Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Machabees on December 17, 2013, 03:54:07 AM
-
There is a recent Thread going on, and getting side tracked a couple of times, about Pope Francis and his bizarre statements.
"The Resistance and the end of the Crisis in the Church, Letter to Fr. Kramer from Fr.Chazal."
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Resistance-and-the-end-of-the-Crisis-in-the-Church
There has been questions whether Francis is a the Pope or not; whether he is a "heretic" or not. And there are many different sedevacantist positions weighing in on the discussion with many views.
There is one common denominator that rests at the bottom of all of these theories, it is that Christ is the Head of His Church; and it is He who governs it. As baptized Catholics, we all recognize that God needs to provide Providence to us in such a grave decision. To say, live, and try to influence others that the Pope is not the Pope is very grave personally, and it is also very grave to influence others when God has NOT provided an exterior manifestation that moves in that direction.
In other words, our catechism teaches us that the Pope is the Highest Authority in the Church; and the world itself. Holy Scripture is plentiful is showing us God's hand on the anointed one; even if he is a grave sinner. Time and time again, God still commands that we follow the "Chair of Moses"; it does not mean the "person of Moses"; it means the Authority of God "through Moses".
There is a recent article I came across from Michael Davies that explains some of the nature of the "Chair of Peter", the Pope, and heresy.
I do realize ahead of time that there are a 101 different sedevacantist positions out there that will constantly dispute the "recognize and resist" position that they like to block others into; however, we must remember that it is God's Church and it is God that is in Authority of His Church. It is for us to know and study our Faith; yet in all things, like reading Holy Scripture, we must submit our understanding, gifts, and intelligence to the mysteries of God and His ways.
It is for us to continue our duty of state, sanctify ourselves, and to wait for God's Hand to show us the way that this will be fixed; either by direct intervention, or by another St. Catherine. We need to have the humility to know that we are not raised to that state to confront His Authority.
God will provide...as Archbishop Lefebvre has always said: "I will wait for Providence; I will not go ahead of it."
Here is Michael Davies article:
http://www.olrl.org/misc/sedevacant_md.shtml
=================================================
A Heretical Pope?
by Michael Davies
Claims have been made that one or more of the "conciliar popes", that is to say Pope John XXIII and his successors, were heretics and therefore forfeited the papacy. Those who include Pope John Paul II in this category claim that we have no pope and that therefore the Holy See is vacant, sedes vacante, which is why such people are referred to as "sedevacantists". They claim that this poses no theological problem as the Holy See is vacant during the interregnum between pontificates. Some of these interregna have been very long, the longest being a vacancy of two years nine months between the death of Clement IV in 1268 and the election of Gregory X in 1271. In such cases the visibility of the Church is not impaired in any way as the Holy See is administered by the Cardinal Camerlengo until a new pope is elected. The Camerlengo, or Chamberlain of the papal court, administers the properties and revenues of the Holy See, and during a vacancy those of the entire Church. Among his responsibilities during a vacancy are those of verifying the death of the Pope and organizing and directing the conclave.
Thus, even when the Chair of Peter is not occupied, the visible, hierarchical nature of the Church is maintained.(1) Thus the situation during such an interregnum cannot be compared to the situation that the Church would be in if Pope John Paul II is not the legitimately reigning pontiff as there would be no visible source of authority capable of convoking a conclave to elect a new pope.
The theological weakness of sedevacantism is an inadequate concept of the nature of the Church. Without realizing it, they believe in a Church which can fail -- and such a Church is not the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church that He 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. To state that we have no pope is to claim that the Church is no longer visible and hierarchically governed, which, in effect, means that it has ceased to exist. Catholic theologians accept that a pope could lose his office through heresy, but it would have to be such notorious heresy that no doubt concerning the matter could exist in the minds of the faithful, and a statement that the Pope had deposed himself would need to come from a high level in the Church, most probably a general Council. 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. . . 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."
Docuмentation
The question of whether the Holy See is vacant must be considered from three aspects, that is whether a pope could become an heretic and forfeit his office; what constitutes heresy; and whether any of the conciliar popes can be considered to be heretics within the context of this definition.
1. Can a pope forfeit his office through heresy?
The problem which would face the Church if a legitimately reigning pope became an heretic has been discussed in numerous standard works of reference. The solution is provided in the 1913 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(2) Many theologians have discussed the possibility of a pope falling into heresy, and the consensus of their opinion concurs with that of The Catholic Encyclopedia. The Pope must evidently be a Catholic, and if he ceased to be a Catholic he could hardly remain the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Mystical Body. St. Robert Bellarmine taught: "The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers."(3) Saint Robert was, of course, discussing a theoretical possibility, and believed that a pope could not become an heretic and thus could not be deposed, but he also acknowledged that the more common opinion was that the pope could become an heretic, and he was thus willing to discuss what would need to be done if, per impossible, this should happen: "This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic) is probable and easily defended . . . Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic."(4)
The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617) was also sure that God’s "sweet providence" would never allow the one who could not teach error to fall into error, and that this was guaranteed by the promise Ego autem rogavi pro te . . . (Luke 22: 32). But, like Bellarmine, Suarez was willing to consider the possibility of an heretical pope as an hypothesis, particularly in view of the fact, he claimed, that several "general councils had admitted the hypothesis in question".(5) Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) did not believe that God would ever permit a Roman Pontiff to become a public or an occult heretic, even as a private person: "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."(6)
If, per impossible, a pope became a formal heretic through pertinaciously denying a de fide doctrine, how would the faithful know that he had forfeited his office as he had ceased to be a Catholic? It must be remembered that no one in the Church, including a General Council, has the authority to judge the Popes. Reputable authorities teach that if a pope did pertinaciously deny a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, after this had been brought to his attention by responsible members of the hierarchy (just as St. Paul reproved St. Peter to his face), a General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope, as a notorious heretic, had ceased to be a Catholic and hence had ceased to be Pope. It is important to note that the Council would neither be judging nor deposing the Pope, since it would not possess the authority for such an act. It would simply be making a declaratory sentence, i.e. declaring to the Church what had already become manifest from the Pope’s own actions. This is the view taken in the classic manual on Canon Law by Father F.X. Wernz, Rector of the Gregorian University and Jesuit General from 1906 to 1914. This work was revised by Father P. Vidal and was last republished in 1952. It states clearly that an heretical Pope is not deposed in virtue of the sentence of the Council, but "the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity."(7) Other authorities believe that such a declaration could come from the College of Cardinals or from a representative group of bishop, while others maintain that such a declaration would not be necessary. What all those who accept the hypothesis of an heretical pope are agreed upon is that for such a pope to forfeit the papacy his heresy would have to be "manifest", as Saint Robert Bellarmine expressed it, that is notorious and public (notorium et palam divulgata).(8) A notorious offence can be defined as one for which the evidence is so certain that it can in no way be either hidden or excused.(9) A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.
2. What is heresy?
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.
Endnotes
1. Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1917), vol. III, p. 217.
2. CE, vol. VII, p. 261.
3. Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice (Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30, p. 420.
4. Ibid., p. 418.
5. F. Suarez, De legibus (Paris, 1856), vol. IV, chap. 7, no. 10, p. 361.
6. Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri (Turin, 1848), vol. VIII, p. 720.
7. Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicuм (Rome, 1942), vol II, p. 518.
8. Ibid., p. 433.
9. Op. cit., note 92, Wernz-Vidal, (Rome, 1937), vol VII, pp. 46-47.
10. Code of Canon Law: Old Code, Canon 1325; New Code, Canon 751.
11. Denzinger, 1792; CCL: Old Code, Canon 1323; New Code, Canon 750.
12. CCL, Old Code, 1323, §3; New Code, 749, §3.
13. T. Bouscaren & A. Ellis, Canon Law, A Text & Commentary (Milwaukee, 1958), p. 724.
14. M. Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (The Neumann Press, Minnesota, 1992).
-
To say, live, and try to influence others that the Pope is not the Pope is very grave personally...
You are very reasonable in your tone and in your words. Thumbs up.
-
I am sure the average soul wades through an elaborate PhD thesis to determine this question! One look at this 'apology for a pope' tells me he ain't out of pure instinct. But if I were to add a bit of logic (always a danger for gamblers!) .... and be guided by those who shout the loudest yet they never seem to take their own advice ...... I would simply say Bergoglio heads a new church and repudiates the old one. End of.
One such talker was Michael Davies who surrounded himself with so many hedging devices that ensured his passage into the next world was risk-free to the max. And when that time came his mind was in such a confusion that he raced through his writing to edit out any unkindess towards Rome. I tire of endless scripts that are clever enough to contain (if you look hard enough) get-out clauses. He went to his eternal courtesy of the conciliar church as so many English so-called traditionalists seem to prefer. End of.
-
"Recognize and Resist" is the correct position. Stick with the Archbishop!
-
Sedevacantism was one huge blind spot for Davies. He refused to acknowledge that a reasonable person could embrace sedevacantism, or in my case, view it as more reasonable and internally consistent than the "Recognize and Resist" position. I can recall one night he, Gerry Matatics and I were having supper together at some traditionalist function, and Davies went on a rant about sedevacantists and sedevacantism.
I mentioned to him that a month earlier, while passing through Cincinnati, I had stopped by St. Gertrude the Great Church and introduced myself to Fr. Cekada. Father invited me to stay for tea and visit a while. With me was the head of the local CUF chapter - a conservative Novus Ordo group. We both found Fr. Cekada quite humorous, engaging and hospitable, despite our strong theological objections to sedevacantism. Davies was outraged.
He became even more outraged when, for the sake of the argument, Gerry put forward a theological defence of sedevacantism. I stayed out of that part of the discussion. However, Davies still expressed outrage by my mere suggestion we ought to shift strategies and address at face value the arguments put forward by sedevacantists. That is, we should refute sedevacantism rather than continue to demonize and attempt to caricature sedevacantists as bitter and angry extremists.
Nevertheless, Davies could never get past his very negative stereotype of sedevacantists.
-
"Recognize and Resist" has always been my opinion of SSPX laity. A question for those priests and laity, who favour a practical agreement is who or what are they resisting?
I do agree with Ecclesia Militans. On another point, I still believe the bulk of priests and laity will remain with Bishop Fellay. Some out of loyalty.Others out of fear of the unknown. Many who have not supported the resistance in my opinion had never any intention of supporting it.
-
Nevertheless, Davies could never get past his very negative stereotype of sedevacantists.
Stereotyping is a key word. There was also a stereotype of what your average SSPX attendee was/is also. Many were quite moderate in their views and we realise clearly that three of the four Bishops are not fighters.
The Indult groups have always been a controlled opposition and fight a sham fight. They accept compromise.The SSPX were genuine fighters but now have formally raised a flag of surrender. They have a few good priests here and there but formally their pious union surrendered. Of course they keep the door open with Rome.
-
A few years ago I heard an audio of Fr Adam Portugal SSPX slam 'wicked sedes'. Given the Zionism at the heart of the SSPX and the control of its purse, his statement is not the least of their worries.
Also SSPX laity have never been encouraged to question or think critically. For example did the woman placed under 'holy obedience' ever wonder the SSPX priest was manipulating her.
Even Fr Morgan in England was happy for laity to believe lies. He put himself and the SSPX ahead of truth. NewChurch do this regularly. I had a falling out with a friend of Fr M but at same time my parents didn't raise me to believe lies.
-
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.
-
tradcuмenist strategy
From another thread but a strategy, I am well used to. The SSPX in Ireland has been tradcuмenist. The majority of SSPX laity in Ireland would be open to attending both the Indult and Mass via the 'Pius X' as they are known here.There are exceptions but the day of being 100% SSPX is fading.
Many SSPX youth steward the very pro JPII Youth Defence.
Some SSPX youth organised at World Youth Day in Madrid.
So not everybody attending the SSPX is your radical type. We shouldn't stereotype. Catholics attend the SSPX for the Mass and sacraments.
-
Nobody believes the likes of Youth Defence would criticise the Pope. Even an SSPX priest took them to task recently. YD met JPII in 1992 so naturally won't oppose his canonisation. To criticise or resist Pope Francis, YD would lose about 90% of its support.
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.
The crisis in the Church will never be resolved by hiding from the whole truth and reality of it.
A key point.
-
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.
-
Is there truth in the belief that God would allow an evil Pope to occupy the seat of Peter as a just punishment?
Basically that pope Francis and the rest of the impious clergy that plagues us today is what our degenerate society deserves?
Thought please
-
Is there truth in the belief that God would allow an evil Pope to occupy the seat of Peter as a just punishment?
It is my belief that the Popes from John XXIII on are a just punishment from God because most Catholics, although still attending Mass, were lukewarm at best and faithless at worst. I don't think many Catholics really had the faith before the crisis started and the punishment of the crisis was allowed by God because most of the Priests and most of the laymen were faithless and most of those who still had the faith were lukewarm.
But I was not alive at the time so I do not know if this is true, it is just an attempt at explaining why God would allow such an unprecedented crisis to occur.
-
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.
He did exactly this in his book, "Pope Paul's New Mass." I remember that toward the end of the book, he finally came to the question of whether he believed the NO is valid. He wrote words to the effect of, "Now, on one hand, if the words used in the consecration are those used in the Latin, it's definitely valid. On the other hand, if the words used are in the vernacular, it is doubtful at best. However, the intention of the priest to do what the Church does must be present, so it could be invalid or it could be valid. However..." In the end, he answered nothing, i.e., as you stated above, he arrived at no conclusion.
-
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.
-
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.
He did exactly this in his book, "Pope Paul's New Mass." I remember that toward the end of the book, he finally came to the question of whether he believed the NO is valid. He wrote words to the effect of, "Now, on one hand, if the words used in the consecration are those used in the Latin, it's definitely valid. On the other hand, if the words used are in the vernacular, it is doubtful at best. However, the intention of the priest to do what the Church does must be present, so it could be invalid or it could be valid. However..." In the end, he answered nothing, i.e., as you stated above, he arrived at no conclusion.
Excellent example.
Perhaps he was hiding a third hand under his coat?
-
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…
-
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.
:applause:
It seems that many have forgotten or deliberately abandoned the Archbishop's position because that is what Bishop Fellay has done. Please do not let his actions turn you from the right way.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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,
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.
-
Sean Johnson,
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.
-
Not a single one of these theological legalistic arguments matter if the man who you think is pope is a freemasonic infiltrator who, along with other enemies of the church, foresaw the debates that would happen if they were elected, knew Catholics would be paralysed in fighting among themselves and silenced, and then gladly orchestrated their election to power, laughing at how easy it was to topple the 2000 year church without real resistance. They have held power ever since John23 and this ridiculous loyalty to him who is elected ( No matter what he says or does ) serves the interests of the enemies of the church. So long as people recognize the vatican 2 popes as superiors they will be poisoned by their existence. You cant subject yourself to an authority and not be changed by its will. The whole recognize and resist position is ridiculous and defies logic. I cant explain it as well as others do but to refuse to admit the obvious is just hypocritical and stupid to be honest. The vatican 2 sect is not the Catholic church, it is the left overs of what went before, and the new church is protestant, and in it is no salvation. You damn yourself by supporting the vatican 2 church, and you damn others as well. Its just appalling that groups like the SSPX still recognize the vatican. The Archbishop's position was just a temporary stance until they decide what to do next. If he were alive today he would be a sedevacantist trying to hold a conclave. He was on the verge of embracing sedevacantism before he died. You cant portrat him as a vatican 2 papist, he had strong doubts and a desire to fix the problem, hence SV.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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!
I am not having difficulty due to the fact that I have set up nothing for myself by submittng my intellect to real.
The opposing concepts are the recongnize and resist thesis and I am not advocating for one or the other in the matter of discussion. And according to your own thinking, if you submit to the first it must nullify and condemn the second.
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."
It is not my proposition, it is the position which and the SSPX, and the Resistance hold.
-
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?
-
In this thread, since I started it, I would like the necessary discussion to address the Scriptural Foundation of what is God’s will towards the authority that all of us Catholics must first adhere to; of which is on the very basis of our existence -on Divine Revelation within Holy Scripture- the first Pillar of the Catholic Church.
That is, in the Catholic Church we are taught that there are two Pillars in the Church: the first is Divine Revelation, and the second is Sacred Tradition.
In the first pillar of Divine Revelation, it is what is contained in all of Holy Scripture. The second Pillar of the Catholic Church is Sacred Tradition, it is what is contained in the writings of the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church, and what is followed in Sacred Customs taught through the Apostles…as the Holy Spirit was promised to the Holy Church.
To address the Ecclesiastical structure of the Church; though not a pillar, it is also a necessary foundation of guidance. It contains the Encyclicals, General Councils, Tribunals, and so on.
For those in the practice of Sedevacantism, this is a necessary discussion that needs to be addressed. I do believe many of you are sincere, and perhaps grew up in that error of only relying on the Ecclesiastical structure of the Church, or just on the second Pillar of the Catholic Church for the premise of Sedevacantism; however, there does need to be a discussion on the FIRST Pillar of the Catholic Church. What does Divine Revelation say on this matter? What is God’s Will?
As God is all powerful, all knowing, and all present, then God is in perfect control over all things; including this situation with the Pope. While we humans see the drama of human history standing in a forest with a lot of trees in front of us trying to see and understand the other side of the forest. God sees all things from His Throne; He knows and guides all things unto His will.
Up to this point within this confusing human-crisis we have made for ourselves, through sin, I do not recall that the Sedevacantist position has ever addressed this most important Scriptural Foundation in their premise.
Here is an opportunity…and I have begun.
I am open for this sincere discussion. As we are made for God, and innately seek the good, then to ask the question of “What is God’s will” is a good beginning to understand our human condition and crisis we put ourselves in.
God bless.
-
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?
-
“I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope” -Archbishop Lefebvre, to his American priests, 1979
"...a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered...
...To whatever extent the pope departed from...tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.
...Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff." -Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976
“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986
“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)
“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
I would argue that there is a 3rd option (1. RnR, 2. SV) that doesn't first require a resolution to the problem of whether or not the Pope has lost his office. It is universally believed that the Church has the power to judge the legitimacy of any claim to the papacy. So it was understood that the competent authorities could gather to make such a judgement. So why don't all traditionalists unite on that one point? Why not let the competent authorities decide the status of the papacy? The only problem then would be identifying the competent authorities. But anyone who is even suspect of heresy is not a competent authority. So that rules out the entire Conciliar Church. Why not submit ourselves to the decision of a council of traditional Catholic clergy?
-
The Archbishop's strategy helped to preserve tradition but admittedly has not restored it. Do you have suggestions for a refinement in strategy?
Well, there is really only one option open to possibly revive this strategy that would be to substantially expand resistance to the apostasy and the destruction of the Church.
-
The Archbishop's strategy helped to "preserve" tradition but admittedly has not restored it. Do you have suggestions for a refinement in strategy?
Well, there is really only one option open to possibly revive this strategy that would be to substantially expand resistance to the apostasy and the destruction of the Church.
Why would one need to limit God if it is in His Divine plan to only preserve Tradition for now, while chastising His people, rather than fulfilling the earnest desire of souls to restore it now?
History shows that God's chastisements in other crises have lasted a lot longer than this particular crisis.
Is it time in God's mind to restore the Glory of Triumph in His Church now, or to let it continue to go through the Glory of suffering like it's Redeemer?
These are good questions and their answers do help explain the crisis in the historical context of the Church and the secret workings of the Redeemer to save souls.
-
The Archbishop's strategy helped to "preserve" tradition but admittedly has not restored it. Do you have suggestions for a refinement in strategy?
Well, there is really only one option open to possibly revive this strategy that would be to substantially expand resistance to the apostasy and the destruction of the Church.
Why would one need to limit God if it is in His Divine plan to only preserve Tradition for now, while chastising His people, rather than fulfilling the earnest desire of souls to restore it now?
History shows that God's chastisements in other crises have lasted a lot longer than this particular crisis.
Is it time in God's mind to restore the Glory of Triumph in His Church now, or to let it continue to go through the Glory of suffering like it's Redeemer?
These are good questions and their answers do help explain the crisis in the historical context of the Church and the secret workings of the Redeemer to save souls.
Man cannot conceive of God's plans, but certainly He wants Catholics doing their utmost to propagate the Faith in this present era, whether or not those efforts will succeed in the short term. So we should work for revival even if success appear humanly impossible.
However, that is not the case. Many, many people besides traditional Catholics have noticed the collapse of Western Civilization and many are seeking leadership for launching a revival. We traditional Catholics, sole inheritors of the core of Western Civilization, hoard our treasure by not filling the leadership vacuum because we are afraid of our own shadows.
-
The Archbishop's strategy helped to "preserve" tradition but admittedly has not restored it. Do you have suggestions for a refinement in strategy?
Well, there is really only one option open to possibly revive this strategy that would be to substantially expand resistance to the apostasy and the destruction of the Church.
Why would one need to limit God if it is in His Divine plan to only preserve Tradition for now, while chastising His people, rather than fulfilling the earnest desire of souls to restore it now?
History shows that God's chastisements in other crises have lasted a lot longer than this particular crisis.
Is it time in God's mind to restore the Glory of Triumph in His Church now, or to let it continue to go through the Glory of suffering like it's Redeemer?
These are good questions and their answers do help explain the crisis in the historical context of the Church and the secret workings of the Redeemer to save souls.
Man cannot conceive of God's plans, but certainly He wants Catholics doing their utmost to propagate the Faith in this present era, whether or not those efforts will succeed in the short term. So we should work for revival even if success appear humanly impossible.
However, that is not the case. Many, many people besides traditional Catholics have noticed the collapse of Western Civilization and many are seeking leadership for launching a revival. We traditional Catholics, sole inheritors of the core of Western Civilization, hoard our treasure by not filling the leadership vacuum because we are afraid of our own shadows.
Sorry Columba, my post was directed to J.Paul in what he had written; not what you had written.
-
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.
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.
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.
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-
Not sure why you are disagreeing with me.
You have laid out my position perfectly.
-
Sean Johnson,
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.
This post makes it obvious that you have not read the referenced article.
-
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?
Reservation of the consecration/appointment of bishops to Rome was only introduced belatedly to the Church in the 11th century (and even then, only for the Latin Church).
-
Sorry Columba, my post was directed to J.Paul in what he had written; not what you had written.
Columba's reply was adequate for both of us.
You look at this in a particular way in which this appears to make sense but, no human has the insight into the mind of God. His ways are inscrutable and unfathomable, but if you wish to speculate about this then it is just as likely that He is allowing this agony to continue due to the tepidity and weak faith of those whom he has called to his service.
There is no hope of seeing an end to this and a restoration in our lifetimes but when is not relevant to whether or not we put forth an effort on its behalf.
If we are to receive what we require we must make ourselves worthy of His mercy by shedding our complacency and acting in what ways we can to save and inculcate the Holy Religion into souls.
He has given us the greatest of gifts and justice demands that we not toss the whole problem back at Him. We are in this world and are supposed to be the Church militant not the Church waiting. We are to be living stones which exude His Kingdom and contradict the world as we find it. We are not a contradiction to the world when we sit and do less than is possible for us to do. We are accommodating it.
If our efforts are not fruitful, God will show us the way in which they might be. Trusting in God's providence can most easily end up by presuming upon his providence.
God Bless
-
Later off to work now
-
Sorry Columba, my post was directed to J.Paul in what he had written; not what you had written.
Columba's reply was adequate for both of us.
You look at this in a particular way in which this appears to make sense but, no human has the insight into the mind of God. His ways are inscrutable and unfathomable, but if you wish to speculate about this then it is just as likely that He is allowing this agony to continue due to the tepidity and weak faith of those whom he has called to his service.
There is no hope of seeing an end to this and a restoration in our lifetimes but when is not relevant to whether or not we put forth an effort on its behalf.
If we are to receive what we require we must make ourselves worthy of His mercy by shedding our complacency and acting in what ways we can to save and inculcate the Holy Religion into souls.
He has given us the greatest of gifts and justice demands that we not toss the whole problem back at Him. We are in this world and are supposed to be the Church militant not the Church waiting. We are to be living stones which exude His Kingdom and contradict the world as we find it. We are not a contradiction to the world when we sit and do less than is possible for us to do. We are accommodating it.
If our efforts are not fruitful, God will show us the way in which they might be. Trusting in God's providence can most easily end up by presuming upon his providence.
God Bless
J.Paul, you contribute many good things; however, you certainly have an "all or nothing" spirit. Always ambitions, that is good, but always anxious. I may recommend to find your answers in reading Holy Scripture; it is a sure path to understanding the making of human development with its causalities and effects.
Please do not misunderstand me or block me into a convenient category. This is a religious problem; therefore, it is a direct question of what is God's will in it (as in all things).
This is a question of a Scriptural Foundation regarding the authority of the Pontiff; God's Petrine Chair; so I am answering accordingly. As your posts are very dominate with that "all or nothing" approach, you are not including any historical discussion for God's allowance of purposely leaving this crisis in "turmoil" to serve His will for the chastisement and purification of His people.
I am trying to raise the bar, not to go through the mud of the mundane "human activism" approach many make of charging without the consideration of God's plan. Look at the many impatient Kings and Prophets in the Old Testament, with the same spirit, who went into "battle" without God's manifest time. That is not to say we do nothing. No, to the contrary, we continue to sharpen our swords of Truth and shine our breast plates of Charity.
A lot has been going on in the last two years especially; but nothing has manifested itself with a character of restoration; only preservation.
As Columba pointed out to you, and as you admitted to, you want to make a difference in the crisis and "charge" without a plan. You are a good ally; you deserve to give yourself some time to understand the details of: What is God trying to do? What is He setting up to do? Has He made manifest the time, or the direction to move as He had guided those in the Old Testament? Many of times, God has let His people sit out in the wilderness for long periods of time before He had acted; only to purify them. And when He did act, no one expected the time nor hour when He had made his manifest Glory to move.
Patience..my friend. I am introducing to you the angle that God does have control over the situation; and we are just commoners in His ground troops waiting for His lead to guide in a clear and concrete direction. Without God leading the charge, it is futile.
So I am advocating to continue to "train" in your study, pray, continue to have the spirit of sacrifice, and listen attentively for His manifest will through events. History shows that He always raises someone up from nothing and moves with great power in proportion to the need; as He did in our modern times with St. Padre Pio (Sanctifying the Holy Mass), and with Archbishop Lefebvre (Sanctifying the Faith, the Priesthood, and of Holy Tradition).
This crisis is bigger than we think. Each stage is a stepping stone. Therefore, it needs another magnanimous "messenger" sent by God with the same emptiness of self to manifest His will; along with His ground troops...and to draw all things to God.
Is that sitting on our "rocker"? No, far from it. Prepare. God needs all souls of good will. The battle is first Spiritual; therefore, it is to use the weapons of Him on the White Horse:
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called faithful and true, and with justice doth he judge and fight. And his eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many diadems, and he had a name written, which no man knoweth but himself. And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD. And the armies that are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two edged sword; that with it he may strike the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God the Almighty.
"And he hath on his garment, and on his thigh written: KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Apocalypse 19:11-16).
Viva Christo Rey...
-
Is there truth in the belief that God would allow an evil Pope to occupy the seat of Peter as a just punishment?
It is my belief that the Popes from John XXIII on are a just punishment from God because most Catholics, although still attending Mass, were lukewarm at best and faithless at worst. I don't think many Catholics really had the faith before the crisis started and the punishment of the crisis was allowed by God because most of the Priests and most of the laymen were faithless and most of those who still had the faith were lukewarm.
But I was not alive at the time so I do not know if this is true, it is just an attempt at explaining why God would allow such an unprecedented crisis to occur.
Very well said. I lived through that time period. Vast majority of
Catholics were just cultural Catholics where their duties being
Catholic ended when they left the Church door after mass.
Friday was supposed be meatless, not in my experience.
Lent was supposed to be a time of fasting and self denial,
never in my experience.
I agree that the decline of the church is a just punishment from
God.
-
I have ended my comments on this subject.
Thank you.
-
This false choice which is presented by this either or controversy . . . .
One of the most important observations on this thread: It is not either SV or R&R.
I like what J. Paul said somewhere else: It is no more / no less than identical to the REAL.
-
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.
That's because he was trying to ride to shore the biggest kahuna in Church history.
Watch an expert surf - he does not stand erect and rigid, but crouches and retains flexibility.
It is not until the motion of the wave ceases that his body comes to rest.
ABL died surfing; wherefore, his thinking did not come to rest.
Why are we all converging around this issue now? Perhaps because the wave has finally broken upon the Rock, which is Christ. Perhaps because we are all beginning to realize that we are once again standing on terra firma - meaning that we now can proclaim with certitude and unshakable moral conviction that these men are not Catholics and not, therefore, sent by God.
