and resist is objectively contradictory and in the context of 50 years it is obvious that it has made no progress in helping the Church fight the Conciliar sect. It has shown itself to lean more towards enabling the revolution to continue on under concepts of obedience which are ill suited to the task which we ask of them.

With the Society there has been no trying of another, it has been dogmatic adherence to the original idea for many decades. The resistance is as rigid in its doctrine of recognize and resist.

The Archbishop started out within a particular context in which this all appeared to make sense however, the circuмstances and context have changed so radically as to leave his original position as a canoe running the rapids with no paddle.

The Archbishop openly considered a premature regularization (probably at the behest of his more liberal followers) but ultimately rejected that path when he realized it would lead to compromise. He also may have entertained sedevacantism. Bp. Fellay has tried to use Lefebvre's pre-rejection dalliance with regularization as a smokescreen to justify his own compromises.

The Archbishop's strategy helped to preserve tradition but admittedly has not restored it. Do you have suggestions for a refinement in strategy?