We must break with them completely, and this means not only physically, but intellectually and morally.
We must go out from them in toto - mind, body, soul, and spirit - and set about the work of preparing the Church for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
Anything short of that is a return to the most galling and acrid vomit.
-
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.
A question that arises for me is: Has the SSPX dogmatized R&R?
I would answer yes.
-
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?
I do believe that there is a very informal convergence - yet ever growing in impetus - now taking place among laymen such as ourselves, within which such refinements are being floated, discussed, and analyzed.
I dare say that I think that's why you are now here. You belong in this conversation. I'm happy that you are back.
-
Man cannot conceive of God's plans, but certainly He wants Catholics doing their utmost to propagate the Faith in this present era, whether or not those efforts will succeed in the short term. So we should work for revival even if success appear humanly impossible.
However, that is not the case. Many, many people besides traditional Catholics have noticed the collapse of Western Civilization and many are seeking leadership for launching a revival. We traditional Catholics, sole inheritors of the core of Western Civilization, hoard our treasure by not filling the leadership vacuum because we are afraid of our own shadows.
I would proffer that the R&R position, coupled with scandalous divides inside the walls of so-called Tradition, contributes, through institutionalized dissimulation, to the overarching pusillanimity which now characterizes our ranks.
Recognize and resist, they say.
Recognize what? Do we see Catholics when we look at them?
Resist what? Are we resisting the Catholic Church?
The biggest problem with R&R is linguistic ambiguity - the mortal sin of the same Council R&R pretends to react to.
Take note: R&R never defines its terms. For if it defined its terms it would alienate forever either Tradition or the freemasons; which would, in turn alienate it from access to money (from Tradition) and political prestige (from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ).
This is classical contradiction couched in smells, bells, and sound bytes.
-
I agree with you, Machabees. Excellent posts.
Anyway, as to what is being discussed in this thread, two texts, one from St. John Eudes showing us that just as a Saintly Pope is a gift from the Most High come to give us mercies, graces and favors in superabundance from above, so in the evil Vicar of Christ the eyes of faith recognize in terror a Vindictive Judge come to punish His unfaithful people. And one that the Church by Her very monarchical constitution has no human recourse for such a Pope but only the supernatural aid of prayer, which cannot fail to be efficacious.
"The most evident mark of God's anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than charity and affection of devoted shepherds ...
"When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, 'Return O ye revolting children ... and I will give you pastors according to My own heart'. (Jer. 3:14,15)
Likewise, Prof. Journet, whom Archbishop Lefebvre called "a deep thinker and a great theologian" writes,
D. THE SOLE REMEDY FOR A BAD POPE: A TEXT OF CAJETAN'S ON PRAYER
The Church has no power to change the form of her government, nor to control the destiny of him who, once validly elected, is no vicar of hers but Vicar of Christ. Consequently she has no power to punish or depose her head. She is born to obey.
This truth may seem hard, but the best theologians have never attenuated it; rather, they have accentuated it. To make us aware of all that we ought to be ready to suffer for the Church, of how much heroism she can ask of us, they have proposed extreme cases.
They have supposed a Pope who shall scandalise the Church by the gravest sins; they have supposed him to be incorrigible; and then they ask whether the Church can depose him. Their answer is, no. For no one on earth can touch the Pope.
In his Summa de Ecclesia (lib. II, cap. cvi) Cardinal Turrecremata pointed out several remedies for such a calamity: respectful admonitions, direct resistance to bad acts, and so forth. All these could, of course, prove useless. There remains a supreme resource, never useless, terrible sometimes as death, as secret as love. This is prayer, the resource of the saints. " See that I do not have to complain of you to Jesus crucified, " wrote Catherine of Siena to Pope Gregory XI; "there is none other to whom I can appeal, since you have no superiors on earth. " And again, a little earlier in the same letter: " Take care, as you value your life, that you commit no negligence. "
To the bad theologians who thought that the Church would be defenceless if not allowed to depose a vicious Pope, Cardinal Cajetan, who had seen the reign of Alexander VI, had but one answer: he reminded them of the power of prayer. For never has it such power as in such crises. We must always have recourse to prayer, as one of the purest weapons a Christian can use. But here it is not only a "common" means, i. e. one to be used along with others, it is the "proper" means, the proper instrument for the use of the Church in distress.
For the promises relating to the highest and most efficacious of second causes are held to be of nothing worth. They say that we must depose a bad Pope by human means; that one cannot be content with resort to prayer and to divine providence alone! But why do they say that, if not because they prefer human means to the efficacy of prayer, because the animal man does not perceive the things of God, because they have learnt to trust in man, not in the Lord, and to put their hope in the flesh? So, if a Pope hardened in evil ways appears, his subordinates, without leaving their own vices, content themselves with daily murmurings against the evil regime; they do not seek to avail themselves, save perhaps in a dream and without faith, of the remedy of prayer; so that what Scripture predicts comes about by their fault, namely that it is due to the sins of the people that a hypocrite reigns over them, holy in respect of his office, but a devil at heart. . . We have become blind to the point of refusing to pray as we ought, while yet desiring the fruit of prayer; of refusing to sow, while still wanting to reap. Let us not call ourselves Christians any longer! Or if we do, let us turn to Christ; and the Pope, were he frantic, furious, tyrannical, a render, dilapidator and corrupter of the Church, would be overcome. But if we do not know how to overcome ourselves, what right have we to complain of being unable to break through the evils that surround us by prayers that not only fail to rise through our roofs, but do not even mount as far as our heads?
Thus, even though his private life should be grievously sinful, the Pope cannot be deposed. Immense scandal might be given, but his doctrinal infallibility would be unaffected. And it remains true that no temptation is superhuman. God, who is faithful, will suffer none who seeks Him to be tempted beyond his strength, and to each He offers inwardly the help that will enable him to overcome (cf. I Cor. x. 13).
-
Man cannot conceive of God's plans, but certainly He wants Catholics doing their utmost to propagate the Faith in this present era, whether or not those efforts will succeed in the short term. So we should work for revival even if success appear humanly impossible.
However, that is not the case. Many, many people besides traditional Catholics have noticed the collapse of Western Civilization and many are seeking leadership for launching a revival. We traditional Catholics, sole inheritors of the core of Western Civilization, hoard our treasure by not filling the leadership vacuum because we are afraid of our own shadows.
I would proffer that the R&R position, coupled with scandalous divides inside the walls of so-called Tradition, contributes, through institutionalized dissimulation, to the overarching pusillanimity which now characterizes our ranks.
Recognize and resist, they say.
Recognize what? Do we see Catholics when we look at them?
Resist what? Are we resisting the Catholic Church?
The biggest problem with R&R is linguistic ambiguity - the mortal sin of the same Council R&R pretends to react to.
Take note: R&R never defines its terms. For if it defined its terms it would alienate forever either Tradition or the freemasons; which would, in turn alienate it from access to money (from Tradition) and political prestige (from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ).
This is classical contradiction couched in smells, bells, and sound bytes.
It is entirely possible that R&R is also FUNDED by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
-
Just look at +F's last letter to friends and benefactors. I could not get through more that three lines and a skim.
Where is the Catholic teaching on the facts of this pontificate? Why will not the SSPX alert the faithful to the mortal danger now unleashed upon the whole world?
The SSPX is like a lighthouse dragged ten miles inland.
-
Nishant, we are not talking about bad popes. We are talking about heretics claiming the papacy. Heretics cannot legally hold ecclesiastical offices. It would not only be a violation of canon law but it would also be against Divine Law. When a claimant to the papacy teaches that there is no Catholic God we have abundant reason to suspect that he is a heretic. The Church has the power to make a judgement on his claim to the papacy. Hypothetically speaking if the College of Cardinals were all faithfully adhering to the teaching of the Church and they gathered together and judged that Francis was a public heretic and was therefore deposed by the law, would you reject their finding? I wouldn't! You would have to be insane to refuse obedience to Catholic authority and instead follow a public heretic. I think if that had happened in the case of Paul VI, the crisis would have ended very quickly. But that didn't happen. So who has the authority now? Not the heretics in Rome! The traditional Catholic clergy hold all the authority of the Church necessary to end this crisis.
-
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.
Sean:
Being of the Ecclesia Dei (now Summa P) persuasion, I am quite reluctant to argue the sedevacantist position - even if strictly only for the sake of the argument. The major reason being my attempts to do so in the past have often had unintended consequences (ie with the Dimond brothers, Gerry Matatics and Mario Derksen when each was still espousing the R&R position).
But since you've invited me into this debate, the major weakness I see in the "state of necessity" argument when employed against sedevacantism is as follows: Sedevacantism is not a rejection of the "state of necessity" argument as an attempt to explain and justify a perceived "state of necessity". That is, at the root of their argument, sedes believe that a "state of necessity" exists within the Church precisely because of potential or actual sedevacante.
To me personally this makes much more sense than R&R. This is because traditionally a state of necessity's existence presumes that the competent Church of authority is inaccessible. The R&R position presumes that the competent Church authority is accessible physically, but not morally. However this raises questions about who is competent to judge the competent Church authority morally inaccessible.
Whereas, sedevacantism provides a clear rationale as to why a state of necessity exists and one is required to act. That is, sedevacantism argues that the compentent authority is neither truly competent nor a true authority.
-
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.
A question that arises for me is: Has the SSPX dogmatized R&R?
I would answer yes.
Hello cantatedomino,
I recognize as your posts are developing that your context is to the [present] position of the nsspx; and I would agree with you on that context that the present nsspx is "dogmatizing" a "R&R" position.
With that said, I will define even more, that my context is NOT apart of the nsspx "hijacking" of the original -Scriptural Foundation- of the "R&R" position.
Perhaps also, it is the nsspx context of the "R&R" that J.Paul is speaking of. If so, then I am glad this distinction is coming out more clearer.
I repeat, as shown in all of my posts to date, I adhere to the context of the -Scriptural Foundation- to follow the authority of the Petrine Chair that God had installed.
In addition, I believe from Columba's posts, that he is also describing the context of using Divine Revelation from the Scriptural reference of the "Recognize and Resit" towards any high authority God had installed that may, unfortunately, become unfaithful to God's will; yet in mystery, God uses this for His need to purify His people.
-
Clemens Maria, I've shown you in the past the innumerable sources and traditional authorities that contradict your viewpoint, what would be the point of indefinitely multiplying them over again?
The power of jurisdiction is legislative, judicial and coercive. This habitual governing authority presupposes a perpetual relation between ruler and ruled, between those who govern and those who obey. This is absolutely necessary for acting as judges or making a judicial determination. Bishops without ordinary jurisdiction and clerics without a mission, who rely only on supplied jurisdiction for individual sacramental acts, cannot make such a judicially binding determination.
Also, the thesis that there are no more Roman clergy, i.e. clerics incardinated into the diocese of Rome by a former Roman Pontiff who are not heretics is heterodox and directly contradictory to defined Catholic doctrine. St. Robert Bellarmine taught this plainly and Pope Sixtus IV formally defined the same, the Roman Church as a particular Church is indefectible.
The view that all the Ordinaries of the universal Church have fallen into heresy is also by itself heretical, because it is opposed to the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church.
The only competent authorities to judge in the matter are the Ordinaries of the Church, the bishops appointed by a former Pope who have not fallen into heresy, and the Roman clergy, those incardinated into the local diocese by a former Pope.
If you hold a future judgment may be possible, that is not heretical although it gets progressively unlikelier the longer the alleged vacancy is prolonged..
But when you reject the only possible authorities, the Pope or those whom he in the past has appointed in one of the above ways, then you only unfortunately fall into only perpetual confusion. I can't convince you, Clemens Maria, only the Holy Ghost can do that. I can cite authorities, hope you correct yourself and pray for you, that's it. Beyond that, we can only agree to disagree.
Conclavism is a dead end and most second generation conclavists unhappily lose the faith and return to the world.
-
Nishant, we are not talking about bad popes. We are talking about heretics claiming the papacy. Heretics cannot legally hold ecclesiastical offices. It would not only be a violation of canon law but it would also be against Divine Law. When a claimant to the papacy teaches that there is no Catholic God we have abundant reason to suspect that he is a heretic. The Church has the power to make a judgement on his claim to the papacy. Hypothetically speaking if the College of Cardinals were all faithfully adhering to the teaching of the Church and they gathered together and judged that Francis was a public heretic and was therefore deposed by the law, would you reject their finding? I wouldn't! You would have to be insane to refuse obedience to Catholic authority and instead follow a public heretic. I think if that had happened in the case of Paul VI, the crisis would have ended very quickly. But that didn't happen. So who has the authority now? Not the heretics in Rome! The traditional Catholic clergy hold all the authority of the Church necessary to end this crisis.
Hello Clemens Maria,
Thanks for you contribution to the discussion. I do not know if you are a practicing Sedevacantist or not; however, can I introduce to you in his thread to understand the premise on the Sedevacantist position for its Scriptural Foundation?
In other words, many here are trying to describe 4,000 years of Foundational Scriptural History that proves God's highest authority on this earth cannot be judged and removed by anyone but God Himself, or with grace, judged from another Pope.
To judge that the Pope is a "heretic" and cannot hold the Chair that God put him in, is unjust without having tribunal evidence at your disposal and being a Pope yourself to judge another Pope; it then remains only a personal interpretation of things you heard and read. Therefore, such a position cannot dispose of God's anointed. Even if we like it or not.
As I have described in my other posts, that I do understand the Sedevacantist's position and that they however are using the lesser arguments to describe their thesis; additionally, those lesser arguments are only a support and a context to the Higher arguments of Divine Revelation towards God's highest authority. Therefore, the lesser premises cannot contradict the higher premise; and the interpretation follows accordingly.
In your above quote: "When a claimant to the papacy teaches that there is no Catholic God we have abundant reason to suspect that he is a heretic.", dreadful as that is, there are abundant examples in the Old Testament that God's highest authority of Kings, and also of Prophets, have also done the same in leading the Israelites into all kinds of sins and into idolatry. Salomon, Aaron, Saul, and other Kings and prophets (which I forgot their names at this moment) that have done such abominable things against the Faith. God still held them in the Chair of authority in order to use those abuses to chastise and purify his people (...).
In that context, wouldn't you agree?
-
Machabees said:
To judge that the Pope is a "heretic" and cannot hold the Chair that God put him in, is unjust without having tribunal evidence at your disposal and being a Pope yourself to judge another Pope; it then remains only a personal interpretation of things you heard and read. Therefore, such a position cannot dispose of God's anointed. Even if we like it or not.
I would say it is not unjust to do so. Let me give you an example: I was at an RCIA meeting once when another sponsor started arguing in front of three priests that women could be priests. In this I can discern that this person is a heretic without having an official interpretation.
Atheists do not go to heaven because Jesus said they don't. The choice is clear, Jesus is a heretic or Pope Francis is. Pick one or the other.
-
Machabees said:
To judge that the Pope is a "heretic" and cannot hold the Chair that God put him in, is unjust without having tribunal evidence at your disposal and being a Pope yourself to judge another Pope; it then remains only a personal interpretation of things you heard and read. Therefore, such a position cannot dispose of God's anointed. Even if we like it or not.
I would say it is not unjust to do so. Let me give you an example: I was at an RCIA meeting once when another sponsor started arguing in front of three priests that women could be priests. In this I can discern that this person is a heretic without having an official interpretation.
Atheists do not go to heaven because Jesus said they don't. The choice is clear, Jesus is a heretic or Pope Francis is. Pick one or the other.
-
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.
Sean:
Being of the Ecclesia Dei (now Summa P) persuasion, I am quite reluctant to argue the sedevacantist position - even if strictly only for the sake of the argument. The major reason being my attempts to do so in the past have often had unintended consequences (ie with the Dimond brothers, Gerry Matatics and Mario Derksen when each was still espousing the R&R position).
But since you've invited me into this debate, the major weakness I see in the "state of necessity" argument when employed against sedevacantism is as follows: Sedevacantism is not a rejection of the "state of necessity" argument as an attempt to explain and justify a perceived "state of necessity". That is, at the root of their argument, sedes believe that a "state of necessity" exists within the Church precisely because of potential or actual sedevacante.
To me personally this makes much more sense than R&R. This is because traditionally a state of necessity's existence presumes that the competent Church of authority is inaccessible. The R&R position presumes that the competent Church authority is accessible physically, but not morally. However this raises questions about who is competent to judge the competent Church authority morally inaccessible.
Whereas, sedevacantism provides a clear rationale as to why a state of necessity exists and one is required to act. That is, sedevacantism argues that the compentent authority is neither truly competent nor a true authority.
Pete-
It seems to me, based on the reasons you adduce, that your real problem is that you cannot accept causes excusing from obedience to superiors (e.g., epikeia; necessity).
For some reason, you think it necessary to judge the superior before refusing to comply with an evil order.
Where does that come from?
The judgment is upon the order given, not the superior giving it.
-Sean
-
Clemens Maria, I've shown you in the past the innumerable sources and traditional authorities that contradict your viewpoint, what would be the point of indefinitely multiplying them over again?
Which viewpoint are you referring to? I have more than one.
The power of jurisdiction is legislative, judicial and coercive. This habitual governing authority presupposes a perpetual relation between ruler and ruled, between those who govern and those who obey. This is absolutely necessary for acting as judges or making a judicial determination. Bishops without ordinary jurisdiction and clerics without a mission, who rely only on supplied jurisdiction for individual sacramental acts, cannot make such a judicially binding determination.
I'll concede that even if you give no docuмentation for it.
Also, the thesis that there are no more Roman clergy, i.e. clerics incardinated into the diocese of Rome by a former Roman Pontiff who are not heretics is heterodox and directly contradictory to defined Catholic doctrine. St. Robert Bellarmine taught this plainly and Pope Sixtus IV formally defined the same, the Roman Church as a particular Church is indefectible.
Let me help you out with the docuмentation here. See Monsignor Joseph Fenton's article from 1950: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=608 (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=608):
The traditional thesis that Rome is and always will be the primatial See of the Catholic Church received its most important development in St. Robert Bellarmine's Controversies. St. Robert devoted the fourth chapter of the fourth book of his treatise De Romano Pontifice to the question De Romana ecclesia particulari. His main thesis in this chapter was the contention that not only the Roman Pontiff, but also the particular or local Church of the city of Rome, must be considered as incapable of error in matters of faith.7
In the course of this chapter St. Robert exposed as "a pious and most probable teaching" the opinion that "Peter's cathedra could not be taken away from Rome,"8 and that, for this reason, the individual Roman Church must be considered as both infallible and indefectible. In support of this thesis which, incidentally, he considered as an opinion and not as entirely certain, St. Robert appealed to the doctrine that "God Himself has ordered Peter's Apostolic See to be fixed in Rome."9
St. Robert by no means closed the door entirely on the thesis of Dominic Soto. He admits the possibility that the divine mandate according to which St. Peter assumed command of the Church in Rome might have been merely a kind of "inspiration" from God, rather than a definite and express order issued by Our Lord Himself. Always insistent that his thesis was not a matter of divine faith, he repeated his contention that it was most probable and pie credendum "that the See has been established at Rome by divine and immutable precept."10
It appears St. Robert Bellarmine was considerably less sure about it than you are.
The view that all the Ordinaries of the universal Church have fallen into heresy is also by itself heretical, because it is opposed to the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church.
Docuмentation please? I've asked you to docuмent that one before and you failed to do so. I hope you are more accurate with this statement than you are about St. Bellarmine's teaching on the indefectibility of the local Roman Church. But I have another request, can you prove that Bishops ordained by Bishops who have valid apostolic succession (e.g. ++Lefebvre, ++Thuc, +Gonzalez, etc) somehow failed to receive a canonical mission? Isn't that a novelty? When did that ever happen before in the history of the Church? I understand how a schismatic bishop cannot confer a canonical mission but how is it that a faithful Catholic bishop who was unjustly suspended simply for keeping the Faith could fail to confer a canonical mission? Unless we are going to admit that the consecration was illicit. It seems to me that either the consecration was licit and there was a canonical mission or it was illicit and there was no canonical mission. A licit consecration with no canonical mission is a novelty. If there was a canonical mission then the apostolicity of the Church is not threatened by a claim that the Conciliar bishops have defected.
The only competent authorities to judge in the matter are the Ordinaries of the Church, the bishops appointed by a former Pope who have not fallen into heresy, and the Roman clergy, those incardinated into the local diocese by a former Pope.
If by the "matter" you mean the status of the papacy then there is one additional group that you have left off and that is the universal Church. I got that from Journet:
Charles Journet (1891-1975): “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See,
neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions
already laid down to determine the valid mode of election. However, in
case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing
against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown
who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at
the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying the Papacy to
such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church
of God.” (The Church of the Incarnate Word)
If you hold a future judgment may be possible, that is not heretical although it gets progressively unlikelier the longer the alleged vacancy is prolonged.
I haven't decided 100% on the sede vacantist position. I'm leaning towards it but since there has been no formal declaration I don't feel obligated to hold it. But I'm absolutely convinced that I do not need to recognize a heretic as anything other than a heretic outside the Church an completely incapable of sustaining any claim to an ecclesiastical office. As soon as a decision is made by the competent authorities we will be obligated to accept it.
But when you reject the only possible authorities, the Pope or those whom he in the past has appointed in one of the above ways, then you only unfortunately fall into only perpetual confusion.
You are confused, Nishant. Heretics and schismatics cannot have any authority in the Church. That is Divine Law. Correct yourself.
-
Pete-
It seems to me, based on the reasons you adduce, that your real problem is that you cannot accept causes excusing from obedience to superiors (e.g., epikeia; necessity).
For some reason, you think it necessary to judge the superior before refusing to comply with an evil order.
Where does that come from?
The judgment is upon the order given, not the superior giving it.
-Sean
I think this is where Tradition comes in. If one looks at instances throughout the Church's history prior to Vatican II where state of emergency or epikeia was invoked to justify a course of action, they involve the following two conditions being met:
1 - The situation involves circuмstances unforeseen by the legislator in prohibiting the course of action now being considered.
2 - The individual or group pursuing the course of action were impeded from accessing the mind of the legislator.
In the situation involving the FSSPX, the mind of the legislator is clearly known. Not only that, it is clearly opposed to the course of action being pursued. Additionally, the superior is the Roman Pontiff or the Roman Pontiff gathered with the Church's bishops at an Ecuмenical Council.
And unlike with St. Athanasius and Pope Liberius example often put forward by R&R traditionalists, in which Liberius was clearly acting under duress (and thus morally impeded), in the case of Vatican II there is no evidence that Pope and Bishops were acting under duress at the Council.
Therefore, while I reject the ultimate conclusion drawn by sedevacantists (otherwise I would embrace the sedeprivationist position rather than the Ecclesia Dei position obviously), I agree with sedevacantism that arguing "state of necessity" or epikeia requires clear judgment of the superior.
-
In other words, many here are trying to describe 4,000 years of Foundational Scriptural History that proves God's highest authority on this earth cannot be judged and removed by anyone but God Himself, or with grace, judged from another Pope.
That's true. No one can judge a true pope.
To judge that the Pope is a "heretic" and cannot hold the Chair that God put him in, is unjust without having tribunal evidence at your disposal and being a Pope yourself to judge another Pope; it then remains only a personal interpretation of things you heard and read.
That's false. If the claimant to the papacy is a heretic then he is not the pope by the law itself. Go read canon 188.4. It clearly says that a cleric tacitly resigns his office if he defects from the faith. Theologians and canon lawyers are universally agreed on that point. They only disagree on when he loses the office. Is it when the heresy/defection is made public or is it when the competent authorities make a formal declaration on the matter? It seems more probable to me that he loses the office the moment he makes his defection public.
In your above quote: "When a claimant to the papacy teaches that there is no Catholic God we have abundant reason to suspect that he is a heretic.", dreadful as that is, there are abundant examples in the Old Testament that God's highest authority of Kings, and also of Prophets, have also done the same in leading the Israelites into all kinds of sins and into idolatry. Salomon, Aaron, Saul, and other Kings and prophets (which I forgot their names at this moment) that have done such abominable things against the Faith. God still held them in the Chair of authority in order to use those abuses to chastise and purify his people (...).
In that context, wouldn't you agree?
No, canon law is very clear that public heretics cannot hold ecclesiastical offices.
-
Sean:
If you are interested in exploring the supplied jurisdiction argument from a sedevacantist perspective, there is a rather interesting thread on this topic posted to Bellarmine Forums in which John Lane does a pretty good laying out the sedevacantist position:
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552&sid=47ad44bebf3dd60ec544e8f59b87a46b
Again, coming from an Ecclesia Dei perspective I obviously disagree with the sede position. However, John Lane does an excellent job laying out the more nuanced sede position on supplied jurisdiction:
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552&sid=47ad44bebf3dd60ec544e8f59b87a46b
-
Sigh. You're running around in circles. The Fenton article, which I've cited to you in the past actually says this, if you'd read it in its entirety,
Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]
So if we were to apply your own standards, you just became a manifest heretic and are outside the Church. Does that seem in accordance with justice to you?
That's why we have to distinguish between material and formal heresy and have to ascertain whether the element of pertinacity is present. Which is often a complicated matter. This is especially so in the case of the Roman Pontiff, who is not subject to canon law.
And the issue is even otherwise not remotely as you make it out, since many theologians have held God has a special providence in the case of the Pope, and the general rules don't apply to him.
“I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors ... In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? ... one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors”
If you've actually read Journet's work, you'd know this is what he means by the universal Church, the world's Ordinaries. And he says the same on the Roman clergy too.
Material and formal Apostolicity, jurisdiction and mission, it being a proper Papal power, all this are well known.
This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession ... jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission
Also, what you say about mission and episcopal consecration is directly opposed to traditional doctrine, to what Archbishop Lefebvre and the four Bishops consecrated by him said then and have always said.
Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.
For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.
Since only the Pope can bestow a mission on a Bishop, a Bishop must either be named or at least be confirmed by the Pope, otherwise he enjoys no power of jurisdiction, as Pope Pius XII also teaches. If a Bishop tried to do so without Papal mandate, that would be wrong. That was why Archbishop Lefebvre was careful to explain he was merely performing a consecration under epikeia but not bestowing the power of jurisdiction.
Bishop Tissier said the same and this is the Society's position. This is how the Society has always answered the objections to the consecrations. Even some of the Vatican's own canon lawyers conceded it.
-
Machabees said:
To judge that the Pope is a "heretic" and cannot hold the Chair that God put him in, is unjust without having tribunal evidence at your disposal and being a Pope yourself to judge another Pope; it then remains only a personal interpretation of things you heard and read. Therefore, such a position cannot dispose of God's anointed. Even if we like it or not.
I would say it is not unjust to do so. Let me give you an example: I was at an RCIA meeting once when another sponsor started arguing in front of three priests that women could be priests. In this I can discern that this person is a heretic without having an official interpretation.
Atheists do not go to heaven because Jesus said they don't. The choice is clear, Jesus is a heretic or Pope Francis is. Pick one or the other.
Hello crossbro,
When the Church goes through the process of investigating and declaring someone a "heretic" it goes through a very long and tedious process; it could take years to complete; as had many times before. Also, the process is not designed to purposely declare someone a "heretic", it is designed to save them from their error; if not, then a declaration is made.
I'm sure that you can agree that to say that one is a "heretic' in itself is a very grave judgement on another person; it dams them to hell without a conversion. Isn't then also very grave to judge another without all of the evidence that forms the statement of that person of why they said it? Certainly, one can say somethings because one is ill informed; which is widespread today through error and propaganda.
None the less, isn't always wise and prudence to gather more information before judging another individual, especially if it is a higher authority, because the scandal of doing so can be greater than the accusation; is it not?
-
In other words, many here are trying to describe 4,000 years of Foundational Scriptural History that proves God's highest authority on this earth cannot be judged and removed by anyone but God Himself, or with grace, judged from another Pope.
That's true. No one can judge a true pope.[/b]
To judge that the Pope is a "heretic" and cannot hold the Chair that God put him in, is unjust without having tribunal evidence at your disposal and being a Pope yourself to judge another Pope; it then remains only a personal interpretation of things you heard and read.
That's false. If the claimant to the papacy is a heretic then he is not the pope by the law itself. Go read canon 188.4. It clearly says that a cleric tacitly resigns his office if he defects from the faith. Theologians and canon lawyers are universally agreed on that point. They only disagree on when he loses the office. Is it when the heresy/defection is made public or is it when the competent authorities make a formal declaration on the matter? It seems more probable to me that he loses the office the moment he makes his defection public.
In your above quote: "When a claimant to the papacy teaches that there is no Catholic God we have abundant reason to suspect that he is a heretic.", dreadful as that is, there are abundant examples in the Old Testament that God's highest authority of Kings, and also of Prophets, have also done the same in leading the Israelites into all kinds of sins and into idolatry. Salomon, Aaron, Saul, and other Kings and prophets (which I forgot their names at this moment) that have done such abominable things against the Faith. God still held them in the Chair of authority in order to use those abuses to chastise and purify his people (...).
In that context, wouldn't you agree?
No, canon law is very clear that public heretics cannot hold ecclesiastical offices.
Hello Clemens Maria,
I am glad to read that you have not embraced fully the errors of the Sedevacantist position.
However, in your posts you unfortunately made the same arguments as they do. May I remind you, as a Catholic, our primary belief in the Faith on this matter is first accepting the Pope on God's authority. Then it is up to the Church and God's providence to manifest events if God so chose to dispose of him.
The Sedevacantist position is one of pride first; to judge God's authority to suit their understanding. Their premise is one of "legality" first (Canon law…); not on the Faith first (on God’s authority).
Here is an example. You have acknowledged above that one cannot judge a Pope: "Machabees said: ...Foundational Scriptural History that proves God's highest authority on this earth cannot be judged and removed by anyone but God Himself, or with grace, judged from another Pope." You responded correctly: "That's true. No one can judge a true pope."
Hold that thought for a moment: "That's true. No one can judge a true pope."
Yet, in your very next sentence you made the same slogan, of the very contradiction of the Sedevacantist position, to make a “pre-judgment" that he is not a “true” Pope; that in your mind, private interpretation, he is already a "heretic".
In Catholicism that cannot be. The existence of the Catholic Church is for the salvation of souls; not to pre-judge. We just agreed that the Pope was installed on God’s authority; therefore, he is a true Pope. As such, there is no place to pre-judge the Pope to say he is not; especially with such a condemnation of the soul going to hell-fire without a conversion before death.
The scandal is immense without a just trial to flush out his intentions and understanding of such and such a statement; he very well could be mis-taught from bad superiors and professors above him with no intention to do contrary to God’s Faith if he knew it otherwise; that could be possible could it not? If so, can you now see that the Sedevacantist position is erroneous to pre-judge the Pope, God’s anointed, without God providing a just trial to give him the opportunity to convert from the alleged error?
The honesty that Sedevacantists do not want to address is that, like you admitted to, you cannot judge another Pope; it is on God’s authority. So how can the Sedevacantists make such an irrational and imprudent judgment to say he is a “heretic” without a just tribunal? Simply, because Sedevacantism is the Protestant error of independence within the Sanctuary.
I hope this helps.
-
Nishant,
Suarez held an uber-minority opinion that an heretical pope would remain pope until he was deposed by a council of bishops. That is why he is really the only theologian you will see quoted to defend a public heretic holding the papal office. Consider also that Suarez is wrong, since VI taught that the Holy See is judged by no one. If this had been clear in Suarez's time, dollars to doughnuts he would not have taught it. Additionally, Suarez may have been guilty of being deceived, since to support his position he cites that St Peter taught that a pope heretic must be deposed (from St. Clement's epistle). Yet St Clement never teaches this. So, Suarez opinion on this is highly dubious at best.
As concerns formal succession, I disagree with Clemens Maria and anyone else who suggests some variety of the idea that the traditional bishops have it. But I also reject your normal argument (which you are admittedly expressing more clearly than Michael Davies, who seems to try to touch on it but then opts rather to focus on selective copying and pasting of canonists and then draws his own conclusions) that makes an extended interregnum impossible on the grounds that apostolicity would cease to exist.
Facts:
There exist today, men who were lawfully appointed by a lawful pope, regardless of when a given sedevacantist thinks the interregnum began. When Pius XII, John XXIII, or even possibly Paul VI.
Resignation must be accepted by a lawful superior. If one of these afforementioned bishops resigned to someone who could not hold office (which is very likely, considering the effects of canon 188/4 and the latae sententiae excommunication incurred by the fact of public heresy) then such a bishop still retains his jurisdiction, and he obviously has orders.
There is also the supply of jurisdiction necessary to appoint a bishop, which would occur according to canon 209 in the event that an anti-pope attempted to fill a vacant see with a Catholic bishop. According to canon error, the anti-pope would be supplied jurisdiction for the act, and presuming the candidate could hold office, he would, and he would receive the power of jurisdiction attached to it.
The point is, apostolicity, even if an interregnum began with the death of Pius XII, has not disappeared. If you wish to argue that it will eventually disappear, there is still the supply of jurisdiction for an anti-pope appointing bishops to a see that would preserve it even longer.
Maccabes,
Please read my reply carefully.
"May I remind you, as a Catholic, our primary belief in the Faith on this matter is first accepting the Pope on God's authority. Then it is up to the Church and God's providence to manifest events if God so chose to dispose of him."
We accept all truths of the faith on God's authority. Who the pope is, or whether there is a pope, is not a truth of the faith, it's a matter of fact. It has as much effect on the state of a person's soul as whether or not he thinks six million, three million, or an hundred thousand Jews died in the h0Ɩ0cαųst. However, those things which are found in the deposit of faith (i.e., the Church's magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, and the Sacred Scriptures) we all accept on God's authority, because we accept that the Catholic Church expresses His will and His teachings to us. Among these teachings are the effects of what happen to manifest heretics, and it is certain that they lose their membership in the Church and cannot hold office. That is not a private opinion that I, Clemens Maria, you or Nishant or anyone else have conjured up, that is so clearly and blatantly the mind of the Church according to her saints, doctors, popes, theologians, laws and scriptures. So if one wishes to argue against a prolonged interregnum, one ought to do so by arguing that a given conciliar pope is not a manifest heretic. If he's not a manifest heretic, then he's probably pope. If he is a manifest heretic, he is certainly not the pope.
"The Sedevacantist position is one of pride first; to judge God's authority to suit their understanding. Their premise is one of "legality" first (Canon law…); not on the Faith first (on God’s authority)."
Do you attend the Novus Ordo? I'm assuming not, so what authority do you use to make this judgement? Do you follow the teachings of religious liberty and ecuмenism, as well as the pseudo-branch theory found in the VII docuмents? Again, I'm assuming not, so by what authority do you make this judgement? See, this cuts two ways. Naturally, you should respond that VII and the NOM are in direct conflict with the Catholic faith, and you should use docuмents such as Quo Primum or the historical reality of Cranmer's condemned ordo, as well as the teachings of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century popes as evidence supporting your position. Yet, in kind, the sedevacantist does the exact same thing by citing Church law and the teachings of the ordinary magisterium (heretics are not Catholics, and non-Catholics cannot participate in governing the Church, ergo) to support his position. But focus less on sedevacantists and more on sedevacantism, yes? Surely you could not find yourself arguing in a fruitful fashion with a neocat who simply wishes to psycho-analyze the repressed motives and personal idiosyncrasies of trads in general when you want to discuss with him whether or not the VII religion is Catholic!
When it is said that no one can judge the pope, it is meant that no council of bishops can put a pope on trial, because if one is subject to a trial, it means that one is under the jurisdiction of those who have put him on trial-- and the pope has jurisdiction of all. When VI taught that no one can judge the pope, it did not mean that no one can recognize a fact apparent before them, and respond in kind. It meant that the pope is not subject to ecclesiastical trial, because no one has jurisdiction over him. However, if the VII popes aren't really popes, then the axiom of not judging them wouldn't even apply in that sense, would it? Furthermore, to illustrate that "not judging the pope" does not mean what you think it does, look at Denz. 1105, where Pope Alexander VII teaches that you may denounce Peter if it is evident that he is an heretic, even if you cannot prove it.
"The existence of the Catholic Church is for the salvation of souls; not to pre-judge. We just agreed that the Pope was installed on God’s authority; therefore, he is a true Pope. As such, there is no place to pre-judge the Pope to say he is not; especially with such a condemnation of the soul going to hell-fire without a conversion before death."
No one thinks that the Church exists to give us the power to "pre-judge" so I don't know why you are bringing that up. The "power" to "pre-judge" is built into human reason. We have an intellect, and senses by which we receive information and then form judgements on what we see. Our Lord warns us of false shepherds, wolves in sheep's clothing. Did He warn us not to use our reason to discover who they are? Why would He warn us in the first place, if not because we are naturally imbued with the faculties to make a judgement on such a thing? The fact of damnation logically follows from realizing someone is not a Catholic. No one has condemned any of these conciliar popes to Hell, but to some it is apparent that they are not Catholic, and pending a converstion they WILL burn. If you witness a murder, must you wait until the murderer is convicted in a court of law to believe he is a murderer? If he is a murderer, does it not follow that he is also going to Hell as a necessary consequence of that crime (pending conversion, of course)?
"The scandal is immense without a just trial to flush out his intentions and understanding of such and such a statement; he very well could be mis-taught from bad superiors and professors above him with no intention to do contrary to God’s Faith if he knew it otherwise; that could be possible could it not? If so, can you now see that the Sedevacantist position is erroneous to pre-judge the Pope, God’s anointed, without God providing a just trial to give him the opportunity to convert from the alleged error"
What's up for debate is precisely whether or not he IS God's appointed. Whether or not he's mistaught is immaterial to whether or not he's the pope. If he's a male baptized Catholic who was lawfully elected, he's the pope, full stop. There are actually very few requirements to be pope. Three, really. Male. Baptized. Catholic. Fulfill these requisites and get elected, and you're the pope. You or I could be pope. But if one of these three is missing, whether it's because he had the misfortune of being born female, the misfortune of never being baptized, or the misfortune of not being raised in the Catholic faith, he can't be pope. But do you really think that someone who went through a decade of traditional seminary doesn't KNOW that there is one Church of Christ, the Catholic Church? And that there is no salvation outside of Her? Do you really think they don't know that the Church teaches that?
-
Pete-
It seems to me, based on the reasons you adduce, that your real problem is that you cannot accept causes excusing from obedience to superiors (e.g., epikeia; necessity).
For some reason, you think it necessary to judge the superior before refusing to comply with an evil order.
Where does that come from?
The judgment is upon the order given, not the superior giving it.
-Sean
I think this is where Tradition comes in. If one looks at instances throughout the Church's history prior to Vatican II where state of emergency or epikeia was invoked to justify a course of action, they involve the following two conditions being met:
1 - The situation involves circuмstances unforeseen by the legislator in prohibiting the course of action now being considered.
2 - The individual or group pursuing the course of action were impeded from accessing the mind of the legislator.
In the situation involving the FSSPX, the mind of the legislator is clearly known. Not only that, it is clearly opposed to the course of action being pursued. Additionally, the superior is the Roman Pontiff or the Roman Pontiff gathered with the Church's bishops at an Ecuмenical Council.
And unlike with St. Athanasius and Pope Liberius example often put forward by R&R traditionalists, in which Liberius was clearly acting under duress (and thus morally impeded), in the case of Vatican II there is no evidence that Pope and Bishops were acting under duress at the Council.
Therefore, while I reject the ultimate conclusion drawn by sedevacantists (otherwise I would embrace the sedeprivationist position rather than the Ecclesia Dei position obviously), I agree with sedevacantism that arguing "state of necessity" or epikeia requires clear judgment of the superior.
Pete-
The argument you are making was originally published by the FSSP, so it is not surprising, given your proclaimed adhesion to the PCED position, that you raise it here.
However, it is roundly refuted by the SSPX here (link to full article, well worth reading, appended at bottom of post):
C. REFUTATION OF MORE FALSE OBJECTIONS
Hence, it is not true that “it is only permitted to use epikeia if the legislator is inaccessible,” as we read in the tract, Du sacre episcopal contra la volonté du Pape (p.49), published by the Fraternity of St. Peter. What it says is true for epikeia in the strict or improper sense, but not for epikeia in the broad and proper sense. In the case of its improper (or popular) sense, epikeia persumes that authority – out of its kindness – does not wish to oblige, although it has the power to do so and hence, if the lawmaker is accessible, there is the duty to ask him, given that it is a question of “his will which is free” (Suarez, cit.). On the other hand, epikeia in the broad and proper sense concerns those cases in which authority cannot oblige, even if it wishes to do so, and the subject finds himself in the moral impossibility of obeying. Hence, epikeia is “necessary” (Suarez), and therefore recourse to the legislator is per se not obligatory. Indeed, it must be left out whenever it is foreseen that the superior would try to make his command binding despite the harm to the person making the request or to anyone else. In such a case, in fact, we are dealing not with the will of the superior, but his “power, which is not free” (Suarez, cit.).
Even less true is what we read in De Rome et d’ailleurs that a “state of necessity” arises when it is impossible to contact the superior, which presupposes a certain urgency in the decision to be taken.34 This is true for epikeia in the improper or popular sense, but even then it is true only in part because the state of necessity does not arise from the impossibility of contacting the superior, but it exists independently of that impossibility of contacting him, and it persists independently of an eventual refusal from the superior.
To settle the question, we quote Fr. Tito Centi, O.P.:
Moralists have sought to fix the criteria to be laid down for the application of epikeia. In substance, these criteria come down to the three following cases: a) when in a particular situation, the prescriptions of the positive law are in opposition to a superior law which binds one to regard higher interests [i.e., epikeia in the proper sense]; b) when, for reason of exceptional circuмstances, submission to the positive law would be too burdensome, without there resulting a good proportionate to the sacrifice being demanded; c) when, without becoming evil as in the first case and without imposing an unjustified heroism as in the second case, the observance of the positive law runs into special and unforeseen difficulties which render it, as it turns out, harder than it should have been according to the intention of the legislator.35
The grave spiritual necessity of many souls comes under the first case "a)" above, the case of positive law which by the force of extraordinary circuмstances becomes "evil" because "it is in opposition to a superior law binding one to regard higher interests" (i.e., epikeia in the proper sense - Ed.). The authors of the tract, on the contrary, like the writer of the article in the above-mentioned publication, seem to admit only the second and the third cases, "b)" and "c)" (i.e., epikeia in the improper or popular sense), which have nothing to do with the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. In the first case "a)," which is the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, epikeia coincides with equity, and, hence involves the moral impossibility of obeying and is, as we have already seen, a right [besides being a duty]. On the other hand, in the second and third cases noted in "b)" and "c)," epikeia is simply identified with clemency or moderation in the application of laws and in the exercise of authority.18
We are in exceptional circuмstances and, therefore, must ascend to higher principles which are not preached every day and which, therefore, are unknown to many, but which, nevertheless, are able to be found succinctly summarized in any treatise on the general principles of law or moral theology. Thus for example, in the Institutiones Morales Alphonsianae of Fr. Clement Marc we read:
A place is given to epikeia whenever the law makes itself harmful or too burdensome. In the first case [i.e., harmful], the superior really could not oblige and hence epikeia is necessary [(§174) which is the case as it concerns us here - Ed.].
In Regarding Principles of Moral Theology (III, n.199), Noldin says:
It is said that the purpose of the law ceases "contraire" [through contrary custom - Ed.] when its observation is harmful. If the purpose of the law in a particular case ceases "contraire," the law ceases [to oblige]. The reason is that if the purpose of the law ceases "contraire," then one has the right to use epikeia.
Finally, any manual explaining the principles of Canon Law deals with the cessation "ab intrinseco" of the law, that is to say, with the law that ceases to oblige out of the simple fact that it is in such-and-such a case harmful, and not because the lawmaker decrees that it should cease, or grants a dispensation from it. Such is exactly the case of the state of necessity, which is the strongest reason excusing one from obedience and strict observance of the law.36 This is especially true when this state of necessity arises from the duty, rooted in one's state, to help many souls in grave spiritual necessity, because "the salvation of souls is, for spiritual society, the ultimate end towards which all its laws and institutions are oriented."16 This is true for the entire hierarchy of the Church, top to bottom.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
-
I ought to have prefaced the last post with this introductory quote from the same article:
We saw in the first installment of this article (SISINONO, "The 1988 Consecrations: Part I," The Angelus, July 1999) that a bishop who experiences a state of grave general necessity of souls and consecrates another bishop "given that he has the power of Order" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Supplement, Q.20, A.1, op.cit. in, "The 1988 Consecrations: Part 1") is not questioning the primacy of jurisdiction of the pope. We have seen that he has every right to presume support for such an act required by extraordinary circuмstances "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the salvation of souls and for the common good. The salvation of souls is in fact the supreme law of the Church and it is certain that the Church "supplies" the jurisdiction lacking whenever it is a question of providing for the "public and general necessity of the faithful" (F.M. Cappello, SJ ., Summa Juris Canonici, vol. I, p.258, n.258, §2, op. cit. in Part 1).
It makes no difference to what we have just said if recourse to the pope is made materially impossible by external circuмstances, as in the historical cases recalled by us [in Part 1].
But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circuмstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circuмstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls. Any different behavior on the part of the pope presupposes, in fact, repentance and a humble admission of his own responsibility given that the act in question - i.e., the consecration of bishops -would not be required if the pope himself was not in some measure co-responsible for the state of grave and general necessity.
Therefore, it remains for us to ask if the subject in such circuмstances is bound to obey the "No" of the pope despite the harm threatening so many souls. In other words, does the "No" of the pope exonerate him from the duty under pain of mortal sin imposed by divine law upon whomever has the possibility to provide help for souls in the state of grave and general necessity where there is no hope of help from lawful pastors? This is the question that finds its answer in the Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity. This will become clear as we explain the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh principles of the Church's teaching on this point. [The first, second, and third principles were discussed in Part l-Ed.]
-
6th Principle: It is the character of necessity to place the subject in the physical or moral impossibility of obeying
It is certain that God binds nobody in a state of necessity, but the human legislator "can say 'no' without reason and in violation of natural and eternal law"6 and therefore they can in fact forbid an action required by the state of necessity. But, since the pope's "No" is powerless to do away with the grave general necessity of souls and hence the associated duty sub gravito go to their help, the subject, especially if he is a bishop or priest, then finds himself in the moral and absolute impossibility of obeying, because he could not obey without himself sinning and harming others. Hence, it is the character of the state of necessity "to create a sort of impotency whereby it is impossible to do something commanded or not do some- thing forbidden."7
This is not, in fact, the case of authority not being bound to oblige because" summum ius summa iniuria," or one which issues an inopportune command lacking in prudence, but which nevertheless people could be bound to obey all the same in view of the common good. This is, on the other hand, the case of authority that cannot oblige, because its command is opposed to a precept of divine and natural law "more grave and obliging."8 In such a case to obey the law or the legislator would be "evil and a sin" (Suarez, De Legibus, L. VI, c. VII, n.8). St. Thomas calls obedience in such a case "evil" (SI; 11-11, Q120, A.1). Cajetan refers to it as a "vice" (Cajetan in 1.2, q.96, a.6). Hence, refusal to obey becomes a duty (i.e" inoboedientia debita).9
The reality of such a case is not that the subject is disobeying. It is better said that he is obeying a higher and more compelling command issuing from divine authority, which "commands us to regard higher interests."10 Human authority , in fact, "is neither the first nor the only rule of morality ."6 Earthly authority is a" norma normata, "that is to say, a rule itself regulated by divine law, and hence when human authority, "contrary to natural and eternal law,"6 says "No," then disobeying man in order to obey God becomes a duty."11
4. 7th Principle: He who, constrained by the state of necessity, does not obey, is not questioning the lawful exercise of authority
For there to be disobedience, the command or prohibition must be lawful. This is the case when the Roman Pontiff or the Ordinary have the power to make the command or prohibition and, at the same time, the subjects are bound to obey the command or prohibition.12 But, we have seen: 1) that even for the pope the principle holds that, when the application of a law "would be contrary to the common good or to natural law [and in our case even divine-positive law-Ed.]...it is not in the power of the legislator to oblige,"13 and, 2) that the state of necessity, especially the necessity of which we are speaking, creates in the subject "a condition of impotency or impossibility [in this case morally and absolutely-Ed.] of doing a thing commanded or not doing a thing forbidden."7
Therefore, the command or prohibition of a superior which, by reason of extraordinary circuмstances, results in harm to souls and the common good, as well as being contrary to the state of the subject (cf. Suarez, De religione, LX, cap.IX, n.4), loses its character of lawfulness and absolves the subject from his duty to obey, "...nor are those who behave in such a way, to be accused of having failed in obedience, because if the will of leaders is repugnant to the will and the laws of God, these leaders exceed the measure of their power."14
We have already quoted St. Alphonsus that in the state of necessity there is imposed a "divine and natural law to which the human law of the Church cannot be opposed," and hence not even the command of the pope. The primacy of jurisdiction of the pope, therefore, is not in any way called into question by a violation of a jurisdictional law (as we have already seen), nor is it called into question by disobedience motivated by a state of necessity. In fact, the priest or bishop who, constrained by necessity, does not obey the pope is not thereby denying his own subordination to the pope outside the case of necessity, and so he is not refusing authority in its lawful exercise. Similarly, a wife is not denying the authority of her husband outside of the case of necessity, in which she has the duty to supply for him against his unreasonably opposed will.
St. Thomas says that whoever acts in a state of necessity "is not setting himself up as a judge of law" or of the legislator, nor is he even claiming that his point of view is better than that of authority, but he is merely "judging the particular case in which he sees that the words of the law [and/or the command of the legislator - Ed.] must not be observed," because their observance in this particular case would be gravely harmful. Hence, the state of necessity frees the subject from the accusation of arrogating to himself a power that does not belong to him (ST, I-II, Q.96, A.6, ad. 1,2). G. Gerson, for his part, reminds us that "contempt of the keys must be evaluated on the basis of legitimate power and the legitimate use of power."14
Hence, a priest who does not obey the pope forbidding him to absolve in a state of necessity, or a bishop who does not obey the pope forbidding him to consecrate bishops required by the grave spiritual necessity of many souls threatened in their faith and morals and without hope of help from their lawful pastors, cannot be accused of "contempt of the keys." This is so because the pope's action against divine law (natural and positive) is not making "lawful use" of his authority.
The primacy of the pope means blind submission "without examination of the object" exclusively "in matters of faith and morals," and when the pope expresses himself at that level on which his authority is infallible; otherwise, submission to the pope would be subject to the moral norms which regulate obedience. Hence, if the pope exceeds the "measure" of his power, the subjects who obey "God rather than man" are not to be accused of having failed in obedience (cf. Leo XIII, Diuturnum Illud, available from Angelus Press. Price: $0.75).
In the case we are considering, Archbishop Lefebvre did not question the right of the Vicar of Christ to exercise control, by virtue of his primacy, over the power of the episcopal order. He simply questioned whether the papal control over episcopal consecrations was able, in the present extraordinary circuмstances, to be respected without grave harm to many souls and without grave fault on his own part. These are circuмstances in which, as Pope John Paul II himself recognized, "ideas opposed to the revealed and constantly taught truth are being scattered by handfuls," when "true and genuine heresies are being spread in the realm of dogma and morals," and when Christians "in large part...lost, confused, perplexed, while being tempted by atheism, by agnosticism, by a vaguely moralistic humanism, by a sociological Christianity without defined dogmas and without objective morals,"11...are generally without hope of help from their lawful pastors.
Likewise, Archbishop Lefebvre did not question the Pope's power to command bishops in the interests of the Church and of souls, but he simply questioned whether in the present extraordinary circuмstances he could obey the Pope without grave harm to the Church and to souls, and without himself committing a grave sin, since he was under the grave duty of supplying, a duty imposed by charity and rooted in his episcopal state. And, in materially violating the disciplinary norm and the command he had received, he took care to affirm the dogmatic foundation of the primacy of the Holy Father and confine himself strictly within the limits of Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity. This was done in such a way that Cardinal Gagnon himself announced that "Archbishop Lefebvre has not in fact made the claim, 'I have the power to act in this realm.'"15
To maintain that by resisting the Pope's "No" Archbishop Lefebvre was denying the primacy of the Pope, one would have to claim that whoever resists a harmful command on the part of authority is denying authority itself, which is false.
These things having been said, we may now judge the position of those critics of Archbishop Lefebvre who would agree that the pope ought never to forbid an action necessary to save a man in peril of physical death, yet who simultaneously claim the pope has power to forbid an action necessary to help souls exposed to danger of eternal spiritual death. They defend his power [to prohibit an action] in order to safeguard the very primacy that is granted to the pope to save souls, not to damn them.
Gerson says that they are "weak-hearted" who think "that the pope is a god who has all power in heaven and on earth,"2 but the critics of Archbishop Lefebvre make the pope - or so it seems to us - more than a god, because not even God issues any command harmful to souls, nor does He insist on being obeyed when souls are being harmed. In reality, these unjust critics are making the primacy of Peter into the supreme law of the Church, which it is not, because that primacy has for its purpose the saving of souls. These critics are bringing papal primacy down to the level of a tyranny and the obedience due to the pope to the level of slavery, and they are making obedience the greatest of all virtues, which it is not, at least according to Catholic doctrine, for which obedience, even to the pope, is subordinate to the exercise of the theological virtues, charity being in the first place.16 St. Thomas, answering the objection that "sometimes to obey we must omit doing what is good," replies that "There is a good which a man is bound to do necessarily, such as loving God or other similar things. And that good may in no way be neglected out of obedience" (ST,II-II, Q.I04, A.3, ad.3) [emphasis added]. Among these "other similar things" there are in the first place the duties of one's state of life (especially if one is a Catholic bishop) and the love of neighbor, contained as a secondary object within the love of God. In fact, everything in the Church, with its hierarchical constitution, the primacy of Peter and the laws that control the power of Order, have charity as their final purpose, and if "necessity is not subject to law" (ST, cit.), it is because it is subject to the supreme law, which is charity. To the law of charity are subject even the Vicars of Christ who have, yes, the primacy of jurisdiction and hence the right to control all other jurisdiction within the Church, but:
...by the divine, indeed even natural, precept of charity, they are bound in this to provide sufficiently for the needs of the faithful (Suarez, De poenitentiae sacramento, disput. XXVI., Sect. IV, n.7).
-
Sigh. You're running around in circles. The Fenton article, which I've cited to you in the past actually says this, if you'd read it in its entirety,
Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]
"Sigh." I don't think your confidence and patronizing attitude are warranted. I did read the entire article and I never denied that Pope Sixtus IV taught the infallibility of the local Roman Church. But I think what that means in concrete terms needs to be examined because it is simply a fact that the local Roman Church is adhering to the Conciliar reforms which are heretical. Against a fact there is no argument. There might be one or more clerics who are keeping their opposition to those reforms secret but they are essentially invisible. Keep in mind that the infallibility of the Roman Church is a logical conclusion drawn from the infallibility of the Roman pontiff. And the Church doesn't teach that the pope is incapable of defecting from the Faith. So my point is that the Roman Church can defect (they could even be completely wiped out by a nuclear bomb). But it retains its infallibility. All that is needed is for the Church to elect another Catholic pope.
So if we were to apply your own standards, you just became a manifest heretic and are outside the Church. Does that seem in accordance with justice to you?
It's completely irrelevant. I don't hold any ecclesiastical offices. Neither have I said anything about being a sede vacantist. I merely hold that the Church has the power to remove a public heretic from office. I also deny that I ever knowingly rejected any teaching of the Church. Can you say the same for a man who studied in seminary for many years and still claims there is no Catholic God?
That's why we have to distinguish between material and formal heresy and have to ascertain whether the element of pertinacity is present. Which is often a complicated matter. This is especially so in the case of the Roman Pontiff, who is not subject to canon law.
True, but heretic and apostate Catholics are subject to canon law. Francis is a heretic therefore he is subject to canon law.
And the issue is even otherwise not remotely as you make it out, since many theologians have held God has a special providence in the case of the Pope, and the general rules don't apply to him.
Absurd! Go ahead Nishant. Be subject to a heretic. You put yourself outside the Church. If you knowingly subject yourself to a heretic, you are outside the Church. It is a heresy that Catholics can be subject to a heretic. That is clear from the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, the teachings of the popes, from canon law, always and everywhere.
“I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors ... In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? ... one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors”
Nice quote. But it is an opinion. It might be correct or it might not. There are plenty of other theologians who believe the pope loses his office the moment his heresy becomes public. Which makes sense if you think about it because otherwise the council would be judging a sitting pope which would be contrary to Church doctrine. You'd have to come up with an explanation for that. But regardless of when he loses his office we are not subject to him from the moment he makes his defection public.
Also, what you say about mission and episcopal consecration is directly opposed to traditional doctrine, to what Archbishop Lefebvre and the four Bishops consecrated by him said then and have always said.
It might be opposed to what Archbishop Lefebvre said but you will have to show me how it is opposed to traditional doctrine. Where has there ever been a valid and licit consecration which did not confer a canonical mission? Obviously, because heretics and schismatics are outside the Church they can not consecrate licitly so there is no canonical mission there. But it was supposed that ++Lefebvre was unjustly suspended and therefore he retained his canonical mission and his apostolicity. His consecrations were not only valid but licit as well. Bishops have been licitly consecrated during interegnums in the past so obviously a papal mandate from a living pope is not absolutely necessary. It is possible for a bishop to confer a canonical mission during an interegnum.
Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.
For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.
Since only the Pope can bestow a mission on a Bishop, a Bishop must either be named or at least be confirmed by the Pope, otherwise he enjoys no power of jurisdiction, as Pope Pius XII also teaches. If a Bishop tried to do so without Papal mandate, that would be wrong. That was why Archbishop Lefebvre was careful to explain he was merely performing a consecration under epikeia but not bestowing the power of jurisdiction.
The confirmation doesn't have to come beforehand. It can come after the consecration.
-
If you read the theological manuals it seems as though the canonical mission is assumed. Yes, there is material and formal succession but can you find a discussion of the possibility of a valid and licit consecration where no canonical mission is conferred? It is unheard of! Either the consecrating bishop is acting within the law or he isn't. You can't split the consecration into parts and say one part is licit and the other isn't. That's ridiculous. If there was no pope at the time of the consecration then the papal mandate is not necessary. The next pope can confirm it. The mistake Archbishop Lefebvre made was in thinking that there was a sitting pope who was denying him a papal mandate and therefore he had to come up with some way to explain the liceity of his actions. But he could be wrong about the explanation. I argue there was an implicit canonical mission. The next pope will have to confirm that.
The Church has jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is held by someone, somewhere. I don't agree with the sedeprivationist idea that somehow the heretics and schismatics retain jurisdiction. That doesn't strike me as anymore probable than that traditional bishops who were validly and licitly consecrated by bishops who themselves had a canonical mission, also received a canonical mission. I would agree, however, that a traditional priest who went to an Old Catholic for consecration would not receive a canonical mission because the Old Catholic bishop cannot confer something that he does not have. But in the case of ++Lefebvre he did have a canonical mission which although the heretics tried to say that he was deprived of it, he did in fact retain it. Even if he denied it, he could implicitly confer a canonical mission to the consecrand thus preserving apostolicity. He could not have done that without a papal mandate unless there was no pope. If there was no pope then he could do it. And the next pope would have to confirm it.
-
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/11Aug/aug8ftt.htm
Bullfighting is often considered a sport, a brutal one at that. But there is a nobility in the matadors who stand against the charging bull. These matadors then are the sedevacantists who bravely enter the ring risking their own reputations and the consequences of being rejected by man, but do it for God. The picadores and banderilleros are those who stay on the fringe and will distract the bull, but have no answer how to deal with the bull. These are the resist-and-recognize forces who have no expertise on how to kill the bull. The spectators are those who realize something is wrong but don't really want to get involved. They are fine with their comfortable position where they think they won't get harmed but little do they know that a much more dangerous beast with horns has already gored their minds and souls, causing them to grow more lukewarm, perfect foils for the heretical bull that is being thrown around the ring with only the matador and his toreros willing to stand for the truth and face down the heretics and apostate beast with the sword and cape of Catholic truth.
The "Sede" Position in Brief
In this third and final installment, I would like to cite John Lane's syllogism in thirteen points below in presenting a short, systematic outline of the history and doctrine supporting the "sede vacante" thesis.
1. Heresy is defined as a pertinacious doubt or denial of something required to be held with divine and catholic faith.
2. "Vatican II" and its "popes" have taught, adhered to, acted in accordance with, or failed to condemn a plethora of heresies, including religious liberty, universal salvation, the efficacy of non-Catholics sects for salvation, the blasphemy that Jews & Muslims worship the One True God, the evolution of dogma, etc. They have also destroyed the faith of tens of millions, and Karol Wojtyla ("John Paul II") describes this whole process as a "new Pentecost." In other words, he thinks it is good, and wants the Holy Ghost to take the blame ("credit").
3. There are various undoubtedly genuine prophecies relating to our time (or a time like ours) which predict the loss of faith at Rome, the use of the See by Antichrist, the mass apostasy, the disappearance of the perpetual sacrifice, etc.
4. It is the constant tradition of Holy Church that manifest (i.e. "public") heresy results in the radical incapacity of a man to hold the papacy.
5. History provides a number of examples of popes (or "popes") who were claimed to have fallen into at least material heresy, and the reaction of good Catholics each time was to threaten to withdraw from communion with them, and in the more outstanding cases work towards convoking an imperfect council for the "deposition" of the apparent heretic. The significant examples include Liberius, Honorius (after his death), Pascal II, John XXII, Alexander VI, Paul VI, and John Paul II.
6. There is no case in history where a "pope" has apparently been a manifest heretic and did not produce this reaction in some portion of the clergy and laity (the faithful).
7. These members of the faithful have included many saints.
8. The theological basis for this reaction has been established perfectly by many theologians and canonists, with the outstanding example being St. Robert Bellarmine, who has harmonised or criticised all of the opinions to produce the locus classicus on the subject. Given that his works have received the highest possible approbation by the Church - he has been named a Doctor (i.e. "Teacher") of the Universal Church - it is perfectly legitimate, nay praiseworthy in the highest degree, for Catholics to be taught by him in all matters of sacred doctrine.
9. Furthermore, there are only three or four theologians known to have held that a heretic could become or remain pope, and none of those are Doctors of the Church.
10. Furthermore, there is the bull of Pope Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, which legislates that if a heretic is elected pope the election is completely null and void, and cannot be convalidated in any way. Once again, this bull proves the radical incompatibility of the papacy and the person of a heretic. If this was not the case, the faulty election could be repaired by acclamation or subsequent "convalidation" by the Sacred College.
11. It is contrary to right reason to insist that individual members of the faithful have no right to draw the concrete conclusion of a vacant see through heresy, prior to a declaration by Holy Church. This is proved by a reductio ad absurdum - if this were the case, then no action could be legitimately taken to remove such a "papal" heretic and then replace him. This is because a pope cannot be judged by any man, since judging belongs by divine right only to superiors, and the pope has no superior. Hence any proceedings which were founded on any basis other than the evident vacancy of the Holy See would be contrary to divine law and thus null and void. This is also proved by the authority of Wernz and Vidal, cited elsewhere on this web site, who maintain that those who dispute the legitimacy of a given pontiff are not to be counted schismatics.
12. This judgement of vacancy made by an individual is valid and sufficient in its sphere. It can be and should be a judgement of moral certainty, based on the relevant clear principles of theology and divine law, as embodied in the writings of the approved teachers of Holy Church, and also in her canon law. These principles include the nature of Holy Church as a visible society of those who, among other things, outwardly profess the true faith. Also relevant is the presumption under divine law (and hence canon law) of guilt for heresy (in the external forum) until and unless the contrary is proved. (This principle is no different in its fundamental nature from the presumption which provides perfectly sufficient support for the validity of all sacraments, including the Thuc and Lefebvre lines of Orders and all marriages). This principle is also clearly implied in St. Robert Bellarmine's assessment of the case of Liberius, in which he states that Liberius was actually innocent and yet rightly presumed guilty. It is also clearly enunciated in Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, in which the Holy Father laid down that only God judges what remains internal, while men judge externals. (Emphasis mine throughout - JG)
13. Given the above, it is the right and responsibility of all of the faithful, as it lies within their competence, to form a view on this question, and it is the additional responsibility of the clergy to act upon the conclusion reached.
Perhaps it may now be clear why it is an absolute outrage that so-called "sedevacantists" are treated as schismatics and denounced as enemies of Holy Church. Sede Position in Brief
Again, turning to John Lane's findings, let us examine what St. Robert Bellarmine points out.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.
"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult [private or secret - JG] heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external [VISIBLE - JG] union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union [can be saved despite what the Feeneyites teach - JG], not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
Comments by Jim Larrabee: As to the case of Liberius, which Bellarmine treats in book IV, chapter IX at considerable length, he is there concerned not to prove that Liberius was not deposed, and lawfully deposed (both of which he fully admits), but that the Liberius case does not argue against infallibility, nor was Liberius personally a heretic. This involves various distinctions which people now are failing to make, but are evident to any theologian. Perhaps I could quote this at length in future, but for now, let it be said that, while Liberius resisted heresy both before and after the period of his lapse and deposition (and that is what the quote from a later Pope undoubtedly refers to), he failed to do so for a given time. During this time the Roman clergy "deposed" him, i.e. they considered the papacy to be vacant, and accepted St. Felix as Pope.
For example (Bellarmine): "In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus." (lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)
Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic. (Emphasis mine throughout) Bellarmine
If the conciliar Church is the Catholic Church then the gates of Hell could prevail and the Catholic Church could be destroyed since it would, if not already, no longer have a valid Mass as its main form of worship (even the "extraordinary form", modernized 1961/2 version of the true Mass is invalid when offered by the invalid clergy that composes over 99% of their clergy) or Sacraments or valid Priests or Bishops or Canon Law or Truth or Oneness or Holiness or Apostolicity. If any Mark of the Church is destroyed that whole Church is destroyed. Three out of the four Marks of the Conciliar Church have gone kaput as the only remaining Mark, which is its universality in this world so obviously ruled by Satan. Yes, we must take the bull by the horns and end the conciliar heresy for it is no game of sport when it comes to souls.
-
If you read the theological manuals it seems as though the canonical mission is assumed. Yes, there is material and formal succession but can you find a discussion of the possibility of a valid and licit consecration where no canonical mission is conferred? It is unheard of! Either the consecrating bishop is acting within the law or he isn't. You can't split the consecration into parts and say one part is licit and the other isn't. That's ridiculous. If there was no pope at the time of the consecration then the papal mandate is not necessary. The next pope can confirm it. The mistake Archbishop Lefebvre made was in thinking that there was a sitting pope who was denying him a papal mandate and therefore he had to come up with some way to explain the liceity of his actions. But he could be wrong about the explanation. I argue there was an implicit canonical mission. The next pope will have to confirm that.
The Church has jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is held by someone, somewhere. I don't agree with the sedeprivationist idea that somehow the heretics and schismatics retain jurisdiction. That doesn't strike me as anymore probable than that traditional bishops who were validly and licitly consecrated by bishops who themselves had a canonical mission, also received a canonical mission. I would agree, however, that a traditional priest who went to an Old Catholic for consecration would not receive a canonical mission because the Old Catholic bishop cannot confer something that he does not have. But in the case of ++Lefebvre he did have a canonical mission which although the heretics tried to say that he was deprived of it, he did in fact retain it. Even if he denied it, he could implicitly confer a canonical mission to the consecrand thus preserving apostolicity. He could not have done that without a papal mandate unless there was no pope. If there was no pope then he could do it. And the next pope would have to confirm it.
Nice post! :applause:
-
By the way, Nishant. Thank you for your concern about my faith. Thank you for praying for me. And I admit that there is a very real danger of me losing my faith but I would not knowingly subject myself to any dangers. However, I consider all these things concerning the status of the papacy to be opinions (at least those parts of the discussion which are not established doctrines of the Church). I will abandon them if it appears that continuing to hold them will cause me to deny any part of Catholic doctrine. Just remember that even the most confident and brilliant theologian can also lose his faith. Especially in this day and age. We are all in danger.
-
It might be opposed to what Archbishop Lefebvre said but you will have to show me how it is opposed to traditional doctrine. Where has there ever been a valid and licit consecration which did not confer a canonical mission? Obviously, because heretics and schismatics are outside the Church they can not consecrate licitly so there is no canonical mission there. But it was supposed that ++Lefebvre was unjustly suspended and therefore he retained his canonical mission and his apostolicity. His consecrations were not only valid but licit as well. Bishops have been licitly consecrated during interegnums in the past so obviously a papal mandate from a living pope is not absolutely necessary. It is possible for a bishop to confer a canonical mission during an interegnum.
Thanks for the sound input Clemens Maria.
People insist on looking for the hierarchy in all the wrong places. It is right where it appears to be, with the Catholic Bishops who maintain the faith.
-
Sean:
If you are interested in exploring the supplied jurisdiction argument from a sedevacantist perspective, there is a rather interesting thread on this topic posted to Bellarmine Forums in which John Lane does a pretty good laying out the sedevacantist position:
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552&sid=47ad44bebf3dd60ec544e8f59b87a46b
Again, coming from an Ecclesia Dei perspective I obviously disagree with the sede position. However, John Lane does an excellent job laying out the more nuanced sede position on supplied jurisdiction:
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552&sid=47ad44bebf3dd60ec544e8f59b87a46b
Thanks for being objective and actually taking an unbiased look at the position.
-
I am sure the average soul wades through an elaborate PhD thesis to determine this question! One look at this 'apology for a pope' tells me he ain't out of pure instinct. But if I were to add a bit of logic (always a danger for gamblers!) .... and be guided by those who shout the loudest yet they never seem to take their own advice ...... I would simply say Bergoglio heads a new church and repudiates the old one. End of.
One such talker was Michael Davies who surrounded himself with so many hedging devices that ensured his passage into the next world was risk-free to the max. And when that time came his mind was in such a confusion that he raced through his writing to edit out any unkindess towards Rome. I tire of endless scripts that are clever enough to contain (if you look hard enough) get-out clauses. He went to his eternal courtesy of the conciliar church as so many English so-called traditionalists seem to prefer. End of.
Nice post! I'm glad to see someone realizes this about Michael Davies. :cheers:
-
The argument you are making was originally published by the FSSP, so it is not surprising, given your proclaimed adhesion to the PCED position, that you raise it here.
Shawn:
Keeping in mind that the debate is about sedevacantism vs R&R, let's assume for the sake of the argument that you and the FSSPX are correct in your interpretation of these canonical controversies and your understanding of epikeia, state of necessity, etc.
How does this refute the sedevacantist position?
Sedevacantism, as far as I can tell, simply offers a theory as to why they believe a state of necessity exists, or why epikeia can be invoked. Thus the argument itself is neutral with regards to the controversy between sedevacantism and R&R, favouring neither one position nor the other. I suspect this may be why Mgr Williamson, quoting Fr. Roux, states in his last letter that to him sedevacantism is an opinion.
-
J.Paul, you contribute many good things [...]
As Columba pointed out to you, and as you admitted to, you want to make a difference in the crisis and "charge" without a plan.
I think we can only start making plans for restoration after calling a truce on certain debates that have gone unresolved for decades, particularly those involving speculation over the degrees of legitimacy that current heresiarchs still retain. These debates are probably not resolvable until obtaining greater understanding of the means by which the hierarchy was compromised. Even if we were able to achieve some debate resolution, our present state of powerlessness would likely prevent taking meaningful action based upon that resolution. In this sense, these debates are merely academic. We must regain some degree of power to acquire the improved vantage point necessary for resolving some of these debates and acting upon said resolutions.
Why do we have no power? Consider that almost every sizable traditionalist organization eventually becomes compromised from within. Is this just a random coincidence or are there hidden forces at work? I submit that the consensus of Catholics 500 years ago that there are such forces was correct. If so, the consensus of modern Catholics that such forces to not exist or, if they do, should not be proactively addressed is false. During the era of the greatest saints, Catholics uniformly believed that an underground, multi-generational network with special powers was constantly working to conquer and destroy their civilization from within. Even the popes of more recent times prior to Vatican II regularly spoke of such things despite their warning falling on deaf ears. This conspiracy, Catholics believed, was coordinated by the "powers and principalities" of Hell and manned by traitors to the human race channeling preternatural "magic" and employing esoteric technology.
Catholics did not shrink against such fearsome power but responded with steady self-confidence, steely courage, and lethal ferocity since they had faith that God is stronger than Satan and that the armies of Heaven are greater allies than those of Hell. Devils cannot overcome Catholics united with each other and the powers of Heaven. However, the evil powers proved very effective at fooling Catholics into voluntarily disarmament and leading them into viny forests of distraction. That is the present situation.
Our army was decimated and scattered. If the remnant regathers and arraigns itself in marshal order, a flood of new recruits would swell the ranks. A core restoration army must consist of those who are 1) Catholic and 2) part of a consensus sufficient for militant cooperation. Catholics who lack militancy, a cooperative spirit, or understanding of the crisis would not be suitable. Agreement on non-obedience toward heresiarchs and no extraordinary conclave for the time being could serve as a working consensus for cooperation between non-dogmatic R&R's and Sede's.
What stops us from forming such an army now? Let us compare qualities of a soldier to a debater. A soldier seeks a squad to join for the purpose of achieving a shared military objective. After finding a squad, he adheres to the common requirements and insists his squad-mates do the same. Since the soldier intuitively understands the principle of strength in numbers, he supports the joining of his squad with others to form a platoon if the combined strength is needed to achieve the military objective. Platoons join to form a company, companies form a battalion, these join to form a regiment, which combines to form a division, which combines to form a corps, and a corps joined with others forms an army. There are no committees, legislative bodies, and few elections. Each soldier is ranked in a natural order according to objective comparison of his qualities to those of the others within his group. A good soldier never wants promotion beyond his ability because that would impede the function of his group to place him and his fellows at risk. The formation of a well-ordered army occurs spontaneously whenever a number of true soldiers find themselves in close proximity and sharing the same military objective.
Now consider the debater. Like the solder, the debater seeks others of his kind but that is to engage them in verbal contention. Even when two debaters in 99.9% agreement, they gravitate toward arguing the 0.1% of issues over which they differ. Upon the rare occasions that a debater finds another with whom he fully agrees, the two may team up only to seek others with whom to dispute. Like the soldier the debater seeks victory but since contest is merely verbal, both sides in a debate can and often do claim victory upon conclusion. When each side insists the other is wrong, they can never join for a common cause. Such debaters, by definition, can never successfully form an army.
Sede and R&R dogmatic debaters challenge us to take a hard position on whether St. Peter's chair is empty or legitimately occupied. If we cannot see an preponderance of evidence sufficient to decide, these dogmatists will accuse us of fence sitting or some heresy of denying objective reality. A debater would then get sucked into an interminable discussion. A soldier would slam such accusers with his rifle butt and exclaim "debate over!"
If the qualities of a soldier were significantly present among trads, they would have already formed armies and racked up victories. They might be engaged in "poaching" against the dioceses like some of the protestants. In order for Catholics to form a restoration army, they must transform themselves from debaters into soldiers. Once a core number of Catholics acquire the soldier mindset, the army will coagulate organically. What is to be the mission of a Catholic army? An army works best when concentrated upon a single objective. Once an objective is completed or advanced, the next mission often comes into view. The first mission of the core army should be develop and promulgate the ethos the Catholic soldier.
-
The argument you are making was originally published by the FSSP, so it is not surprising, given your proclaimed adhesion to the PCED position, that you raise it here.
Shawn:
Keeping in mind that the debate is about sedevacantism vs R&R, let's assume for the sake of the argument that you and the FSSPX are correct in your interpretation of these canonical controversies and your understanding of epikeia, state of necessity, etc.
How does this refute the sedevacantist position?
Sedevacantism, as far as I can tell, simply offers a theory as to why they believe a state of necessity exists, or why epikeia can be invoked. Thus the argument itself is neutral with regards to the controversy between sedevacantism and R&R, favouring neither one position nor the other. I suspect this may be why Mgr Williamson, quoting Fr. Roux, states in his last letter that to him sedevacantism is an opinion.
Pete-
It disturbs and refutes the sedevacantist mantra that there is something inconsistent, contradictory, or incoherent in the R&R position, which has caused some people people of a simplistic or legalistic mind-bent to errantly embrace the sedevacantist position.
Those who are heading down that dead end road because of that alleged incoherent R&R position, if they are honest (and have the intellectual horsepower), will put on the brakes once they understand the "ins and outs" of necessity.
The rest, well, no point in arguing with them.
-
It disturbs and refutes the sedevacantist mantra that there is something inconsistent, contradictory, or incoherent in the R&R position, which has caused some people people of a simplistic or legalistic mind-bent to errantly embrace the sedevacantist position.
Okay, fair enough.
Those who are heading down that dead end road because of that alleged incoherent R&R position, if they are honest (and have the intellectual horsepower), will put on the brakes once they understand the "ins and outs" of necessity.
It may stop some. Nevertheless, historically sedevacantism has always boasted some of the heaviest intellectual firepower. Moreover, among younger traditionalists today, I find sedevacantism is not the scarlet letter it was for the previous generation. So I imagine that for most R&R traditionalists headed down the road to sedevacantism, the arguments you quote are for the most part a speedbump only.
-
I think we can only start making plans for restoration after calling a truce on certain debates that have gone unresolved for decades, particularly those involving speculation over the degrees of legitimacy that current heresiarchs still retain.
I get the feeling that this is where Mgr. Williamson was headed with his newsletter last week in terms of calling for a cooperation between the Resistance and sedevacantism. Except I am not sure the bishop thinks a restoration possible at this point outside of the Parousia.
On another note, a proper regiment is not divided into companies further sub-divided into platoons. A proper regiment is divided into batteries further subdivided into gun detachments. :cowboy:
Ubique!
-
I think we can only start making plans for restoration after calling a truce on certain debates that have gone unresolved for decades, particularly those involving speculation over the degrees of legitimacy that current heresiarchs still retain.
I get the feeling that this is where Mgr. Williamson was headed with his newsletter last week in terms of calling for a cooperation between the Resistance and sedevacantism. Except I am not sure the bishop thinks a restoration possible at this point outside of the Parousia.
On another note, a proper regiment is not divided into companies further sub-divided into platoons. A proper regiment is divided into batteries further subdivided into gun detachments. :cowboy:
Ubique!
...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.
Tradcuмenism is ecuмenism.
Apparently, the lesson is that we can cooperate with anyone closer to us than the adversary.
Not good.
-
...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.
With regards to the Resistance, I would be shocked if they made common cause with high Anglicans. In over 20 years of being a traditionalist I have come across maybe two traditionalists who disagree or question Apostolicae Curae.
Likewise, I would be very surprised if the Resistance came to a truce with the PNCC--especially since the PNCC accepts many practices that the Resistance objects to within the Novus Ordo, as well as some departures from traditional Catholicism not found in the Novus Ordo.
Orthodoxy? Okay, I see some similarities to ROCOR, Old Calendarists, Russian Old Believers and the Monks of Mount Athos, but a truce or alliance would require their acceptance of the Resistance and sedevacantism, which is unlikely given that they are roughly equivalent of the Resistance within Eastern Orthodoxy.
As for an alliance with mainstream Orthodoxy, I see this as highly unlikely given that Pope Francis has a long history of strong ecuмenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox, to the point that he is probably more well liked among Eastern Orthodox than any Roman Pontiff going back to the Photian schism.
In contrast, so long as Mgr. Williamson is the Resistance's only bishop, and so long as the Resistance lacks stability and critical mass, I am not sure it can avoid following Mgr. Williamson's entreaty toward an alliance with non-doctrinaire sedevacantism.
-
...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.
With regards to the Resistance, I would be shocked if they made common cause with high Anglicans. In over 20 years of being a traditionalist I have come across maybe two traditionalists who disagree or question Apostolicae Curae.
Likewise, I would be very surprised if the Resistance came to a truce with the PNCC--especially since the PNCC accepts many practices that the Resistance objects to within the Novus Ordo, as well as some departures from traditional Catholicism not found in the Novus Ordo.
Orthodoxy? Okay, I see some similarities to ROCOR, Old Calendarists, Russian Old Believers and the Monks of Mount Athos, but a truce or alliance would require their acceptance of the Resistance and sedevacantism, which is unlikely given that they are roughly equivalent of the Resistance within Eastern Orthodoxy.
As for an alliance with mainstream Orthodoxy, I see this as highly unlikely given that Pope Francis has a long history of strong ecuмenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox, to the point that he is probably more well liked among Eastern Orthodox than any Roman Pontiff going back to the Photian schism.
In contrast, so long as Mgr. Williamson is the Resistance's only bishop, and so long as the Resistance lacks stability and critical mass, I am not sure it can avoid following Mgr. Williamson's entreaty toward an alliance with non-doctrinaire sedevacantism.
Pete-
You are being much too picky!
After all, we resisters are very big on principle!
As defenders of the Trinity, we could all team up against the Jews.
As defenders of priesthood, we could all team up against the Prots.
And as opposers of modernism, we could all team up against Rome (apparently).
This is blatant ecuмenism, no matter how pleased with it the sedes who overrun this site are with Bishop Williamson's long-awaited statement.
They will try to out-do each other praising the wisdom of Bishop Williamson, to encourage him in his slide towards their position.
But none of their Te Deums, appeals to reason (which is quite funny, actually, since they have become solipsists), or defenses will mask the fact that Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.
For the sake of consistency, I would now expect of them to cease all attacks on Bishop Williamson and Menzingen on that score.
A shame.
PS: Has anyone asked you whether you were sent here to drive deeper the wedge with the resistance?
-
Man cannot conceive of God's plans, but certainly He wants Catholics doing their utmost to propagate the Faith in this present era, whether or not those efforts will succeed in the short term. So we should work for revival even if success appear humanly impossible.
However, that is not the case. Many, many people besides traditional Catholics have noticed the collapse of Western Civilization and many are seeking leadership for launching a revival. We traditional Catholics, sole inheritors of the core of Western Civilization, hoard our treasure by not filling the leadership vacuum because we are afraid of our own shadows.
I would proffer that the R&R position, coupled with scandalous divides inside the walls of so-called Tradition, contributes, through institutionalized dissimulation, to the overarching pusillanimity which now characterizes our ranks.
Recognize and resist, they say.
Recognize what? Do we see Catholics when we look at them?
Resist what? Are we resisting the Catholic Church?
The biggest problem with R&R is linguistic ambiguity - the mortal sin of the same Council R&R pretends to react to.
Ambiguity does not have to be a sin. Clarity requires a good understanding of the matter under consideration. We rightly abhor the ambiguity of the Vatican II because the modernists have no excuse for obfuscating doctrines that were previously well-defined. However, I have never heard a clear description of how the modernists succeeded in taking over the hierarchy.
What does "taking over the hierarchy" mean? Might that supposition be understood as heretical? What do we mean by the conciliar church? If that is a separate church, should we give up all claims to the properties it inhabits? If it is not an entirely separate church, are we in partial communion. That is not ossible by definition. Should we hope that a traditional pope will one day emerge from a conclave held in the Sistine Chapel or is that equivalent to hoping for a good pope to come from a vote taken in a lodge or a ѕуηαgσgυє?
We do not have all the facts and we do not know the full implications of the facts we have. Defenses of Sedevacantism, R&R, and Ecclesia dei are each necessarily vague because they are responses to certain actions by the masons and churchmen that remain concealed to this day. Even if we knew what happened, the Church has probably never previously defined what a properly orthodox response to the present situation would be. The reason I say probably is because, again, I do not know what happen even though I have heard many wild theories and formulated some of my own.
All this unavoidable confusion underscores why it is futile to continue spinning our wheels in the same ol' trad debates that have immobilized us some forty-odd years. Events that led to the current conciliar church will remain hidden until we have enough clout to demand answers and docuмents from whatever-it-is that currently occupies our historic buildings. A sustained, aggressive, united effort by trads to take away the conciliar faithful would certainly bear fruit. That would give us clout to demand answers. That would give us sympathizers and spies within the belly of the beast.
We have continent-conquering power of the True Faith. All they have is weak gruel combined with never-ending scandal. It is nukes against pea shooters. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. It is almost not fair to them... except that we sit quivering in a corner, imagining that all sorts of persecution is about to rain down upon us... any minute now.
-
Man cannot conceive of God's plans, but certainly He wants Catholics doing their utmost to propagate the Faith in this present era, whether or not those efforts will succeed in the short term. So we should work for revival even if success appear humanly impossible.
However, that is not the case. Many, many people besides traditional Catholics have noticed the collapse of Western Civilization and many are seeking leadership for launching a revival. We traditional Catholics, sole inheritors of the core of Western Civilization, hoard our treasure by not filling the leadership vacuum because we are afraid of our own shadows.
I would proffer that the R&R position, coupled with scandalous divides inside the walls of so-called Tradition, contributes, through institutionalized dissimulation, to the overarching pusillanimity which now characterizes our ranks.
Recognize and resist, they say.
Recognize what? Do we see Catholics when we look at them?
Resist what? Are we resisting the Catholic Church?
The biggest problem with R&R is linguistic ambiguity - the mortal sin of the same Council R&R pretends to react to.
Ambiguity does not have to be a sin. Clarity requires a good understanding of the matter under consideration. We rightly abhor the ambiguity of the Vatican II because the modernists have no excuse for obfuscating doctrines that were previously well-defined. However, I have never heard a clear description of how the modernists succeeded in taking over the hierarchy.
What does "taking over the hierarchy" mean? Might that supposition be understood as heretical? What do we mean by the conciliar church? If that is a separate church, should we give up all claims to the properties it inhabits? If it is not an entirely separate church, are we in partial communion. That is not ossible by definition. Should we hope that a traditional pope will one day emerge from a conclave held in the Sistine Chapel or is that equivalent to hoping for a good pope to come from a vote taken in a lodge or a ѕуηαgσgυє?
We do not have all the facts and we do not know the full implications of the facts we have. Defenses of Sedevacantism, R&R, and Ecclesia dei are each necessarily vague because they are responses to certain actions by the masons and churchmen that remain concealed to this day. Even if we knew what happened, the Church has probably never previously defined what a properly orthodox response to the present situation would be. The reason I say probably is because, again, I do not know what happen even though I have heard many wild theories and formulated some of my own.
All this unavoidable confusion underscores why it is futile to continue spinning our wheels in the same ol' trad debates that have immobilized us some forty-odd years. Events that led to the current conciliar church will remain hidden until we have enough clout to demand answers and docuмents from whatever-it-is that currently occupies our historic buildings. A sustained, aggressive, united effort by trads to take away the conciliar faithful would certainly bear fruit. That would give us clout to demand answers. That would give us sympathizers and spies within the belly of the beast.
We have continent-conquering power of the True Faith. All they have is weak gruel combined with never-ending scandal. It is nukes against pea shooters. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. It is almost not fair to them... except that we sit quivering in a corner, imagining that all sorts of persecution is about to rain down upon us... any minute now.
Edit
-
PS: Has anyone asked you whether you were sent here to drive deeper the wedge with the resistance?
I was wondering the same thing. It's just there's this persistent oily residue...
-
Pete-
You are being much too picky!
After all, we resisters are very big on principle!
As defenders of the Trinity, we could all team up against the Jews.
As defenders of priesthood, we could all team up against the Prots.
And as opposers of modernism, we could all team up against Rome (apparently).
:roll-laugh1:
Well-played, Sean, well played! Even as one of the R&R's most vocal critics in the past, I have to admit that was a great comeback on your part.
This is blatant ecuмenism, no matter how pleased with it the sedes who overrun this site are with Bishop Williamson's long-awaited statement.
A few points, all of which I have raised previously:
1 - This is really an issue for the Resistance and sedevacantists to resolve - both internally and with each other. As a committed Ecclesia Dei supporter my thoughts on the matter carry no weight among those affected directly.
2 - Mgr Williamson's statement may be long-awaited, but is it really inconsistent with anything he has stated previously? For nearly twenty years he has predicted publicly - even putting his prediction in writing disseminated publicly - that a time would come after Pope John Paul II's papacy when traditionalists would be forced to abandon the SSPX and embrace sedevacantism. While long-awaited, are Mgr Williamson's words really a surprise?
3 - What other option does the Resistance have if they wish to remain apart from the FSSPX as well as reject a deal with Rome? Mgr Williamson is the oldest of the four bishops consecrated by Mgr. Lefebvre. If he dies without consecrating new bishops....
They will try to out-do each other praising the wisdom of Bishop Williamson, to encourage him in his slide towards their position.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement on this topic, Sean. You see Mgr. Williamson's latest words as recent battle fatigue or a recent slide toward sedevacantism. My objection - respectfully - is that I see his words as consistent with the position he has always held. That is, his previous objection to sedevacantism was always in the present, so long as John Paul II was pope.
However, it always came with the caution that under the next pope leaving the SSPX to embrace sedevacantism was a strong likelihood. Of course, the pope who followed John Paul II was Benedict, so one can see why Mgr Williamson would suspend all talk of embracing sedevacantism under Benedict's pontificate. But now that Francis is pope, Mgr Williamson appears simply to be following through on what he has predicted publicly going back 20 years.
But none of their Te Deums, appeals to reason (which is quite funny, actually, since they have become solipsists), or defenses will mask the fact that Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.
Was that not Mgr Sandborn's objection to Mgr Williamson making common cause with h0Ɩ0cαųst deniers, political conspiracists, and 9-11 truthers? Or, if one remains strictly within the R&R, Fr. Pflugher's objection in the personal letter he sent Mgr. Williamson?
PS: Has anyone asked you whether you were sent here to drive deeper the wedge with the resistance?
LOL, Sean! I think you are giving me too much credit. Especially since - as others have expressed (a handful even politely!) - a certain notoriety I seem to possess as a critic of the R&R position, even after nearly a decade of very little commentary or publication, I could not think of a worse messenger for such a clandestine mission.
No, actually I came here looking for GGreg's postings. I've grown fond of reading his posts even if I disagree with him on a number of issues. In terms of curmudgeonry and common sense, he writes like vintage Michael Davies.
-
Hmmm, there's that oily slick again.
Pete, if you only came here to read ggreg, why so prolific? It's only I'm having a real hard time trying to ascertain what, or where, your stake is in all this.
-
Hmmm, there's that oily slick again.
Pete, if you only came here to read ggreg, why so prolific? It's only I'm having a real hard time trying to ascertain what, or where, your stake is in all this.
-
J.Paul, you contribute many good things [...]
As Columba pointed out to you, and as you admitted to, you want to make a difference in the crisis and "charge" without a plan.
I think we can only start making plans for restoration after calling a truce on certain debates that have gone unresolved for decades, particularly those involving speculation over the degrees of legitimacy that current heresiarchs still retain. These debates are probably not resolvable until obtaining greater understanding of the means by which the hierarchy was compromised. Even if we were able to achieve some debate resolution, our present state of powerlessness would likely prevent taking meaningful action based upon that resolution. In this sense, these debates are merely academic. We must regain some degree of power to acquire the improved vantage point necessary for resolving some of these debates and acting upon said resolutions.
Why do we have no power? Consider that almost every sizable traditionalist organization eventually becomes compromised from within. Is this just a random coincidence or are there hidden forces at work? I submit that the consensus of Catholics 500 years ago that there are such forces was correct. If so, the consensus of modern Catholics that such forces to not exist or, if they do, should not be proactively addressed is false. During the era of the greatest saints, Catholics uniformly believed that an underground, multi-generational network with special powers was constantly working to conquer and destroy their civilization from within. Even the popes of more recent times prior to Vatican II regularly spoke of such things despite their warning falling on deaf ears. This conspiracy, Catholics believed, was coordinated by the "powers and principalities" of Hell and manned by traitors to the human race channeling preternatural "magic" and employing esoteric technology.
Catholics did not shrink against such fearsome power but responded with steady self-confidence, steely courage, and lethal ferocity since they had faith that God is stronger than Satan and that the armies of Heaven are greater allies than those of Hell. Devils cannot overcome Catholics united with each other and the powers of Heaven. However, the evil powers proved very effective at fooling Catholics into voluntarily disarmament and leading them into viny forests of distraction. That is the present situation.
Our army was decimated and scattered. If the remnant regathers and arraigns itself in marshal order, a flood of new recruits would swell the ranks. A core restoration army must consist of those who are 1) Catholic and 2) part of a consensus sufficient for militant cooperation. Catholics who lack militancy, a cooperative spirit, or understanding of the crisis would not be suitable. Agreement on non-obedience toward heresiarchs and no extraordinary conclave for the time being could serve as a working consensus for cooperation between non-dogmatic R&R's and Sede's.
What stops us from forming such an army now? Let us compare qualities of a soldier to a debater. A soldier seeks a squad to join for the purpose of achieving a shared military objective. After finding a squad, he adheres to the common requirements and insists his squad-mates do the same. Since the soldier intuitively understands the principle of strength in numbers, he supports the joining of his squad with others to form a platoon if the combined strength is needed to achieve the military objective. Platoons join to form a company, companies form a battalion, these join to form a regiment, which combines to form a division, which combines to form a corps, and a corps joined with others forms an army. There are no committees, legislative bodies, and few elections. Each soldier is ranked in a natural order according to objective comparison of his qualities to those of the others within his group. A good soldier never wants promotion beyond his ability because that would impede the function of his group to place him and his fellows at risk. The formation of a well-ordered army occurs spontaneously whenever a number of true soldiers find themselves in close proximity and sharing the same military objective.
Now consider the debater. Like the solder, the debater seeks others of his kind but that is to engage them in verbal contention. Even when two debaters in 99.9% agreement, they gravitate toward arguing the 0.1% of issues over which they differ. Upon the rare occasions that a debater finds another with whom he fully agrees, the two may team up only to seek others with whom to dispute. Like the soldier the debater seeks victory but since contest is merely verbal, both sides in a debate can and often do claim victory upon conclusion. When each side insists the other is wrong, they can never join for a common cause. Such debaters, by definition, can never successfully form an army.
Sede and R&R dogmatic debaters challenge us to take a hard position on whether St. Peter's chair is empty or legitimately occupied. If we cannot see an preponderance of evidence sufficient to decide, these dogmatists will accuse us of fence sitting or some heresy of denying objective reality. A debater would then get sucked into an interminable discussion. A soldier would slam such accusers with his rifle butt and exclaim "debate over!"
If the qualities of a soldier were significantly present among trads, they would have already formed armies and racked up victories. They might be engaged in "poaching" against the dioceses like some of the protestants. In order for Catholics to form a restoration army, they must transform themselves from debaters into soldiers. Once a core number of Catholics acquire the soldier mindset, the army will coagulate organically. What is to be the mission of a Catholic army? An army works best when concentrated upon a single objective. Once an objective is completed or advanced, the next mission often comes into view. The first mission of the core army should be develop and promulgate the ethos the Catholic soldier.
Holy! Holy! Holy!
Where can I sign up????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Columba! What can I say, O Dove?!
Keep it comin'!
-
I think we can only start making plans for restoration after calling a truce on certain debates that have gone unresolved for decades, particularly those involving speculation over the degrees of legitimacy that current heresiarchs still retain.
On another note, a proper regiment is not divided into companies further sub-divided into platoons. A proper regiment is divided into batteries further subdivided into gun detachments. :cowboy:
Ubique!
Uh Oh!
I think Vere may be "gravitating toward arguing the 0.1%!" :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
-
I think we can only start making plans for restoration after calling a truce on certain debates that have gone unresolved for decades, particularly those involving speculation over the degrees of legitimacy that current heresiarchs still retain.
I get the feeling that this is where Mgr. Williamson was headed with his newsletter last week in terms of calling for a cooperation between the Resistance and sedevacantism. Except I am not sure the bishop thinks a restoration possible at this point outside of the Parousia.
On another note, a proper regiment is not divided into companies further sub-divided into platoons. A proper regiment is divided into batteries further subdivided into gun detachments. :cowboy:
Ubique!
...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.
Tradcuмenism is ecuмenism.
Apparently, the lesson is that we can cooperate with anyone closer to us than the adversary.
Not good.
There is no such thing as 'tradcuмenism.'
It is misleading people or worse to try to work them into thinking along such lines.
-
...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.
With regards to the Resistance, I would be shocked if they made common cause with high Anglicans. In over 20 years of being a traditionalist I have come across maybe two traditionalists who disagree or question Apostolicae Curae.
Likewise, I would be very surprised if the Resistance came to a truce with the PNCC--especially since the PNCC accepts many practices that the Resistance objects to within the Novus Ordo, as well as some departures from traditional Catholicism not found in the Novus Ordo.
Orthodoxy? Okay, I see some similarities to ROCOR, Old Calendarists, Russian Old Believers and the Monks of Mount Athos, but a truce or alliance would require their acceptance of the Resistance and sedevacantism, which is unlikely given that they are roughly equivalent of the Resistance within Eastern Orthodoxy.
As for an alliance with mainstream Orthodoxy, I see this as highly unlikely given that Pope Francis has a long history of strong ecuмenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox, to the point that he is probably more well liked among Eastern Orthodox than any Roman Pontiff going back to the Photian schism.
In contrast, so long as Mgr. Williamson is the Resistance's only bishop, and so long as the Resistance lacks stability and critical mass, I am not sure it can avoid following Mgr. Williamson's entreaty toward an alliance with non-doctrinaire sedevacantism.
There is no such thing as 'mainstream orthodoxy.'
Apparently Vere and McFarland have sat down together to drink beer and parse.
-
...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.
With regards to the Resistance, I would be shocked if they made common cause with high Anglicans. In over 20 years of being a traditionalist I have come across maybe two traditionalists who disagree or question Apostolicae Curae.
Likewise, I would be very surprised if the Resistance came to a truce with the PNCC--especially since the PNCC accepts many practices that the Resistance objects to within the Novus Ordo, as well as some departures from traditional Catholicism not found in the Novus Ordo.
Orthodoxy? Okay, I see some similarities to ROCOR, Old Calendarists, Russian Old Believers and the Monks of Mount Athos, but a truce or alliance would require their acceptance of the Resistance and sedevacantism, which is unlikely given that they are roughly equivalent of the Resistance within Eastern Orthodoxy.
As for an alliance with mainstream Orthodoxy, I see this as highly unlikely given that Pope Francis has a long history of strong ecuмenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox, to the point that he is probably more well liked among Eastern Orthodox than any Roman Pontiff going back to the Photian schism.
In contrast, so long as Mgr. Williamson is the Resistance's only bishop, and so long as the Resistance lacks stability and critical mass, I am not sure it can avoid following Mgr. Williamson's entreaty toward an alliance with non-doctrinaire sedevacantism.
Pete-
You are being much too picky!
After all, we resisters are very big on principle!
As defenders of the Trinity, we could all team up against the Jews.
As defenders of priesthood, we could all team up against the Prots.
And as opposers of modernism, we could all team up against Rome (apparently).
This is blatant ecuмenism, no matter how pleased with it the sedes who overrun this site are with Bishop Williamson's long-awaited statement.
They will try to out-do each other praising the wisdom of Bishop Williamson, to encourage him in his slide towards their position.
But none of their Te Deums, appeals to reason (which is quite funny, actually, since they have become solipsists), or defenses will mask the fact that Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.
For the sake of consistency, I would now expect of them to cease all attacks on Bishop Williamson and Menzingen on that score.
A shame.
PS: Has anyone asked you whether you were sent here to drive deeper the wedge with the resistance?
This is prattle.
We are losing so much ground because we have slipped into a coma of inaction, or semantical reactionism.
Columba and Clemens Maria and J. Paul are all advocating, in slightly different ways, that we start acting like Catholics again. It's been 50 years, for cryin' out loud. It's time to get over it and put the hand back to the plow.
-
I think Vere may be "gravitating toward arguing the 0.1%!" :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
To a gunner there are only two types of soldiers: Other gunners and targets.
-
Man cannot conceive of God's plans, but certainly He wants Catholics doing their utmost to propagate the Faith in this present era, whether or not those efforts will succeed in the short term. So we should work for revival even if success appear humanly impossible.
However, that is not the case. Many, many people besides traditional Catholics have noticed the collapse of Western Civilization and many are seeking leadership for launching a revival. We traditional Catholics, sole inheritors of the core of Western Civilization, hoard our treasure by not filling the leadership vacuum because we are afraid of our own shadows.
I would proffer that the R&R position, coupled with scandalous divides inside the walls of so-called Tradition, contributes, through institutionalized dissimulation, to the overarching pusillanimity which now characterizes our ranks.
Recognize and resist, they say.
Recognize what? Do we see Catholics when we look at them?
Resist what? Are we resisting the Catholic Church?
The biggest problem with R&R is linguistic ambiguity - the mortal sin of the same Council R&R pretends to react to.
Ambiguity does not have to be a sin. Clarity requires a good understanding of the matter under consideration. We rightly abhor the ambiguity of the Vatican II because the modernists have no excuse for obfuscating doctrines that were previously well-defined. However, I have never heard a clear description of how the modernists succeeded in taking over the hierarchy.
By 2013, Catholics have clarity - a good understanding - with regard to a certain matter under consideration - namely whether or not these evil men who sit in the Chair of St. Peter are faithful Catholics or infidels. We are now in possession of such certain knowledge that it is a mortal sin of ambiguity, in the objective order, to make believe that either we cannot know or that we must not say it out loud and/or act upon it. This is what I refer to when I refer to the mortal sin of ambiguity, which is the same mortal sin used at the Vatican Council.
It is a mortal sin to say that false religions save. Likewise it is a mortal sin to pretend that a modernist is simultaneously a Catholic. Yet that's exactly what R&R does, most of the time implicitly. [And by the way, here is another example of the inherent contradiction of the R&R position, which talks out of both sides of its mouth.]
Where modernism hedges in telling the truth about false religions, R&R hedges in telling the truth about modernism, itself a false religion.
You allude above to a lack of a "clear description of how the modernists succeeded in taking over the hierarchy." To rephrase, we lack knowledge of the means used to obtain an end.
But this does not directly relate to what I said; for I am talking only about the refusal on the part of both modernism and R&R (itself a capitulation to modernism) to tell the truth about false religions.
-
There is no such thing as 'mainstream orthodoxy.'
Apparently Vere and McFarland have sat down together to drink beer and parse.
Actually, I was taking my queue off of Adrien Fortescue and his work "The Orthodox Eastern Church."
-
What does "taking over the hierarchy" mean? Might that supposition be understood as heretical? What do we mean by the conciliar church? If that is a separate church, should we give up all claims to the properties it inhabits? If it is not an entirely separate church, are we in partial communion. That is not possible by definition. Should we hope that a traditional pope will one day emerge from a conclave held in the Sistine Chapel or is that equivalent to hoping for a good pope to come from a vote taken in a lodge or a ѕуηαgσgυє?
We do not have all the facts and we do not know the full implications of the facts we have.
There is one fact that has become something akin to self-evident: The men sitting on the Chair of Peter and in the thrones of the bishoprics are not Catholics.
It's an easy thing to know, yet the men of so-called Tradition fight about it, vying with each other to outdo in acts if dissimulation, guile, and self-deception.
I believe that non-recognition of this one fact; or denial of this one fact; or rejection of this one fact; or misrepresentation of this one fact; or fear of affirming this one fact in public, is fast becoming the collective mortal sin of the bulk of self-nominated traditionalists.
There is a gash in the side of the ship. We've been taking on water for decades. But soon the immense stress on the frame of the structure will cause Tradition to finally break apart and sink to the bottom, unless it repair the breach.
We have to plug the hole, out of which the lifeblood of the Church is pouring.
R&R brought the SSPX to its knees. The SSPX is now so brokeback that it cannot squeak out even a whimper of righteous indignation in response to the monstrosity in Rome which now opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.
You say well that "we do not know the full implications of the facts we have." But I say instead that we do not know the full implication (in terms of Divine wrath) of refusing to admit the facts we have.
I am certain that there is a causal relation between the fall of Tradition into lukewarmness and betrayal of God, and the refusal on the part of the bulk of it to stipulate certain facts that no longer require ad nauseum demonstrations.
And so I ask you, Dove - if every man calling himself a faithful Catholic went before the altar of God with the Tabernacle door open, in public, and said the truth about the wolves in white, would this be enough to make him a soldier of Christ?
I answer for myself in advance of you: Daggone right!
-
Dear Good Knight Maccabees,
I thought of you on my walk tonight and even knew what I would say to you, but now, by sheer exhaustion, have forgotten!
I shall try tomorrow to remember what it was I had to say! :reading:
In the meantime, peace be to thee, good soul, in this final week of Advent!
-
It is a mortal sin to say that false religions save. Likewise it is a mortal sin to pretend that a modernist is simultaneously a Catholic. Yet that's exactly what R&R does, most of the time implicitly. [And by the way, here is another example of the inherent contradiction of the R&R position, which talks out of both sides of its mouth.]
By R&R, do you mean the classic SSPX position? I would agree that this position does not concretely spell out what the conciliar church is, but I do not know of any position that does. But does the classic SSPX position implicitly endorse the formal heresy of modernism?
One need not be overly scandalized that the conciliar church is run by masons. The nSSPX may well be in the same boat and we don't know for how long. The same could happen to sede organizations or any other. It is a bad thing but should not be unexpected because that is the nature of the world we live in. Catholics of 500 years ago understood that and fashioned their strategy accordingly. We simply cannot afford to go on treating these infiltrators with kid gloves. Rigorous counter-infiltration is the only cure and it must be applied across the board to any institution, whether pristine or ruined, purporting to be Catholic.
-
By the way, Nishant. Thank you for your concern about my faith. Thank you for praying for me. And I admit that there is a very real danger of me losing my faith but I would not knowingly subject myself to any dangers. However, I consider all these things concerning the status of the papacy to be opinions (at least those parts of the discussion which are not established doctrines of the Church). I will abandon them if it appears that continuing to hold them will cause me to deny any part of Catholic doctrine. Just remember that even the most confident and brilliant theologian can also lose his faith. Especially in this day and age. We are all in danger.
Dear Clemens Maria, that is true. But the only solution can be to learn the faith precisely as it has always been held and taught and to hold firm to it. In case of doubt, should it be the traditional teaching we change in light of the "facts" or should it be our understanding of the facts that change in light of the immutable teaching of the faith? Our disagreement on whether the Roman clergy can cease to exist is one question that comes under this category.
You know, when we discussed this on IA, I understood the perspective you had at the time, even if I disagreed. Your view seems to have changed a lot since then. Still, whatever it be, each of us ultimately have to make the best decision we can along with study and prayer. I wish you the best.
And to Mithrandylan, after Vatican I, which did not touch the question in the way you seem to argue (in fact the Fathers there repeated, when discussing the verse where God promises to Peter that his faith shall not fail, that it would always be pious and probable for Catholics to hold that divine Providence would not permit a Pope to be a heretic), Canon Smith says this,
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”.
Van Noort also repeats later on that it is probable that a Pope will not become a public and formal heretic. Fr. Garrigou Lagrange holds a view somewhat similar to Suarez.
Suarez gives a strong argument in favor of what he says, and speaks with perfect prescience.
If the external but occult heretic can still remain the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. And this for two reasons: because no one suffers a penalty if it is not “ipso facto” or by sentence, and because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge.
Fr. Ballerini explains further how this may work out in practice,
“The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic ...
Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church
So it is clearly seen that this has not been done and the argument you make against the position is sufficiently addressed.
By the way, the other position also agrees that something like this would have to be done by the Church, it just disagrees on the reason why something like this could be done, which it states is because and only because the Pope lost his charge immediately.
Back to CM: We've seen the quotes from both Spirago Clarke and Dom Gueranger before, have we not, on the extreme seriousness of claiming ordinary jurisdiction without a demonstrable canonical mission from the Pope? The former in fact clarify your precise doubt, "The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope." Only after the confirmation, the bishop can exercise his office and power of jurisdiction.
What Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society have always said is precisely this traditional teaching - he told the Bishops he appointed, you can place your episcopacy in the hands of a future Pope, and after he confirms you, then you will begin to have ordinary jurisdiction. The Papal confirmation is not just a condition to receive jurisdiction, it is the cause. The universal ordinary jurisdiction, that the Pope has by virtue of his office, causes the conferral of particular ordinary jurisdiction on the bishop to whom he gives the mandate. Thus for a bishop to usurp this power to himself would be wrong, for it would be to set himself up as Pope, as Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society have always stated we are not doing and have not done.
God bless.
-
R&R brought the SSPX to its knees.
Are you sure this was the cause of the fall of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay? What about the SSPX-Marian Corps that continues that position and yet is very strong?
-
R&R brought the SSPX to its knees.
Are you sure this was the cause of the fall of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay? What about the SSPX-Marian Corps that continues that position and yet is very strong?
Well, you're not going to try to enter into "full communion" (versus the ridiculous novelty of "partial communion") if you don't think the man in white is the pope, will you?
It's apparent that R&R will eventually tip one way or another.
-
...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.
With regards to the Resistance, I would be shocked if they made common cause with high Anglicans. In over 20 years of being a traditionalist I have come across maybe two traditionalists who disagree or question Apostolicae Curae.
Likewise, I would be very surprised if the Resistance came to a truce with the PNCC--especially since the PNCC accepts many practices that the Resistance objects to within the Novus Ordo, as well as some departures from traditional Catholicism not found in the Novus Ordo.
Orthodoxy? Okay, I see some similarities to ROCOR, Old Calendarists, Russian Old Believers and the Monks of Mount Athos, but a truce or alliance would require their acceptance of the Resistance and sedevacantism, which is unlikely given that they are roughly equivalent of the Resistance within Eastern Orthodoxy.
As for an alliance with mainstream Orthodoxy, I see this as highly unlikely given that Pope Francis has a long history of strong ecuмenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox, to the point that he is probably more well liked among Eastern Orthodox than any Roman Pontiff going back to the Photian schism.
In contrast, so long as Mgr. Williamson is the Resistance's only bishop, and so long as the Resistance lacks stability and critical mass, I am not sure it can avoid following Mgr. Williamson's entreaty toward an alliance with non-doctrinaire sedevacantism.
Pete-
You are being much too picky!
After all, we resisters are very big on principle!
As defenders of the Trinity, we could all team up against the Jews.
As defenders of priesthood, we could all team up against the Prots.
And as opposers of modernism, we could all team up against Rome (apparently).
This is blatant ecuмenism, no matter how pleased with it the sedes who overrun this site are with Bishop Williamson's long-awaited statement.
They will try to out-do each other praising the wisdom of Bishop Williamson, to encourage him in his slide towards their position.
But none of their Te Deums, appeals to reason (which is quite funny, actually, since they have become solipsists), or defenses will mask the fact that Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.
For the sake of consistency, I would now expect of them to cease all attacks on Bishop Williamson and Menzingen on that score.
A shame.
PS: Has anyone asked you whether you were sent here to drive deeper the wedge with the resistance?
This is prattle.
We are losing so much ground because we have slipped into a coma of inaction, or semantical reactionism.
Columba and Clemens Maria and J. Paul are all advocating, in slightly different ways, that we start acting like Catholics again. It's been 50 years, for cryin' out loud. It's time to get over it and put the hand back to the plow.
A blatant admission of battle fatigue!
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
-
R&R brought the SSPX to its knees.
Are you sure this was the cause of the fall of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay? What about the SSPX-Marian Corps that continues that position and yet is very strong?
Well, you're not going to try to enter into "full communion" (versus the ridiculous novelty of "partial communion") if you don't think the man in white is the pope, will you?
It's apparent that R&R will eventually tip one way or another.
As Archbishop Lefebvre said, "No canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution."
-
R&R brought the SSPX to its knees.
Are you sure this was the cause of the fall of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay? What about the SSPX-Marian Corps that continues that position and yet is very strong?
Well, you're not going to try to enter into "full communion" (versus the ridiculous novelty of "partial communion") if you don't think the man in white is the pope, will you?
It's apparent that R&R will eventually tip one way or another.
As Archbishop Lefebvre said, "No canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution."
:applause:
-
...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.
With regards to the Resistance, I would be shocked if they made common cause with high Anglicans. In over 20 years of being a traditionalist I have come across maybe two traditionalists who disagree or question Apostolicae Curae.
Likewise, I would be very surprised if the Resistance came to a truce with the PNCC--especially since the PNCC accepts many practices that the Resistance objects to within the Novus Ordo, as well as some departures from traditional Catholicism not found in the Novus Ordo.
Orthodoxy? Okay, I see some similarities to ROCOR, Old Calendarists, Russian Old Believers and the Monks of Mount Athos, but a truce or alliance would require their acceptance of the Resistance and sedevacantism, which is unlikely given that they are roughly equivalent of the Resistance within Eastern Orthodoxy.
As for an alliance with mainstream Orthodoxy, I see this as highly unlikely given that Pope Francis has a long history of strong ecuмenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox, to the point that he is probably more well liked among Eastern Orthodox than any Roman Pontiff going back to the Photian schism.
In contrast, so long as Mgr. Williamson is the Resistance's only bishop, and so long as the Resistance lacks stability and critical mass, I am not sure it can avoid following Mgr. Williamson's entreaty toward an alliance with non-doctrinaire sedevacantism.
Pete-
You are being much too picky!
After all, we resisters are very big on principle!
As defenders of the Trinity, we could all team up against the Jews.
As defenders of priesthood, we could all team up against the Prots.
And as opposers of modernism, we could all team up against Rome (apparently).
This is blatant ecuмenism, no matter how pleased with it the sedes who overrun this site are with Bishop Williamson's long-awaited statement.
They will try to out-do each other praising the wisdom of Bishop Williamson, to encourage him in his slide towards their position.
But none of their Te Deums, appeals to reason (which is quite funny, actually, since they have become solipsists), or defenses will mask the fact that Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.
For the sake of consistency, I would now expect of them to cease all attacks on Bishop Williamson and Menzingen on that score.
A shame.
PS: Has anyone asked you whether you were sent here to drive deeper the wedge with the resistance?
This is prattle.
We are losing so much ground because we have slipped into a coma of inaction, or semantical reactionism.
Columba and Clemens Maria and J. Paul are all advocating, in slightly different ways, that we start acting like Catholics again. It's been 50 years, for cryin' out loud. It's time to get over it and put the hand back to the plow.
A blatant admission of battle fatigue!
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.
-
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Sean, I know you are strongly opposed to the above. Therefore I think the question you will now face is how to stop it.
Especially now that Mgr. Williamson is following through on a two-decade old prediction he would end up going in this direction under Pope John Paul II's successor.
-
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Sean, I know you are strongly opposed to the above. Therefore I think the question you will now face is how to stop it.
Especially now that Mgr. Williamson is following through on a two-decade old prediction he would end up going in this direction under Pope John Paul II's successor.
Ultimately, I agree that if Bishop Williamson goes down this path, we have all arrived at checkmate:
We will now have only compromised groups to choose from.
Therefore, the criteria in choosing sides will now become: Which poses the mildest and most remote threat.
5 years ago, who would have ever thought we would need to look at things from this perspective?
-
In case of doubt, should it be the traditional teaching we change in light of the "facts" or should it be our understanding of the facts that change in light of the immutable teaching of the faith?
Agreed. I don't believe I have contradicted any doctrines of the Church. I don't recognize theological opinions as being doctrines of the Church. They are usually correct but not always. St Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that Our Lady was not immaculately conceived. Should the Church have been bound by his opinion? Of course not! So if you can show that a particular teaching is de fide then yes, of course, even the "facts" must be interpreted in the light of that teaching. However, the indefectibility (as opposed to the infallibility) of the local Roman Church is merely an opinion. An opinion which can't be taken lightly but an opinion nevertheless. If the facts appear to contradict that opinion then I don't think it is unreasonable to question the veracity of it. Furthermore, even reason can tell us that the opinion is questionable because the indefectibility and the infallibility of the Roman Church are based on the Church's teaching concerning the Roman pontiff. But we know that the Church has only defined the infallibility of the Pope, not his indefectibility. We know there will always be successors of Peter so we can also infer that the local Roman Church will continue until the end of time. But that doesn't mean there will not be periods where it is diminished even to the point of losing its hierarchical order. The hierarchical order can always be restored with the election of another pope.
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”.
One thing you have to remember is that in the period between the heresy becoming manifest and the Church making a formal declaration no Catholic is required to submit to the suspected heretic.
“The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic ...
Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church
I think that quote supports the sede vacante position more than it supports the R&R position. Unfortunately, in the present crisis, the Cardinals and the Roman Clergy have adhered to the Conciliar schism. So it will have to be a council of Catholic clergy who make the declaration.
You know, when we discussed this on IA, I understood the perspective you had at the time, even if I disagreed. Your view seems to have changed a lot since then.
I only remember discussing the particular point about whether or not uninterrupted ordinary jurisdiction is absolutely necessary in order to preserve the apostolicity of the Church. So I am certainly concerned about explaining the current crisis in such a way as to show that apostolicity is being preserved. But I'm not attached to any particular explanation. I am just trying to find the best explanation. I'm now convinced that uninterrupted ordinary jurisdiction is necessary. But now I believe that at least some traditional bishops have ordinary jurisdiction.
Back to CM: We've seen the quotes from both Spirago Clarke and Dom Gueranger before, have we not, on the extreme seriousness of claiming ordinary jurisdiction without a demonstrable canonical mission from the Pope? The former in fact clarify your precise doubt, "The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope." Only after the confirmation, the bishop can exercise his office and power of jurisdiction.
I haven't seen that quote before. Thanks for posting it. I would have to say that in the present situation where there is no reigning Pope but there is a dire need for bishops, we can be morally certain that it is the implicit will of the next Catholic Pope that the Church have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. In such an emergency, the salvation of souls is the highest law and it is necessary that the bishops exercise their offices prior to being confirmed by the Pope. While it is irregular from a disciplinary perspective it would still preserve the apostolicity of the Church.
What Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society have always said is precisely this traditional teaching - he told the Bishops he appointed, you can place your episcopacy in the hands of a future Pope, and after he confirms you, then you will begin to have ordinary jurisdiction.
Wow! That is a magnificent confirmation of what I am saying. Do you have a source for that? I would like to read the source material on that. I don't think any traditionalist would want to say that the next Pope will refuse to confirm the traditional bishops. So under the present circuмstances it is necessary that they begin exercising their offices prior being confirmed. This circuмstance has happened in the past where bishops were appointed during an interregnum.
The Papal confirmation is not just a condition to receive jurisdiction, it is the cause.
That's OK, I think we can have moral certainty that the next Catholic Pope will confirm them. Therefore they can begin exercising their offices now. I also believe that the next Catholic Pope will approve of them exercising their offices now.
-
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.
Mr. Johnson is trying to raise theological opinions to the status of Catholic Dogma. It is a schismatic tendency. He is refusing communion with fellow Catholics over his pet theological opinion. Traditionalists putting aside their differences in opinion is in no way comparable to the ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church.
-
The Dominicans and the Franciscans engaged in a fierce* battle over some theological point (I forget what it was exactly but if I recall correctly it was not an insignificant point). The Pope commanded them to stop and he never resolved the question of the point they were arguing over. How's that for tradcuмenism?
* By fierce I mean they were calling each other heretics. And if I'm not mistaken there was even an attempted (or at least threatened) excommunication.
-
The Dominicans and the Franciscans engaged in a fierce battle over some theological point (I forget what it was exactly but if I recall correctly it was not an insignificant point). The Pope commanded them to stop and he never resolved the question of the point they were arguing over. How's that for tradcuмenism?
What they argued over was the Immaculate Conception.
The Domincans and Aquinas stated Mary was not free from sin, Scotus and the Franciscans argued she was the Immaculate Conception.
In historical timing, Aquinas died when Scotus was est. to be about 8 years old.
-
The Dominicans and the Franciscans engaged in a fierce battle over some theological point (I forget what it was exactly but if I recall correctly it was not an insignificant point). The Pope commanded them to stop and he never resolved the question of the point they were arguing over. How's that for tradcuмenism?
What they argued over was the Immaculate Conception.
The Domincans and Aquinas stated Mary was not free from sin, Scotus and the Franciscans argued she was the Immaculate Conception.
In historical timing, Aquinas died when Scotus was est. to be about 8 years old.
I don't recall now. That might be it. I think there have been a few major fights between religious orders. I recall the Jesuits were involved in another. My main point is that at the time the Pope did not take a side of the argument. He just told them to shut up.
-
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.
Mr. Johnson is trying to raise theological opinions to the status of Catholic Dogma. It is a schismatic tendency. He is refusing communion with fellow Catholics over his pet theological opinion. Traditionalists putting aside their differences in opinion is in no way comparable to the ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church.
How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?
-
Did one of them deny the Pope was the Pope?
If not, the analogy does not fit.
-
[...]
Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.
[...]
This is prattle.
We are losing so much ground because we have slipped into a coma of inaction, or semantical reactionism.
Columba and Clemens Maria and J. Paul are all advocating, in slightly different ways, that we start acting like Catholics again. It's been 50 years, for cryin' out loud. It's time to get over it and put the hand back to the plow.
A blatant admission of battle fatigue!
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Bp. Fellay is compromising toward Modernist heresy. Bp. Williamson is compromising toward... what defined heresy? Both R&R's and Sedevacantists are able to make plausible, though incomplete, theological defenses of their positions.
The debate is hampered by the lack of understanding and details on the Masonic take-over. What's more, neither side can show Church rulings definitively backing them up, although both sides have found opinions partially supporting their position. Take a step back from your position for a moment to see the forest for the trees. Has the R&R-Sede debate not reached a stalemate, objectively speaking? Does this debate not consume significant amounts of the limited trad resources in church splits, property disputes, and inefficient duplication of institutions such as schools? Do you envision the inconclusive arguments of one side defeating the other in the foreseeable future?
If we agree that the hierarchy appears to be under the direct control of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, how is the problem not political and solely religious? When in the history of the Church has there ever been a festering religious problem that has not also been political?
Perhaps you will say that the religious problem fuels the trouble and that we must resolve it first to make the political problem go away. The problem is solely Modernism and not Sedevacantism since the latter evaporates upon resolution of the former. R&R is no solution, but only an imperfect, stopgap response to Modernism. Sedevacantism is also a stopgap measure. If Sedevacantism is wrong, then is only because its imperfection is some degree greater than that of R&R. Neither position claims to be perfect. So in regards to perfection, the difference is at most one of degree and not of kind.
+Williamson's "compromise" on Sedevacantism is not a compromise with heresy, but only a long overdue course correction. Pseudo-dogmatic stridency about which of the two most prominent stopgap measures is best to follow serves no legitimate purpose. Elevation of the tawdry, interest-laden swabbles between R&R and Sedevacantism to the level of "doctrinal" may itself qualify as a kind of sin or error.
So if neither R&R nor Sedevacantism are genuine solutions to the Modernist problem, what is? Traditionalists must first restore the papacy, either by wresting it away from Freemasons or by divorcing the conquered church structure and erecting another. Only then can the Church definitively condemn the errors of Vatican II and render moot the differences between R&R and Sedevacantism. A solution to the political aspect of Modernism is a mandatory prerequisite to resolving the religious problem.
-
Keep in mind that the guy in white is either the Pope or he is not so either R & R is right or SV is right.
Those who hold he is a material but not a formal Pope are practical SVs as that act and treat him as if he is not Pope at all. The do not include him in the una cuм and they do not treat him as if he were pope in any way. They just believe he holds a space and become Pope if he becomes Catholic by renouncing his heresies.
-
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.
Mr. Johnson is trying to raise theological opinions to the status of Catholic Dogma. It is a schismatic tendency. He is refusing communion with fellow Catholics over his pet theological opinion. Traditionalists putting aside their differences in opinion is in no way comparable to the ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church.
How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?
If Francis is the true Pope how can you be in communion with him? He says you are not in communion with him.* So if he is the Pope then no traditionalist is in communion with him. But if he is not the Pope then no traditionalist can allow himself to be in communion with him because he is not the Pope. So you are in quite the pickle. On the one hand, you are in communion with other R&R folks who are not in communion with the supposed true Pope but on the other hand you refuse communion with SVs because they are not in communion with the supposed true Pope. That's not only insane, it shows a schismatic cultish tendency. But I don't blame you for it. We are in a difficult confusing time. That's why I say we should put aside differences of opinion and try to cooperate and find a way to resolve the crisis.
* In fact, according to Conciliar Church doctrine your status in the Church is less than that of the Orthodox schismatics.
-
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.
Mr. Johnson is trying to raise theological opinions to the status of Catholic Dogma. It is a schismatic tendency. He is refusing communion with fellow Catholics over his pet theological opinion. Traditionalists putting aside their differences in opinion is in no way comparable to the ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church.
How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?
To say that the Resistance or even the sspx are in communion with Francis is to completely destroy the meaning and traditional understanding of the word. We do not share the same sacraments, do not share the same laws, do not share the same liturgy, do not share the same faith.
If you call that communion, you completely destroy what the word means. If unity in faith, discipline and practice is not required then you're back in the Novus Ordo. Everrybody's in communion with everybody.
From phone
-
How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?
To say that the Resistance or even the sspx are in communion with Francis is to completely destroy the meaning and traditional understanding of the word. We do not share the same sacraments, do not share the same laws, do not share the same liturgy, do not share the same faith.
If you call that communion, you completely destroy what the word means. If unity in faith, discipline and practice is not required then you're back in the Novus Ordo. Everrybody's in communion with everybody.
Great post! I think the final remaining link is the "una cuм". That is the final thing which links the R&R communities to Francis. Not even the picture of Francis is hung in all SSPX and Resistance chapels. So the una cuм is the last link to Francis.
-
Keep in mind that the guy in white is either the Pope or he is not so either R & R is right or SV is right.
Those who hold he is a material but not a formal Pope are practical SVs as that act and treat him as if he is not Pope at all. The do not include him in the una cuм and they do not treat him as if he were pope in any way. They just believe he holds a space and become Pope if he becomes Catholic by renouncing his heresies.
Neither R&R's nor SV's follow the wayward popes. Inter-trad disputes preclude significant evangelization because newcomers only want to be Catholic and are disheartened by infighting. A sizable portion of the NO's do simply want to be Catholic and remain with the bishops only because they see no plausible alternative.
Since Vatican II, there has been a steady exit from NO pews. Modernists do not care when these faithful leave the Church. Parishes and schools are consolidated, closed, and sold for cash. Many former NO's are still looking for a home and many still attending will eventually leave, if present trends continue. Some NO's could not stand traditionalism, but many would be open to it if they made to understand it is God's will. Besides, what sane parent does not seek a way to keep their children from growing up corrupted?
I believe that trad squabbling indirectly but effectively prevents many people from finding their way to Tradition. Our squabbling scares off newcomers and precludes the coordination of nationwide and worldwide evangelization. Squabblers must be hoping that the issues of their contention will be judged important enough make the infighting worthwhile.
-
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.
Mr. Johnson is trying to raise theological opinions to the status of Catholic Dogma. It is a schismatic tendency. He is refusing communion with fellow Catholics over his pet theological opinion. Traditionalists putting aside their differences in opinion is in no way comparable to the ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church.
How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?
If Francis is the true Pope how can you be in communion with him? He says you are not in communion with him.* So if he is the Pope then no traditionalist is in communion with him. But if he is not the Pope then no traditionalist can allow himself to be in communion with him because he is not the Pope. So you are in quite the pickle. On the one hand, you are in communion with other R&R folks who are not in communion with the supposed true Pope but on the other hand you refuse communion with SVs because they are not in communion with the supposed true Pope. That's not only insane, it shows a schismatic cultish tendency. But I don't blame you for it. We are in a difficult confusing time. That's why I say we should put aside differences of opinion and try to cooperate and find a way to resolve the crisis.
* In fact, according to Conciliar Church doctrine your status in the Church is less than that of the Orthodox schismatics.
Clemens-
I beg to differ.
The R&R is a position which will vanish when Rome returns to the Faith, and can be maintained indefinitely until that occurs.
And it matters not whether the Pope thinks we are in communion with him or not.
The fact is, we are.
And the presumption is that he is Pope, not that he is not Pope:
1) Because there is no additional claimant;
2) Because nobody can judge the Pope to say he is not the Pope.
You write as though it was a demonstrable fact that he is not the Pope.
-
Keep in mind that the guy in white is either the Pope or he is not so either R & R is right or SV is right.
Those who hold he is a material but not a formal Pope are practical SVs as that act and treat him as if he is not Pope at all. The do not include him in the una cuм and they do not treat him as if he were pope in any way. They just believe he holds a space and become Pope if he becomes Catholic by renouncing his heresies.
Neither R&R's nor SV's follow the wayward popes. Inter-trad disputes preclude significant evangelization because newcomers only want to be Catholic and are disheartened by infighting. A sizable portion of the NO's do simply want to be Catholic and remain with the bishops only because they see no plausible alternative.
Since Vatican II, there has been a steady exit from NO pews. Modernists do not care when these faithful leave the Church. Parishes and schools are consolidated, closed, and sold for cash. Many former NO's are still looking for a home and many still attending will eventually leave, if present trends continue. Some NO's could not stand traditionalism, but many would be open to it if they made to understand it is God's will. Besides, what sane parent does not seek a way to keep their children from growing up corrupted?
I believe that trad squabbling indirectly but effectively prevents many people from finding their way to Tradition. Our squabbling scares off newcomers and precludes the coordination of nationwide and worldwide evangelization. Squabblers must be hoping that the issues of their contention will be judged important enough make the infighting worthwhile.
I think I am in agreement with what you are saying Columba. However, I would like to distinguish between arguments (squabbling) and complete refusal to cooperate. I think these arguments are ultimately going to benefit the Church by identifying a plausible explanation for what has happened to the Church since Vatican II. What I think is very unhealthy is Catholics refusing to cooperate in any way with each other. I don't include adherents of the Conciliar Religion as Catholics but only those who continue to keep the Faith whole and entire. That includes sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, sedeagnostics, sedeplenists, recognize & resistors, Resistance, SSPX, neo-SSPX(yellow light), all Catholics who have valid sacraments and adhere to the traditional doctrine of the Church. The status of the papacy while extremely important is not a dogma of the Church. It is an opinion. An important opinion. So while I think we need to resolve the question of the papacy, I also think that in the meantime we should be cooperating as much as possible, including providing the sacraments to those in need.
-
...
3) Because he is universally recognized as such by all prelates with jurisdiction;
4) Because it is impossible (and without precedent) that the Church could have a 56 year interregnum and still claim visibility.
Against all this, it defies common sense to presume the opposite.
If you pull your head out of the manuals and take a deep breath, it might begin to occur to you.
-
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.
Mr. Johnson is trying to raise theological opinions to the status of Catholic Dogma. It is a schismatic tendency. He is refusing communion with fellow Catholics over his pet theological opinion. Traditionalists putting aside their differences in opinion is in no way comparable to the ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church.
How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?
If Francis is the true Pope how can you be in communion with him? He says you are not in communion with him.* So if he is the Pope then no traditionalist is in communion with him. But if he is not the Pope then no traditionalist can allow himself to be in communion with him because he is not the Pope. So you are in quite the pickle. On the one hand, you are in communion with other R&R folks who are not in communion with the supposed true Pope but on the other hand you refuse communion with SVs because they are not in communion with the supposed true Pope. That's not only insane, it shows a schismatic cultish tendency. But I don't blame you for it. We are in a difficult confusing time. That's why I say we should put aside differences of opinion and try to cooperate and find a way to resolve the crisis.
* In fact, according to Conciliar Church doctrine your status in the Church is less than that of the Orthodox schismatics.
Clemens-
I beg to differ.
The R&R is a position which will vanish when Rome returns to the Faith, and can be maintained indefinitely until that occurs.
And it matters not whether the Pope thinks we are in communion with him or not.
The fact is, we are.
And the presumption is that he is Pope, not that he is not Pope:
1) Because there is no additional claimant;
2) Because nobody can judge the Pope to say he is not the Pope.
You write as though it was a demonstrable fact that he is not the Pope.
That wasn't me that thumbed you down. I don't agree with what you are saying. Mith's post was a magnificent response. The FSSP has a better understanding of what communion really means than the SSPX. I don't think your claim of communion with Francis is credible.
-
Keep in mind that the guy in white is either the Pope or he is not so either R & R is right or SV is right.
Those who hold he is a material but not a formal Pope are practical SVs as that act and treat him as if he is not Pope at all. The do not include him in the una cuм and they do not treat him as if he were pope in any way. They just believe he holds a space and become Pope if he becomes Catholic by renouncing his heresies.
Neither R&R's nor SV's follow the wayward popes. Inter-trad disputes preclude significant evangelization because newcomers only want to be Catholic and are disheartened by infighting. A sizable portion of the NO's do simply want to be Catholic and remain with the bishops only because they see no plausible alternative.
Since Vatican II, there has been a steady exit from NO pews. Modernists do not care when these faithful leave the Church. Parishes and schools are consolidated, closed, and sold for cash. Many former NO's are still looking for a home and many still attending will eventually leave, if present trends continue. Some NO's could not stand traditionalism, but many would be open to it if they made to understand it is God's will. Besides, what sane parent does not seek a way to keep their children from growing up corrupted?
I believe that trad squabbling indirectly but effectively prevents many people from finding their way to Tradition. Our squabbling scares off newcomers and precludes the coordination of nationwide and worldwide evangelization. Squabblers must be hoping that the issues of their contention will be judged important enough make the infighting worthwhile.
I think I am in agreement with what you are saying Columba. However, I would like to distinguish between arguments (squabbling) and complete refusal to cooperate. I think these arguments are ultimately going to benefit the Church by identifying a plausible explanation for what has happened to the Church since Vatican II. What I think is very unhealthy is Catholics refusing to cooperate in any way with each other. I don't include adherents of the Conciliar Religion as Catholics but only those who continue to keep the Faith whole and entire. That includes sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, sedeagnostics, sedeplenists, recognize & resistors, Resistance, SSPX, neo-SSPX(yellow light), all Catholics who have valid sacraments and adhere to the traditional doctrine of the Church. The status of the papacy while extremely important is not a dogma of the Church. It is an opinion. An important opinion. So while I think we need to resolve the question of the papacy, I also think that in the meantime we should be cooperating as much as possible, including providing the sacraments to those in need.
You said:
"I don't include adherents of the Conciliar Religion as Catholics but only those who continue to keep the Faith whole and entire."
In other words, you refuse communion with other Catholics.
You have just proven very neatly that sedevacantism has a schismatic spirit.
-
I have only ever experienced tradcuмenism among SSPX laity. An National organiser for the pro-life group Youth Defence in the 2000s went on to become a seminarian for the SSPX. He later left. It's rather ironic given the recent admonishment of YD but an SSPX priest.
A founder of Youth Defence became a NewChurch Dominican priest.
My point really is there always been tradcuмenism. Differences are put aside.
A few here and there are sectarian but by and large nobody is really 100% SSPX in Ireland.
Newcomers to Youth Defence are Indult or pro JPII types for certain. Many new recruits are from the charismatic type groups such as Youth 2000.
Traditional Catholicism could be stronger in Ireland. It's necessary to 'tradify'.
-
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.
Mr. Johnson is trying to raise theological opinions to the status of Catholic Dogma. It is a schismatic tendency. He is refusing communion with fellow Catholics over his pet theological opinion. Traditionalists putting aside their differences in opinion is in no way comparable to the ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church.
How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?
If Francis is the true Pope how can you be in communion with him? He says you are not in communion with him.* So if he is the Pope then no traditionalist is in communion with him. But if he is not the Pope then no traditionalist can allow himself to be in communion with him because he is not the Pope. So you are in quite the pickle. On the one hand, you are in communion with other R&R folks who are not in communion with the supposed true Pope but on the other hand you refuse communion with SVs because they are not in communion with the supposed true Pope. That's not only insane, it shows a schismatic cultish tendency. But I don't blame you for it. We are in a difficult confusing time. That's why I say we should put aside differences of opinion and try to cooperate and find a way to resolve the crisis.
* In fact, according to Conciliar Church doctrine your status in the Church is less than that of the Orthodox schismatics.
Clemens-
I beg to differ.
The R&R is a position which will vanish when Rome returns to the Faith, and can be maintained indefinitely until that occurs.
And it matters not whether the Pope thinks we are in communion with him or not.
The fact is, we are.
And the presumption is that he is Pope, not that he is not Pope:
1) Because there is no additional claimant;
2) Because nobody can judge the Pope to say he is not the Pope.
You write as though it was a demonstrable fact that he is not the Pope.
That wasn't me that thumbed you down. I don't agree with what you are saying. Mith's post was a magnificent response. The FSSP has a better understanding of what communion really means than the SSPX. I don't think your claim of communion with Francis is credible.
I proclaim communion with Francis, but you don't accept it???
And what bearing does your subjective refusal to accept my objective proclamation have on reality?
You have just espoused solipsism: Reality exists only in your own mind.
You might as well just have said you do not accept that I say my name is Sean.
-
I have only ever experienced tradcuмenism among SSPX laity. An National organiser for the pro-life group Youth Defence in the 2000s went on to become a seminarian for the SSPX. He later left. It's rather ironic given the recent admonishment of YD but an SSPX priest.
A founder of Youth Defence became a NewChurch Dominican priest.
My point really is there always been tradcuмenism. Differences are put aside.
A few here and there are sectarian but by and large nobody is really 100% SSPX in Ireland.
Well, you are experiencing it right here amongst sedevacantists!
-
...
3) Because he is universally recognized as such by all prelates with jurisdiction;
4) Because it is impossible (and without precedent) that the Church could have a 56 year interregnum and still claim visibility.
Against all this, it defies common sense to presume the opposite.
If you pull your head out of the manuals and take a deep breath, it might begin to occur to you.
I had the same opinion as you just a few months ago. I had to re-evaluate after Francis said there is no Catholic God. I think every R&R man will have to re-evaluate after JP2 is "canonized". I'm not worried about the visibility of the Church because even if the only bishops with ordinary jurisdiction are a couple dozen traditional bishops the visibility of the Church is still preserved. I argue that (3) above is false. I think Mith's post shows that true common sense would tell you that you are not in communion with Francis. But I think that is a good thing. Why would you want to be in communion with a public heretic?
-
I have only ever experienced tradcuмenism among SSPX laity. An National organiser for the pro-life group Youth Defence in the 2000s went on to become a seminarian for the SSPX. He later left. It's rather ironic given the recent admonishment of YD but an SSPX priest.
A founder of Youth Defence became a NewChurch Dominican priest.
My point really is there always been tradcuмenism. Differences are put aside.
A few here and there are sectarian but by and large nobody is really 100% SSPX in Ireland.
Well, you are experiencing it right here amongst sedevacantists!
What Catholic source can you cite that used the term, "tradecuмenism"? It sounds like a made up junk theology term of the 21st century.
-
I am not sure the bishop thinks a restoration possible at this point outside of the Parousia.
It is not just Bp. Williamson. Many trads imagine they are under persecution or that the persecution will begin any day now. I can understand Bp. Williamson being traumatized by his persecution, but few other trads in Western countries have experienced anything similar.
Instead trads experience psychological or virtual persecution applied via the fake reality-show news media and academia. This reverberates through the milieu to affect even those who avoid the media. Trads would not be so hunkered down and fearful if our minds were conditioned to screen out the psychological persecution.
After cleaning out media-psyop mind-viruses, one is left with the impression that trads are actually well-off compared to most others. The war on the family has had devastating results across the board, but traditional Catholic has proven a relatively effective antidote. Yes we have significant problems, but compared to everyone else our community's family structure is one of the few left standing. If trads believe what we have always said about the family being the basis of civilization, one finds that trads have landed in a position of more relative power than most others. Maybe we should stop feeling so persecuted and start dishing out some "persecution" ourselves.
-
I have only ever experienced tradcuмenism among SSPX laity. An National organiser for the pro-life group Youth Defence in the 2000s went on to become a seminarian for the SSPX. He later left. It's rather ironic given the recent admonishment of YD but an SSPX priest.
A founder of Youth Defence became a NewChurch Dominican priest.
My point really is there always been tradcuмenism. Differences are put aside.
A few here and there are sectarian but by and large nobody is really 100% SSPX in Ireland.
Well, you are experiencing it right here amongst sedevacantists!
A few people I know, who attend the SSPX have gone sede in the past year or so. Other friends of mine are sede and do their own thing.
I would rather recognise and resist than go sede.
-
I proclaim communion with Francis, but you don't accept it???
And what bearing does your subjective refusal to accept my objective proclamation have on reality?
You have just espoused solipsism: Reality exists only in your own mind.
You might as well just have said you do not accept that I say my name is Sean.
That's absurd. You assert your proclamation is objective and yet Francis would contradict you. Who is being subjective? I think it is you! Mith has given you a definition of what communion means in practice and unless you have been reconciled to the Conciliar Church, I don't see how your "proclamation" measures up.
-
A few people I know, who attend the SSPX have gone sede in the past year or so. Other friends of mine are sede and do their own thing.
I would rather recognise and resist than go sede.
Are you concerned about the upcoming JP2 "canonization"? I would think that would at least be cause for reflection.
-
Keep in mind that the guy in white is either the Pope or he is not so either R & R is right or SV is right.
Those who hold he is a material but not a formal Pope are practical SVs as that act and treat him as if he is not Pope at all. The do not include him in the una cuм and they do not treat him as if he were pope in any way. They just believe he holds a space and become Pope if he becomes Catholic by renouncing his heresies.
Neither R&R's nor SV's follow the wayward popes. Inter-trad disputes preclude significant evangelization because newcomers only want to be Catholic and are disheartened by infighting. A sizable portion of the NO's do simply want to be Catholic and remain with the bishops only because they see no plausible alternative.
Since Vatican II, there has been a steady exit from NO pews. Modernists do not care when these faithful leave the Church. Parishes and schools are consolidated, closed, and sold for cash. Many former NO's are still looking for a home and many still attending will eventually leave, if present trends continue. Some NO's could not stand traditionalism, but many would be open to it if they made to understand it is God's will. Besides, what sane parent does not seek a way to keep their children from growing up corrupted?
I believe that trad squabbling indirectly but effectively prevents many people from finding their way to Tradition. Our squabbling scares off newcomers and precludes the coordination of nationwide and worldwide evangelization. Squabblers must be hoping that the issues of their contention will be judged important enough make the infighting worthwhile.
I think I am in agreement with what you are saying Columba. However, I would like to distinguish between arguments (squabbling) and complete refusal to cooperate. I think these arguments are ultimately going to benefit the Church by identifying a plausible explanation for what has happened to the Church since Vatican II. What I think is very unhealthy is Catholics refusing to cooperate in any way with each other. I don't include adherents of the Conciliar Religion as Catholics but only those who continue to keep the Faith whole and entire. That includes sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, sedeagnostics, sedeplenists, recognize & resistors, Resistance, SSPX, neo-SSPX(yellow light), all Catholics who have valid sacraments and adhere to the traditional doctrine of the Church. The status of the papacy while extremely important is not a dogma of the Church. It is an opinion. An important opinion. So while I think we need to resolve the question of the papacy, I also think that in the meantime we should be cooperating as much as possible, including providing the sacraments to those in need.
Certainly the question of how to classify conciliar heresiarchs will remain a hot topic until the Church definitively rules upon it. However, it is premature to divide on this question prior to that definition, especially since such division delays the rollback of Modernism and the Church ruling upon the question.
-
A few people I know, who attend the SSPX have gone sede in the past year or so. Other friends of mine are sede and do their own thing.
I would rather recognise and resist than go sede.
Are you concerned about the upcoming JP2 "canonization"? I would think that would at least be cause for reflection.
I oppose it. My point is that few SSPX folk I know are sede. In Ireland it is quite common for SSPX youth to work with pro-JPII types in pro-life activism.
Whilst theological differences are put aside for that day or particular event, I would assume/presume it is made clear the Trads state these Popes are Modernists and heretics.
There is a time and place for such discussion though. I was once heckled for being Catholic outside an abortuary. I couldn't believe it. Some 'born again' type objected to our presence.
I remember being at an event and telling a woman that Benedict XVI is a Modernist. She was quite hostile to my remark.
-
I believe that trad squabbling indirectly but effectively prevents many people from finding their way to Tradition. Our squabbling scares off newcomers and precludes the coordination of nationwide and worldwide evangelization
The necessary squabbling can take place in the tearoom. It's generally harmless. I wouldn't use the term 'evangelisation'. We propagate the faith.
I do believe in coordination and people working together. There shouldn't be compromise though.
A friend of mine gave a copy of 'Karol Wojtyla Beatified...Never!' to a lady after Mass. She ran a mile. She was furious.
It's necessary to take a different approach with various people.
-
...
3) Because he is universally recognized as such by all prelates with jurisdiction;
4) Because it is impossible (and without precedent) that the Church could have a 56 year interregnum and still claim visibility.
Against all this, it defies common sense to presume the opposite.
If you pull your head out of the manuals and take a deep breath, it might begin to occur to you.
I had the same opinion as you just a few months ago. I had to re-evaluate after Francis said there is no Catholic God. I think every R&R man will have to re-evaluate after JP2 is "canonized". I'm not worried about the visibility of the Church because even if the only bishops with ordinary jurisdiction are a couple dozen traditional bishops the visibility of the Church is still preserved. I argue that (3) above is false. I think Mith's post shows that true common sense would tell you that you are not in communion with Francis. But I think that is a good thing. Why would you want to be in communion with a public heretic?
Clemens-
1) There are no traditional bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
2) Whether or not I am in communion with Francis is a personal choice: I choose to be in communion with him (even if I oppose 99% of what comes out of his mouth).
3) Careful with the term "public heretic." It does not mean what you seem to think it means (i.e., uttering heresies publicly). a "public material heretic" has a very specific meaning, and is not equivalent to "formal heretic."
-
I believe that trad squabbling indirectly but effectively prevents many people from finding their way to Tradition. Our squabbling scares off newcomers and precludes the coordination of nationwide and worldwide evangelization.
If nothing else, it sure does make for boring internet forums. :sleep:
-
...
3) Because he is universally recognized as such by all prelates with jurisdiction;
4) Because it is impossible (and without precedent) that the Church could have a 56 year interregnum and still claim visibility.
Against all this, it defies common sense to presume the opposite.
If you pull your head out of the manuals and take a deep breath, it might begin to occur to you.
I had the same opinion as you just a few months ago. I had to re-evaluate after Francis said there is no Catholic God. I think every R&R man will have to re-evaluate after JP2 is "canonized". I'm not worried about the visibility of the Church because even if the only bishops with ordinary jurisdiction are a couple dozen traditional bishops the visibility of the Church is still preserved. I argue that (3) above is false. I think Mith's post shows that true common sense would tell you that you are not in communion with Francis. But I think that is a good thing. Why would you want to be in communion with a public heretic?
Clemens-
1) There are no traditional bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
2) Whether or not I am in communion with Francis is a personal choice: I choose to be in communion with him (even if I oppose 99% of what comes out of his mouth).
3) Careful with the term "public heretic." It does not mean what you seem to think it means (i.e., uttering heresies publicly). a "public material heretic" has a very specific meaning, and is not equivalent to "formal heretic."
I would love to know what "public heretic" means if it doesn't mean "uttering heresies publicly". Of course, I don't claim Francis is a formal heretic but while we are waiting for it to be formalized we are not obligated to be subject to him.
-
Especially now that Mgr. Williamson is following through on a two-decade old prediction he would end up going in this direction under Pope John Paul II's successor.
Ultimately, I agree that if Bishop Williamson goes down this path, we have all arrived at checkmate:
When has Mgr Williamson ever backed down from or resisted going down a politically incorrect path he believed to be right?
-
Especially now that Mgr. Williamson is following through on a two-decade old prediction he would end up going in this direction under Pope John Paul II's successor.
Ultimately, I agree that if Bishop Williamson goes down this path, we have all arrived at checkmate:
When has Mgr Williamson ever backed down from or resisted going down a politically incorrect path he believed to be right?
I hope His Lordship's next Eleison Comments will present a defense of his new tradcuмenical policy, from a doctrinal perspective.
-
Especially now that Mgr. Williamson is following through on a two-decade old prediction he would end up going in this direction under Pope John Paul II's successor.
Ultimately, I agree that if Bishop Williamson goes down this path, we have all arrived at checkmate:
When has Mgr Williamson ever backed down from or resisted going down a politically incorrect path he believed to be right?
I hope His Lordship's next Eleison Comments will present a defense of his new tradcuмenical policy, from a doctrinal perspective.
Sean,
Can you show me a source from an approved Catholic book which shows a definition for your term, "tradecuмenism," or "tradecuмenical"? :reading:
-
SJ wrote:
1) There are no traditional bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
This is true, but there remains in the world bishops lawfully appointed who have kept the Faith.
-
SJ wrote:
1) There are no traditional bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
This is true, but there remains in the world bishops lawfully appointed who have kept the Faith.
I don't know if you have been reading my posts but I have been arguing that it is impossible to lawfully appoint a bishop without ordinary jurisdiction. If you ask me, it doesn't even make sense. How could a bishop wish to deprive his consecrand of ordinary jurisdiction? If he didn't want to give him ordinary jurisdiction he should not have consecrated him in the first place. But if he did wish to consecrate him and he did so lawfully how is it possible for the consecrand to not receive ordinary jurisdiction? Under normal circuмstance it might be evidence for questioning the sanity of the consecrating bishop. But in the present crisis it could be attributed to the mistaken belief that the consecrating bishop was suspended and therefore didn't have any ordinary jurisdiction to confer on the consecrand. But in the case of ++Lefebvre, ++Thuc, and +Gonzalez we know that they did have ordinary jurisdiction because either they were suspended unjustly (and therefore it did not take effect) or they were not suspended at all because there was no pope. The next Catholic Pope will have to confirm this but it certainly seems like a plausible explanation of the present situation.
-
SJ wrote:
1) There are no traditional bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
This is true, but there remains in the world bishops lawfully appointed who have kept the Faith.
I don't know if you have been reading my posts but I have been arguing that it is impossible to lawfully appoint a bishop without ordinary jurisdiction. If you ask me, it doesn't even make sense. How could a bishop wish to deprive his consecrand of ordinary jurisdiction? If he didn't want to give him ordinary jurisdiction he should not have consecrated him in the first place. But if he did wish to consecrate him and he did so lawfully how is it possible for the consecrand to not receive ordinary jurisdiction? Under normal circuмstance it might be evidence for questioning the sanity of the consecrating bishop. But in the present crisis it could be attributed to the mistaken belief that the consecrating bishop was suspended and therefore didn't have any ordinary jurisdiction to confer on the consecrand. But in the case of ++Lefebvre, ++Thuc, and +Gonzalez we know that they did have ordinary jurisdiction because either they were suspended unjustly (and therefore it did not take effect) or they were not suspended at all because there was no pope. The next Catholic Pope will have to confirm this but it certainly seems like a plausible explanation of the present situation.
A bishop cannot have a mission without being sent. A bishop cannot send a bishop, he must be sent from the Pope, either directly or tacitly.
If you wish to argue that a bishop has been sent tacitly, then, certain criteria must be present. None of the traditional bishops have claimed a see, which would require at the very least the acceptance of the remaining lawful clergy of the diocese who have kept the Faith, and the acceptance of other diocesan bishops, lawfully sent who have kept the Faith.
There remains in the world a significant amount of bishops who have legitimate claims to sees, it just remains uncertain whether they have kept the Faith.
-
THE DOVE: By R&R, do you mean the classic SSPX position?
CANTATE: I cannot answer this question because I do not know what the "classic SSPX position" is. All I know is that R&R is the quintessence of SSPX politics.
THE DOVE: But does the classic SSPX position implicitly endorse the formal heresy of modernism?
CANTATE: From its inception, SSPX politics most likely did not implicitly endorse the formal heresy of modernism. This because it was enjoying a grace period from God. (See below.) From 2013 (and even much earlier), SSPX politics most likely does implicitly endorse the formal heresy of modernism.
As we know, the Lord is gracious and merciful: patient and plenteous in mercy. The Lord is sweet to all: and His tender mercies are over all his works. He knoweth our frame. He remembereth that we are dust: Man' s days are as grass, as the flower of the field so shall he flourish.
Wherefore we should believe that God, in His mercy, has given faithful Catholics a grace period (post-conciliar ) of many decades, within which they may mourn, grieve, process, analyze, think, resist, and watch the signs of the times. Inside this grace period, the Lord, I believe, looks mostly for perseverance in the Faith. He looks to find in souls a wholehearted desire to keep the Faith. This He seeks. This He rewards. I do not think He requires from us either theological precision or consummate military action in this grace period, this first phase of reaction to the shock of the Council. He seems willing to let us flounder awhile in soul-wracking half-truths and political expediencies, like SV and R&R, as long as we preserve the essentials.
And does our floundering in so much pain and confusion cause us to sin? Most certainly it does. Have we more often than not pointed our guns at one another? Have we stolen both property and good name from one another? Have we broken the bonds of charity over and over again?
But see: He hath not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For according to the height of the heaven above the earth, He hath strengthened His mercy towards them that fear Him. As a father hath compassion on his children, so hath the Lord compassion on them that fear Him.
HOWEVER, there must come a time when the grace period is over, and we are obliged to pick back up the sword and the plow. When this time comes, we must repent of our sins - sins against truth, sins against faith, and sins against charity.
How do we know when the grace period is over and the new period of renewed militancy, justice, virtue, and charity is come upon us? We know when the truth is so evident that to deny it is mortal sin.
Is the truth now so evident that to deny it is a mortal sin? I am convinced that it is. I am convinced that the grace period for Tradition is over.
Me suffering from battle fatigue? Nothing could be farther from the truth. The only thing that fatigues me is the fact that I am surrounded by wavering, tottering, dancing, prancing, equivocating, semanticizing, dissimulating men - clergy and lay alike.
What about God?
WELL . . . when God drew near, seeing the city, He wept over it, saying: If thou also hadst known, and that in this thy day, the things that are to thy peace; but now they are hidden from thy eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, and thy enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and straiten thee on every side, and beat thee flat to the ground, and thy children who are in thee: and they shall not leave in thee a stone upon a stone: because thou hast not known the time of thy visitation.
Is there hope? Of course there is, if we repent and leave off with lying politics:
As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways. The justice of the just shall not deliver him, in what day soever he shall sin. The just shall not be able to live in his justice, in what day soever he shall sin.
-
R&R brought the SSPX to its knees.
Are you sure this was the cause of the fall of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay? What about the SSPX-Marian Corps that continues that position and yet is very strong?
I'm speaking of general principles, EC. My comments address all trads. I guess you could say I'm a tradcuмanic.
-
I hope His Lordship's next Eleison Comments will present a defense of his new tradcuмenical policy, from a doctrinal perspective.
My guess is that Mgr Williamson will simply revisit the themes and arguments of his December 1996 newsletter:
http://williamsonletters.blogspot.ca/2009/02/examining-crisis-in-church-as-we-near.html
-
The only thing that fatigues me is the fact that I am surrounded by wavering, tottering, dancing, prancing, equivocating, semanticizing, dissimulating men - clergy and lay alike.
:popcorn:
-
The world's bishops march to a different drum. Collectively, they constitute an opposing army to fight and defeat. For the time being the Church must dispense with her hierarchical niceties and formalities made for normal times. And no traditionalist leader must use this irregularity to languish in comfortable despair. The clock is ticking and generations are exiting the confused scene for good. Unless there an attempt to regroup against the common foe (and SSPX politics are a pointless exercise), the floating population that still claims it is traditionalist will defect to more promising causes. This sounds like an army in retreat .... and in this respect I wonder whether Bp. W is thinking of new alliances inside and outside the Church to combat what the modern church and world are going to throw at us.
-
The world's bishops march to a different drum. Collectively, they constitute an opposing army to fight and defeat. For the time being the Church must dispense with her hierarchical niceties and formalities made for normal times. And no traditionalist leader must use this irregularity to languish in comfortable despair. The clock is ticking and generations are exiting the confused scene for good. Unless there an attempt to regroup against the common foe (and SSPX politics are a pointless exercise), the floating population that still claims it is traditionalist will defect to more promising causes. This sounds like an army in retreat .... and in this respect I wonder whether Bp. W is thinking of new alliances inside and outside the Church to combat what the modern church and world are going to throw at us.
The Catholic hierarchy is the only hierachy, there is no other. The task at hand is identifying exactly who they are.
-
Especially now that Mgr. Williamson is following through on a two-decade old prediction he would end up going in this direction under Pope John Paul II's successor.
Ultimately, I agree that if Bishop Williamson goes down this path, we have all arrived at checkmate:
When has Mgr Williamson ever backed down from or resisted going down a politically incorrect path he believed to be right?
I hope His Lordship's next Eleison Comments will present a defense of his new tradcuмenical policy, from a doctrinal perspective.
Sean,
Can you show me a source from an approved Catholic book which shows a definition for your term, "tradecuмenism," or "tradecuмenical"? :reading:
Can you show why I should bother with tendentious questions?
-
Especially now that Mgr. Williamson is following through on a two-decade old prediction he would end up going in this direction under Pope John Paul II's successor.
Ultimately, I agree that if Bishop Williamson goes down this path, we have all arrived at checkmate:
When has Mgr Williamson ever backed down from or resisted going down a politically incorrect path he believed to be right?
I hope His Lordship's next Eleison Comments will present a defense of his new tradcuмenical policy, from a doctrinal perspective.
Sean,
Can you show me a source from an approved Catholic book which shows a definition for your term, "tradecuмenism," or "tradecuмenical"? :reading:
Can you show why I should bother with tendentious questions?
Because you are using made up terms in a Catholic discussion.
-
Especially now that Mgr. Williamson is following through on a two-decade old prediction he would end up going in this direction under Pope John Paul II's successor.
Ultimately, I agree that if Bishop Williamson goes down this path, we have all arrived at checkmate:
When has Mgr Williamson ever backed down from or resisted going down a politically incorrect path he believed to be right?
I hope His Lordship's next Eleison Comments will present a defense of his new tradcuмenical policy, from a doctrinal perspective.
Sean,
Can you show me a source from an approved Catholic book which shows a definition for your term, "tradecuмenism," or "tradecuмenical"? :reading:
Can you show why I should bother with tendentious questions?
Because you are using made up terms in a Catholic discussion.
Are you having trouble understanding what the term means?
-
Especially now that Mgr. Williamson is following through on a two-decade old prediction he would end up going in this direction under Pope John Paul II's successor.
Ultimately, I agree that if Bishop Williamson goes down this path, we have all arrived at checkmate:
When has Mgr Williamson ever backed down from or resisted going down a politically incorrect path he believed to be right?
I hope His Lordship's next Eleison Comments will present a defense of his new tradcuмenical policy, from a doctrinal perspective.
Sean,
Can you show me a source from an approved Catholic book which shows a definition for your term, "tradecuмenism," or "tradecuмenical"? :reading:
Can you show why I should bother with tendentious questions?
Because you are using made up terms in a Catholic discussion.
Are you having trouble understanding what the term means?
The term is bogus. One is either a Catholic or he is not. If one is a Catholic you are bound to remain in communion with him.
If you believe that the those who hold that these public heretics are antipopes are now outside the Church, then prove it using authorities.
Catholics are bound to remain in communion with all other Catholics. If anyone severs themselves from communion with other Catholics, they are schismatic.
-
Sean,
Can you show me a source from an approved Catholic book which shows a definition for your term, "tradecuмenism," or "tradecuмenical"? :reading:
Can you show why I should bother with tendentious questions?
Because you are using made up terms in a Catholic discussion.
The purpose of language is to communicated ideas and concepts. I think most of us here know what Sean means when he uses the word "tradecuмenism" or its derivatives.
Nor did Sean make up the word. In fact I recall several FSSPX clergy - among them, I believe Mgr. Williamson, Fr. Emily and Fr. Laisney - using the exact same term about 22 years ago. The word has been around traditional circles a long time.
-
Sean,
Can you show me a source from an approved Catholic book which shows a definition for your term, "tradecuмenism," or "tradecuмenical"? :reading:
Can you show why I should bother with tendentious questions?
Because you are using made up terms in a Catholic discussion.
The purpose of language is to communicated ideas and concepts. I think most of us here know what Sean means when he uses the word "tradecuмenism" or its derivatives.
Nor did Sean make up the word. In fact I recall several FSSPX clergy - among them, I believe Mgr. Williamson, Fr. Emily and Fr. Laisney - using the exact same term about 22 years ago. The word has been around traditional circles a long time.
There is a reason why the Church's theologians and canonists did not use imprecise terms. If someone is a Catholic, then you must remain in communion with him, if not then you must not remain in communion with him.
Are you ready to judge who has lost membership in the Church over these differences?
-
Clemens Maria, well, we're getting warmer, but we still disagree a bit.
A consecration is valid or invalid for obvious reasons. But a consecration is licit or illicit based on whether the consecration bishop sets himself up as Pope or not. If he tries to do so, if he thinks he can confer jurisdiction, then the consecration would indeed be wrong. The consecrating bishop and the bishops consecrated clearly says they do not intend to usurp to themselves the proper Papal power, then the consecration is licit as it is with Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society.
You are correct that a Pope will have to confirm our bishops in future, but that confirmation itself will be the cause of their jurisidiction. Where the cause is lacking, as St. Thomas says, the effect cannot be present. Here is Journet,
When a Pope is created the electors merely designate the person, and it is Christ who then confers on him immediately his dignity and power. But, when the Sovereign Pontiff, either of himself or through others, invests bishops, the proper jurisdiction they receive does not come to them directly from God, it comes directly from the Sovereign Pontiff to whom Christ gives it in a plenary manner, and from whom it comes down to the bishops: somewhat after the manner of the life-pulse that begins in the heart and is transmitted thence to the other organs. And that is why the Sovereign Pontiff must not be conceived as merely designating bishops who then receive directly from Christ their proper and ordinary authority; but as himself conferring the episcopal authority, having first received it from Christ in an eminent form.
This he proves from Cardinal Cajetan, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII etc apart from the Gospel.
Dom Gueranger says that if bishops without a demonstrable canonical mission nonetheless claim authority then they must be refused. You can see then that it is a quite grave matter we are discussing.
As St. Augustine says of those in merely material error, "such men cannot be accounted heretics." This is the way the Doctors use the term, St. Robert uses heretic to mean one who lacks supernatural faith, a formal heretic. By manifest heretic he explains that he means a public and formal heretic, one who pertains neither internally nor externally.
Also, you've misunderstood Fr. Ballerini.
Heresy can have its internal effect, the loss of interior supernatural faith, only after its formal element - pertinacity of the will - is sufficiently certain in the external forum, as for example it would be only after the collective denunciation of the Roman clergy or otherwise. For this reason an occult heretic is still said to be a member of the Church and mere public, material heresy will not cause the loss of the pontificate, since that is an internal effect.
So long as you admit that at least some Roman clergy and Ordinaries must exist because of Catholic doctrine, as for example sedevacantist John Lane does, even if we disagree, that is good. But to cast doubt on the necessity for Ordinaries to always exist is heretical and for the Roman clergy to always exist is heterodox. And both opinions are schismatic because they overthrow the principle of unity in the Church. That the Roman Church even in an interregnum, through Her clergy and the laity they are established over, is indefectible in such wise that they will not collectively defect is revealed in Scripture and Tradition itself, as Msgr. Fenton proves, promised by Our Lord and understood by the Fathers. It must be believed otherwise we no longer have a Roman Catholic Church and anybody can do anything he likes, and the door is opened to his losing the faith or falling into a real schism.
The Church makes every allowance for good faith, She is always tolerant in practice and immeasurably merciful toward persons erring, however She makes no allowance whatsoever for relativism or subjectivism, She is always intolerant in principle and invincibly harsh against error itself. This is required by justice and mercy alike, and it alone is the true charity that God esteems. Her children must be the same.
-
The world's bishops march to a different drum. Collectively, they constitute an opposing army to fight and defeat. For the time being the Church must dispense with her hierarchical niceties and formalities made for normal times. And no traditionalist leader must use this irregularity to languish in comfortable despair. The clock is ticking and generations are exiting the confused scene for good. Unless there an attempt to regroup against the common foe (and SSPX politics are a pointless exercise), the floating population that still claims it is traditionalist will defect to more promising causes. This sounds like an army in retreat .... and in this respect I wonder whether Bp. W is thinking of new alliances inside and outside the Church to combat what the modern church and world are going to throw at us.
Human and super-nature nature being what they are, tangible leadership is indispensable.
-
Pete-
You are being much too picky!
After all, we resisters are very big on principle!
As defenders of the Trinity, we could all team up against the Jews.
As defenders of priesthood, we could all team up against the Prots.
And as opposers of modernism, we could all team up against Rome (apparently).
This is blatant ecuмenism, no matter how pleased with it the sedes who overrun this site are with Bishop Williamson's long-awaited statement.
They will try to out-do each other praising the wisdom of Bishop Williamson, to encourage him in his slide towards their position.
But none of their Te Deums, appeals to reason (which is quite funny, actually, since they have become solipsists), or defenses will mask the fact that Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.
For the sake of consistency, I would now expect of them to cease all attacks on Bishop Williamson and Menzingen on that score.
A shame.
PS: Has anyone asked you whether you were sent here to drive deeper the wedge with the resistance?
This is prattle.
We are losing so much ground because we have slipped into a coma of inaction, or semantical reactionism.
Columba and Clemens Maria and J. Paul are all advocating, in slightly different ways, that we start acting like Catholics again. It's been 50 years, for cryin' out loud. It's time to get over it and put the hand back to the plow.
A blatant admission of battle fatigue!
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Sean, give me an early Christmas present:
Answer this question for me in Yes, Yes, No, No:
Is Bergoglio Catholic?
-
Pete-
You are being much too picky!
After all, we resisters are very big on principle!
As defenders of the Trinity, we could all team up against the Jews.
As defenders of priesthood, we could all team up against the Prots.
And as opposers of modernism, we could all team up against Rome (apparently).
This is blatant ecuмenism, no matter how pleased with it the sedes who overrun this site are with Bishop Williamson's long-awaited statement.
They will try to out-do each other praising the wisdom of Bishop Williamson, to encourage him in his slide towards their position.
But none of their Te Deums, appeals to reason (which is quite funny, actually, since they have become solipsists), or defenses will mask the fact that Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.
For the sake of consistency, I would now expect of them to cease all attacks on Bishop Williamson and Menzingen on that score.
A shame.
PS: Has anyone asked you whether you were sent here to drive deeper the wedge with the resistance?
This is prattle.
We are losing so much ground because we have slipped into a coma of inaction, or semantical reactionism.
Columba and Clemens Maria and J. Paul are all advocating, in slightly different ways, that we start acting like Catholics again. It's been 50 years, for cryin' out loud. It's time to get over it and put the hand back to the plow.
A blatant admission of battle fatigue!
This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").
It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.
It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.
Sean, give me an early Christmas present:
Answer this question for me in Yes, Yes, No, No:
Is Bergoglio Catholic?
As I have no window into another man's soul to determine whether he knows he is contradicting the faith or not, I am afraid I cannot give you your early Christmas present.
But as your question seems to imply you do have that gift, I am not sure why you are asking me.
-
If a window into the soul is required to say whether one is Catholic or not, then the Church isn't really a visible thing or discernible thing, is it?
In fact, it becomes hideously gnostic, and no one can be said to belong to it or be separated from it. Obama might even be Catholic. Madame Blavatsky might be playing mahjong with Voltaire in heaven. Who knows?
On the other hand, Pius XII laid out what makes a person a Catholic. Baptized and not an heretic, apostate or schismatic.
-
Sean,
Can you show me a source from an approved Catholic book which shows a definition for your term, "tradecuмenism," or "tradecuмenical"? :reading:
Can you show why I should bother with tendentious questions?
Because you are using made up terms in a Catholic discussion.
The purpose of language is to communicated ideas and concepts. I think most of us here know what Sean means when he uses the word "tradecuмenism" or its derivatives.
Nor did Sean make up the word. In fact I recall several FSSPX clergy - among them, I believe Mgr. Williamson, Fr. Emily and Fr. Laisney - using the exact same term about 22 years ago. The word has been around traditional circles a long time.
There is a reason why the Church's theologians and canonists did not use imprecise terms. If someone is a Catholic, then you must remain in communion with him, if not then you must not remain in communion with him.
Are you ready to judge who has lost membership in the Church over these differences?
If I can help...
"Tradecuмenism..."
In the use and meaning of this word, is firstly, that it has been around for a long time. It is not meant to detract nor call into question if someone is a Catholic or not.
Rather, it is a word that describes an "inter-change", "inter-communion", or "inter-dialog" between Traditional Catholic groups for the sake of putting aside [their] principles in order to find common ground to get along; whether, they are between the SSPX, Ecclesia Dei, or Sedevacantists groups; or all of them together at the same time "inter-dialoging".
Thus, it is a term describing a type of "ecuмenism" amongst different Traditional Catholic groups who hold different [opinions] in order to have amongst themselves a notion of "unity".
-
THE DOVE: Both R&R's and Sedevacantists are able to make plausible, though incomplete, theological defenses of their positions . . . Has the R&R-Sede debate not reached a stalemate, objectively speaking? Does this debate not consume significant amounts of the limited trad resources in church splits, property disputes, and inefficient duplication of institutions such as schools? Do you envision the inconclusive arguments of one side defeating the other in the foreseeable future?
CANTATE: It's probably time for me to define a term. R&R, as I use it here, refers to what some are calling dogmatic R&R, or what some refer to as the neo-SSPX position. Its essential qualities are: refusal to call modernism heresy; refusal to call particular modernists heretics; insistence upon proclaiming that these heretics are our legitimate superiors to whom we owe obedience in all things but sin. R&R tries to yoke Tradition to infidelity; wherefore it is an exercise in internal contradiction and futility.
The SV position is, to my mind, more syllogistic, black and white, and, perhaps, seemingly demonstrable than the R&R farcicality, which is rife with ambiguity, imprecision of terminology, blindness, internal contradiction, and effete pseudo-diplomacy.
SV starts with a true first premise: They ain't Catholic, ergo . . .
Now while it may just be that, though SV achieves take-off, it burns up in the atmosphere because it cannot take the heat and stress of sustained flight, we really have to say that R&R is like a leaden blimp that cannot even get off the launch pad. It does not even begin with truth. It simply and always courts power, ultimately and necessarily going the way of all sycophants.
What does the Church need right now? More theology or some common sense?
SV, while coming out of the gate with truth, quickly bogs down into semantical projections that end in what one might call 'speculative reality.' Under the ponderous weight of its rationalism as neurosis, it is forced to proclaim dogmatically on everything, as all things are touched and transformed by its sacro-sacred first truth: They ain't Catholic!
Thus we go from the 'endless genealogies,' to the obsessive quest for the Holy Grail of Sacred Orders Pedigrees, to a voiding of hope, to 'Fatima denial.' The end of SV is to become void crazy. "This is void, that is void, this is invalid, that is not real." I actually was once told by an SV that the Rosary is 'invalid' if the true Fatima prayer is not said. The last time I checked, the Rosary cannot be made invalid because it is not a Sacrament! Sheesh!
SV is a lot like modern physics. It starts out with observable reality and extrapolates to science fiction.
R&R begins with a dodge. It dodges reality by procrastination. The Latin word for 'tomorrow' is 'cras.' R&R is composed of the 'endless tomorrow's' crowd. It always finds a reason to put off making the indispensable first apprehensive judgment that They ain't Catholic, because that judgment is always inconvenient for those who court power. Unlike SV, R&R refuses to apprehend essences; yet it still manages to end up like SV, as another type of 'speculative reality.'
SV endlessly speculates on the effects of it first principle; while R&R endlessly creates false scenarios that provide cover for its absolute lack of a first principle.
Neither SV nor R&R satisfactorily signify reality. Neither satisfactorily responds to reality.
If either one worked, the good fruits of Tradition would be showing forth by now.
By the evil fruits we know that we need to recalibrate - NOW.
-
Bp. Fellay is compromising toward Modernist heresy. Bp. Williamson is compromising toward... what defined heresy? Both R&R's and Sedevacantists are able to make plausible, though incomplete, theological defenses of their positions.
The debate is hampered by the lack of understanding and details on the Masonic take-over. What's more, neither side can show Church rulings definitively backing them up, although both sides have found opinions partially supporting their position. Take a step back from your position for a moment to see the forest for the trees. Has the R&R-Sede debate not reached a stalemate, objectively speaking? Does this debate not consume significant amounts of the limited trad resources in church splits, property disputes, and inefficient duplication of institutions such as schools? Do you envision the inconclusive arguments of one side defeating the other in the foreseeable future?
If we agree that the hierarchy appears to be under the direct control of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, how is the problem not political and solely religious? When in the history of the Church has there ever been a festering religious problem that has not also been political?
Perhaps you will say that the religious problem fuels the trouble and that we must resolve it first to make the political problem go away. The problem is solely Modernism and not Sedevacantism since the latter evaporates upon resolution of the former. R&R is no solution, but only an imperfect, stopgap response to Modernism. Sedevacantism is also a stopgap measure. If Sedevacantism is wrong, then is only because its imperfection is some degree greater than that of R&R. Neither position claims to be perfect. So in regards to perfection, the difference is at most one of degree and not of kind.
+Williamson's "compromise" on Sedevacantism is not a compromise with heresy, but only a long overdue course correction. Pseudo-dogmatic stridency about which of the two most prominent stopgap measures is best to follow serves no legitimate purpose. Elevation of the tawdry, interest-laden swabbles between R&R and Sedevacantism to the level of "doctrinal" may itself qualify as a kind of sin or error.
So if neither R&R nor Sedevacantism are genuine solutions to the Modernist problem, what is? Traditionalists must first restore the papacy, either by wresting it away from Freemasons or by divorcing the conquered church structure and erecting another. Only then can the Church definitively condemn the errors of Vatican II and render moot the differences between R&R and Sedevacantism. A solution to the political aspect of Modernism is a mandatory prerequisite to resolving the religious problem.
Thanks for some very interesting food for thought.
-
Keep in mind that the guy in white is either the Pope or he is not so either R & R is right or SV is right.
Those who hold he is a material but not a formal Pope are practical SVs as that act and treat him as if he is not Pope at all. The do not include him in the una cuм and they do not treat him as if he were pope in any way. They just believe he holds a space and become Pope if he becomes Catholic by renouncing his heresies.
Neither R&R's nor SV's follow the wayward popes. Inter-trad disputes preclude significant evangelization because newcomers only want to be Catholic and are disheartened by infighting. A sizable portion of the NO's do simply want to be Catholic and remain with the bishops only because they see no plausible alternative.
Since Vatican II, there has been a steady exit from NO pews. Modernists do not care when these faithful leave the Church. Parishes and schools are consolidated, closed, and sold for cash. Many former NO's are still looking for a home and many still attending will eventually leave, if present trends continue. Some NO's could not stand traditionalism, but many would be open to it if they made to understand it is God's will. Besides, what sane parent does not seek a way to keep their children from growing up corrupted?
I believe that trad squabbling indirectly but effectively prevents many people from finding their way to Tradition. Our squabbling scares off newcomers and precludes the coordination of nationwide and worldwide evangelization. Squabblers must be hoping that the issues of their contention will be judged important enough make the infighting worthwhile.
This is absolutely right and it aligns somewhat with what Clemens is saying.
Who knows, it may also align with Bishop Williamson's intellectual projection for a future Church.
Surely it shines bright with the charity that is yoked to the true spirit of the Gospel - something traddieland has all but lost.
I think the unmasking of the SSPX is a blessing from God.
The Lord is asking more of each of us. Each man has to study and pray and beg God for grace, acuity, discernment, virtue, faith, hope, and charity. Each man has a part to play in God's Cause.
-
Sean, give me an early Christmas present:
Answer this question for me in Yes, Yes, No, No:
Is Bergoglio Catholic?
As I have no window into another man's soul to determine whether he knows he is contradicting the faith or not, I am afraid I cannot give you your early Christmas present.
But as your question seems to imply you do have that gift, I am not sure why you are asking me.
I asked you in order to better understand the way your mind turns.
I'm glad I asked because I do now understand that you are a true R&R man.
That's all really.
Blessed Christmas to you and your family!
-
If a window into the soul is required to say whether one is Catholic or not, then the Church isn't really a visible thing or discernible thing, is it?
In fact, it becomes hideously gnostic, and no one can be said to belong to it or be separated from it. Obama might even be Catholic. Madame Blavatsky might be playing mahjong with Voltaire in heaven. Who knows?
On the other hand, Pius XII laid out what makes a person a Catholic. Baptized and not an heretic, apostate or schismatic.
You are correct, of course.
Sean's answer has nicely demonstrated the feebleness of R&R.
-
THE DOVE: Both R&R's and Sedevacantists are able to make plausible, though incomplete, theological defenses of their positions . . . Has the R&R-Sede debate not reached a stalemate, objectively speaking? Does this debate not consume significant amounts of the limited trad resources in church splits, property disputes, and inefficient duplication of institutions such as schools? Do you envision the inconclusive arguments of one side defeating the other in the foreseeable future?
CANTATE: It's probably time for me to define a term. R&R, as I use it here, refers to what some are calling dogmatic R&R, or what some refer to as the neo-SSPX position. Its essential qualities are: refusal to call modernism heresy; refusal to call particular modernists heretics; insistence upon proclaiming that these heretics are our legitimate superiors to whom we owe obedience in all things but sin. R&R tries to yoke Tradition to infidelity; wherefore it is an exercise in internal contradiction and futility.
The SV position is, to my mind, more syllogistic, black and white, and, perhaps, seemingly demonstrable than the R&R farcicality, which is rife with ambiguity, imprecision of terminology, blindness, internal contradiction, and effete pseudo-diplomacy.
SV starts with a true first premise: They ain't Catholic, ergo . . .
Now while it may just be that, though SV achieves take-off, it burns up in the atmosphere because it cannot take the heat and stress of sustained flight, we really have to say that R&R is like a leaden blimp that cannot even get off the launch pad. It does not even begin with truth. It simply and always courts power, ultimately and necessarily going the way of all sycophants.
What does the Church need right now? More theology or some common sense?
SV, while coming out of the gate with truth, quickly bogs down into semantical projections that end in what one might call 'speculative reality.' Under the ponderous weight of its rationalism as neurosis, it is forced to proclaim dogmatically on everything, as all things are touched and transformed by its sacro-sacred first truth: They ain't Catholic!
Thus we go from the 'endless genealogies,' to the obsessive quest for the Holy Grail of Sacred Orders Pedigrees, to a voiding of hope, to 'Fatima denial.' The end of SV is to become void crazy. "This is void, that is void, this is invalid, that is not real." I actually was once told by an SV that the Rosary is 'invalid' if the true Fatima prayer is not said. The last time I checked, the Rosary cannot be made invalid because it is not a Sacrament! Sheesh!
SV is a lot like modern physics. It starts out with observable reality and extrapolates to science fiction.
R&R begins with a dodge. It dodges reality by procrastination. The Latin word for 'tomorrow' is 'cras.' R&R is composed of the 'endless tomorrow's' crowd. It always finds a reason to put off making the indispensable first apprehensive judgment that They ain't Catholic, because that judgment is always inconvenient for those who court power. Unlike SV, R&R refuses to apprehend essences; yet it still manages to end up like SV, as another type of 'speculative reality.'
SV endlessly speculates on the effects of it first principle; while R&R endlessly creates false scenarios that provide cover for its absolute lack of a first principle.
Neither SV nor R&R satisfactorily signify reality. Neither satisfactorily responds to reality.
If either one worked, the good fruits of Tradition would be showing forth by now.
By the evil fruits we know that we need to recalibrate - NOW.
Hello cantatedomino,
Thank you for terming your understanding of SV and R&R. Though in your description, I can attend that the R&R you had described is what the “neo-R&R” position is; for clarity however, I can assure you that it is not the Scriptural understanding of “Recognize and Resist” as I, and some others, are trying to bring to focus.
Yet in your conclusion, I also agree, that because those two groups you have described are using the wrong premise, it is why both of them are going "round- robin".
With my limited time at hand, I have been preparing to help clarify some of those misconceptions.
God bless.
-
CANTATE: It's probably time for me to define a term. R&R, as I use it here, refers to what some are calling dogmatic R&R, or what some refer to as the neo-SSPX position. Its essential qualities are: refusal to call modernism heresy; refusal to call particular modernists heretics; insistence upon proclaiming that these heretics are our legitimate superiors to whom we owe obedience in all things but sin. R&R tries to yoke Tradition to infidelity; wherefore it is an exercise in internal contradiction and futility.
The proponents of Spxism which is being referred to as R&R, are no more and no less than Gatekeepers who serve to keep Traditional Catholics confined within the outermost fence line of Conservative Conciliarism.
In the end, the disciples being non-corrosive to the sect's walls and foundations end up acting as a maintenance crew shoring up the legitimacy of the modernist revolution.
-
Sean,
Can you show me a source from an approved Catholic book which shows a definition for your term, "tradecuмenism," or "tradecuмenical"? :reading:
Can you show why I should bother with tendentious questions?
Because you are using made up terms in a Catholic discussion.
The purpose of language is to communicated ideas and concepts. I think most of us here know what Sean means when he uses the word "tradecuмenism" or its derivatives.
Nor did Sean make up the word. In fact I recall several FSSPX clergy - among them, I believe Mgr. Williamson, Fr. Emily and Fr. Laisney - using the exact same term about 22 years ago. The word has been around traditional circles a long time.
There is a reason why the Church's theologians and canonists did not use imprecise terms. If someone is a Catholic, then you must remain in communion with him, if not then you must not remain in communion with him.
Are you ready to judge who has lost membership in the Church over these differences?
If I can help...
"Tradecuмenism..."
In the use and meaning of this word, is firstly, that it has been around for a long time. It is not meant to detract nor call into question if someone is a Catholic or not.
Rather, it is a word that describes an "inter-change", "inter-communion", or "inter-dialog" between Traditional Catholic groups for the sake of putting aside [their] principles in order to find common ground to get along; whether, they are between the SSPX, Ecclesia Dei, or Sedevacantists groups; or all of them together at the same time "inter-dialoging".
Thus, it is a term describing a type of "ecuмenism" amongst different Traditional Catholic groups who hold different [opinions] in order to have amongst themselves a notion of "unity".
Thank you Machabees. I agree with what you are writing, but the distinction is unnecessary and artificial.
One is either a member of the Church or is not. If one has severed himself from the Church through heresy, schism or apostasy, then he has lost that membership.
There cannot be "ecuмenism" to foster a unity which remains fully intact to begin with. For myself, I remain in communion with all who profess the Catholic Faith, regardless of what chapel they go to, whether they are "sedevacantists, RR, SSPX, CMRI, or even in those deceived by the Conciliar church, so long as they have not defected from the Faith.
Once one is Baptized, he becomes a member of the Church. One remains a member as long as he does not sever himself from the Church, through an act which in and of itself would sever him from the Church or are severed by an act of the lawful authorities of the Church for certain crimes.
Every member of the Church, even those in mortal sin remains in communion with each other. To use the term, "tradecuмenism" is at the very least an implicit denial of the fact that all of us who remain members of the Church are already in complete union with each other. It creates the artificial idea that differences in judgment about the status of individuals can divide the Chirch, thereby needing a form of ecuмenism to bring it back together.
This is why I probed Sean to cite a source for his use of the term. I was hoping it would provoke thought on his part to realize that such a term should never be used among Catholics.
It is always a pleasure discussing with you Machabees. I wish you a blessed Advent.
-
Suffice to say that even if some think they can form a private judgment that a Council of the appropriate authorities should be called for, it is unknown and unheard of in the history of the Catholic Church that up until the hypothetical future point when that happens, we do not commemorate the Pope publicly and officially during Mass. St. Robert never ever said such a thing could be done on our own initiative. Even Savonarola who unprofitably agitated for a Council against Pope Alexander VI, who he claimed was not a Christian, did not suggest it. I invite Ambrose or someone else to prove me wrong. And while I agree many sedevacantists are in good faith, the problem objectively speaking is that it is at the least very difficult to see how those who do not commemorate the Roman Pontiff and profess communion with him can be in communion with those who do.
... it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: "This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion" (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition).
This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: "Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world" (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world" (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).
-
Sean,
Can you show me a source from an approved Catholic book which shows a definition for your term, "tradecuмenism," or "tradecuмenical"? :reading:
Can you show why I should bother with tendentious questions?
Because you are using made up terms in a Catholic discussion.
The purpose of language is to communicated ideas and concepts. I think most of us here know what Sean means when he uses the word "tradecuмenism" or its derivatives.
Nor did Sean make up the word. In fact I recall several FSSPX clergy - among them, I believe Mgr. Williamson, Fr. Emily and Fr. Laisney - using the exact same term about 22 years ago. The word has been around traditional circles a long time.
There is a reason why the Church's theologians and canonists did not use imprecise terms. If someone is a Catholic, then you must remain in communion with him, if not then you must not remain in communion with him.
Are you ready to judge who has lost membership in the Church over these differences?
If I can help...
"Tradecuмenism..."
In the use and meaning of this word, is firstly, that it has been around for a long time. It is not meant to detract nor call into question if someone is a Catholic or not.
Rather, it is a word that describes an "inter-change", "inter-communion", or "inter-dialog" between Traditional Catholic groups for the sake of putting aside [their] principles in order to find common ground to get along; whether, they are between the SSPX, Ecclesia Dei, or Sedevacantists groups; or all of them together at the same time "inter-dialoging".
Thus, it is a term describing a type of "ecuмenism" amongst different Traditional Catholic groups who hold different [opinions] in order to have amongst themselves a notion of "unity".
Thank you Machabees. I agree with what you are writing, but the distinction is unnecessary and artificial.
One is either a member of the Church or is not. If one has severed himself from the Church through heresy, schism or apostasy, then he has lost that membership.
There cannot be "ecuмenism" to foster a unity which remains fully intact to begin with. For myself, I remain in communion with all who profess the Catholic Faith, regardless of what chapel they go to, whether they are "sedevacantists, RR, SSPX, CMRI, or even in those deceived by the Conciliar church, so long as they have not defected from the Faith.
Once one is Baptized, he becomes a member of the Church. One remains a member as long as he does not sever himself from the Church, through an act which in and of itself would sever him from the Church or are severed by an act of the lawful authorities of the Church for certain crimes.
Every member of the Church, even those in mortal sin remains in communion with each other. To use the term, "tradecuмenism" is at the very least an implicit denial of the fact that all of us who remain members of the Church are already in complete union with each other. It creates the artificial idea that differences in judgment about the status of individuals can divide the Chirch, thereby needing a form of ecuмenism to bring it back together.
This is why I probed Sean to cite a source for his use of the term. I was hoping it would provoke thought on his part to realize that such a term should never be used among Catholics.
It is always a pleasure discussing with you Machabees. I wish you a blessed Advent.
Hello Ambrose,
I can understand what you mean, and on how you are reacting, when you see or hear the term for the first time; especially, when it has the word "ecuмenism" in it. I thought similarly the first time I had heard it many years ago.
To ease your thoughts. The word Tradecuмenism, with the word "ecuмenism" in it, is NOT the same usage of the word as if it was presented by itself -unity with "non-Catholics".
Tradecuмenism is used loosely; as described in my earlier post. It is a term that is used exclusively within the Traditional circle; who are all Catholics; whether they are sedevacantists, sspx, or ecclesia dei people that share the membership of being Catholics; yet, who have different [opinions], and platforms of expression with regards to the crisis in the Church; right or wrong.
With that said, Tradecuмenism is applied to such persons, or a group(s), who want to put aside principles in order to just seek after -a new platform- of a "unity" between each of the different Traditional Catholic groups based only on a "common understanding".
I hope this further clarifies...
God bless.
-
CANTATE: It's probably time for me to define a term. R&R, as I use it here, refers to what some are calling dogmatic R&R, or what some refer to as the neo-SSPX position. Its essential qualities are: refusal to call modernism heresy; refusal to call particular modernists heretics; insistence upon proclaiming that these heretics are our legitimate superiors to whom we owe obedience in all things but sin. R&R tries to yoke Tradition to infidelity; wherefore it is an exercise in internal contradiction and futility.
The proponents of Spxism which is being referred to as R&R, are no more and no less than Gatekeepers who serve to keep Traditional Catholics confined within the outermost fence line of Conservative Conciliarism.
In the end, the disciples being non-corrosive to the sect's walls and foundations end up acting as a maintenance crew shoring up the legitimacy of the modernist revolution.
These arbitrary terms try to calibrate degrees of dissidence but it really comes down to how one defines contemporary Rome and those who hold the real estate. I personally am not in communion with usurpers but others have difficulty letting go of a system which straps the faith to an earthly antithesis creating an impossible contradiction. The problem is not so much the human players but the establishing of a new ideology on old physical foundations. Impressionable trads see the same garb and titles in place and click their heels automatically. I am persuaded by Fr.Pfeiffer's recent London sermon contrasting substance with appearance and contrasting the faith with the provision of the sacraments.
-
A good example of 'recognize and resist' was when SSPX laity in London distributed leaflets during the visit of Benedict XVI. I thought it effective.
Irish SSPX laity did the opposite and were part of an official World Youth Day event in Spain. They went in a 'pro-life' capacity but was a contrast to what their English counterparts did.
The few Irish SSPX youth were part of the Modernism and Liberalism.
Some Irish SSPX laity 'countered' the International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin. Leaflets were distributed. This can be regarded as 'recognize and resist'. My understanding though is the leaflet was not that 'hard hitting'.
-
I am persuaded by Fr.Pfeiffer's recent London sermon contrasting substance with appearance and contrasting the faith with the provision of the sacraments.
Indeed. The sermon is excellent.
-
CANTATE: It's probably time for me to define a term. R&R, as I use it here, refers to what some are calling dogmatic R&R, or what some refer to as the neo-SSPX position. Its essential qualities are: refusal to call modernism heresy; refusal to call particular modernists heretics; insistence upon proclaiming that these heretics are our legitimate superiors to whom we owe obedience in all things but sin. R&R tries to yoke Tradition to infidelity; wherefore it is an exercise in internal contradiction and futility.
The proponents of Spxism which is being referred to as R&R, are no more and no less than Gatekeepers who serve to keep Traditional Catholics confined within the outermost fence line of Conservative Conciliarism.
In the end, the disciples being non-corrosive to the sect's walls and foundations end up acting as a maintenance crew shoring up the legitimacy of the modernist revolution.
Beautifully stated.
And I like the alternate term of art - SSPXism.
-
There cannot be "ecuмenism" to foster a unity which remains fully intact to begin with. For myself, I remain in communion with all who profess the Catholic Faith, regardless of what chapel they go to, whether they are "sedevacantists, RR, SSPX, CMRI, or even in those deceived by the Conciliar church, so long as they have not defected from the Faith.
Another idea beautifully stated.
And let us beware of ANYONE who tells us where we shalt go to Mass and where we shalt not go to Mass.
Though I have major difficulties with Bishop Williamson's pronouncements on authority, his getting stuck in the navel-gazing rut of SSPXcentrism, and his refusal to actively lead the men of Tradition to great heroism through an all-out Crusade to take back the Church, I agree with him completely in his charity towards all men, his refusal to write off the entire SSPX as if it were not composed of individuals, and his refusal to tell people that they cannot go here or there for Mass.
Those kinds of statements coming out of what are rapidly becoming cultish enclaves are full of self-serving arrogance. They work no more than to lead people away from the Gospel.
-
CANTATE: It's probably time for me to define a term. R&R, as I use it here, refers to what some are calling dogmatic R&R, or what some refer to as the neo-SSPX position. Its essential qualities are: refusal to call modernism heresy; refusal to call particular modernists heretics; insistence upon proclaiming that these heretics are our legitimate superiors to whom we owe obedience in all things but sin. R&R tries to yoke Tradition to infidelity; wherefore it is an exercise in internal contradiction and futility.
The proponents of Spxism which is being referred to as R&R, are no more and no less than Gatekeepers who serve to keep Traditional Catholics confined within the outermost fence line of Conservative Conciliarism.
In the end, the disciples being non-corrosive to the sect's walls and foundations end up acting as a maintenance crew shoring up the legitimacy of the modernist revolution.
These arbitrary terms try to calibrate degrees of dissidence but it really comes down to how one defines contemporary Rome and those who hold the real estate. I personally am not in communion with usurpers but others have difficulty letting go of a system which straps the faith to an earthly antithesis creating an impossible contradiction. The problem is not so much the human players but the establishing of a new ideology on old physical foundations. Impressionable trads see the same garb and titles in place and click their heels automatically. I am persuaded by Fr.Pfeiffer's recent London sermon contrasting substance with appearance and contrasting the faith with the provision of the sacraments.
I understand you, I think, but heel clicking to fall in line with Fr. Pfeiffer's group - another sign of over-impressionability - has already begun in earnest.
The reasons you adduce are some of why I believe that in order to keep the Faith I have to keep vigilant against joining up with any group.
Where you and I may differ is the reception of the Sacraments. I will not stop receiving the Sacraments. I would receive them from Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko but also from my local SSPX chapel. I would not be afraid to receive the Sacraments at an SV chapel where I was sure the priest was validly ordained, only this is not a choice in my area. Bottom line for me is that the Sacraments are valid and there is no danger to my faith, either from sermons or from coercive actions of the priest and/or congregants outside of Mass.
-
And Wessex - one more thing.
Never forget that Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko pray for this Bergoglio character at each one of their Masses, just as do the SSPX fellers, whereby they make themselves to be in communion with an infidel.
At Mass when I follow the missale, I never say that prayer with the inclusion of the name of the arch-heretic du jour. I always just skip to the part that makes communion with "all orthodox and Catholic believers . . ."
This is what I do to give God my return of love and my act of perfect praise.
What the celebrant does with his own soul is his own business.
-
There cannot be "ecuмenism" to foster a unity which remains fully intact to begin with. For myself, I remain in communion with all who profess the Catholic Faith, regardless of what chapel they go to, whether they are "sedevacantists, RR, SSPX, CMRI, or even in those deceived by the Conciliar church, so long as they have not defected from the Faith.
Another idea beautifully stated.
And let us beware of ANYONE who tells us where we shalt go to Mass and where we shalt not go to Mass.
Though I have major difficulties with Bishop Williamson's pronouncements on authority, his getting stuck in the navel-gazing rut of SSPXcentrism, and his refusal to actively lead the men of Tradition to great heroism through an all-out Crusade to take back the Church, I agree with him completely in his charity towards all men, his refusal to write off the entire SSPX as if it were not composed of individuals, and his refusal to tell people that they cannot go here or there for Mass.
Those kinds of statements coming out of what are rapidly becoming cultish enclaves are full of self-serving arrogance. They work no more than to lead people away from the Gospel.
Excellent! The charge to bring the Gospel to all men, to be the light of the world amidst an apostate world - I ask - how is to be done when what seems to the raison d'etre of the "resistance" (opposition to Bp. Fellay and the direction of SSPX) becomes the only driving force of its existence? My statement perhaps is not entirely fair but I find your words "cultish enclaves" to be very, very, perceptive.
-
If a window into the soul is required to say whether one is Catholic or not, then the Church isn't really a visible thing or discernible thing, is it?
In fact, it becomes hideously gnostic, and no one can be said to belong to it or be separated from it. Obama might even be Catholic. Madame Blavatsky might be playing mahjong with Voltaire in heaven. Who knows?
On the other hand, Pius XII laid out what makes a person a Catholic. Baptized and not an heretic, apostate or schismatic.
Your answer denies the distinction between material and formal heresy.
In the former, a man remains Catholic.
In the latter, he does not.
Tell me: Do you have the power to know whether a man realizes he is contradicting Church teaching, so as to pass from the material to the former?
I think you are reading these two concerns (the visibility of the Church on the one hand, and the distinction between material/formal heretic and the consequences for Church membership thereof on the other hand) in opposition to eachother.
Kind of like how a Feenyite reads the passages on water baptism as being opposed to baptism of desire.
A broader vision of the whole corpus of ecclesiology would alleviate your concerns, and bring you to the realization that the two do not oppose eachother.
Pax
-
If a window into the soul is required to say whether one is Catholic or not, then the Church isn't really a visible thing or discernible thing, is it?
In fact, it becomes hideously gnostic, and no one can be said to belong to it or be separated from it. Obama might even be Catholic. Madame Blavatsky might be playing mahjong with Voltaire in heaven. Who knows?
On the other hand, Pius XII laid out what makes a person a Catholic. Baptized and not an heretic, apostate or schismatic.
You are correct, of course.
Sean's answer has nicely demonstrated the feebleness of R&R.
Whereas this one implies the ability to know the internal forum of humankind, as though the CI sedes were modern day St. Padre Pio's (in addition to repudiating Bishop Williamson's teaching on the matter, succinctly found in any pre-Vatican II manual of ecclesiology).
-
CANTATE: It's probably time for me to define a term. R&R, as I use it here, refers to what some are calling dogmatic R&R, or what some refer to as the neo-SSPX position. Its essential qualities are: refusal to call modernism heresy; refusal to call particular modernists heretics; insistence upon proclaiming that these heretics are our legitimate superiors to whom we owe obedience in all things but sin. R&R tries to yoke Tradition to infidelity; wherefore it is an exercise in internal contradiction and futility.
The proponents of Spxism which is being referred to as R&R, are no more and no less than Gatekeepers who serve to keep Traditional Catholics confined within the outermost fence line of Conservative Conciliarism.
In the end, the disciples being non-corrosive to the sect's walls and foundations end up acting as a maintenance crew shoring up the legitimacy of the modernist revolution.
These arbitrary terms try to calibrate degrees of dissidence but it really comes down to how one defines contemporary Rome and those who hold the real estate. I personally am not in communion with usurpers but others have difficulty letting go of a system which straps the faith to an earthly antithesis creating an impossible contradiction. The problem is not so much the human players but the establishing of a new ideology on old physical foundations. Impressionable trads see the same garb and titles in place and click their heels automatically. I am persuaded by Fr.Pfeiffer's recent London sermon contrasting substance with appearance and contrasting the faith with the provision of the sacraments.
To start with, those who make there benchmark to be in communion with the man himself, not distinguishing the office, have a serious problem when that man is no longer in communion with the Church by means of his holding and preaching false doctrines and by his actions which oppose both the mind and the will of the Church.
I agree with Cantate that we should and must avail ourselves of the Sacraments when they are valid and available and no dangerous preaching is present. The groups under discussion can be looked to for the present to provide sacramental sustenance, but I believe it is not realistic to look to them to do battle with the Conciliar sect which dominates the Church in any effective way.
As for the varying degrees of dissidence that is precisely what I was getting at.
SPXism is simply a more militant form of Conservative Conciliarism not stepping outside of the latter's field of influence and thinking. A gatekeeper ideology protecting Rome from just and objective scrutiny. As you might say, quelling the unrest among the Traditional natives.
-
If a window into the soul is required to say whether one is Catholic or not, then the Church isn't really a visible thing or discernible thing, is it?
In fact, it becomes hideously gnostic, and no one can be said to belong to it or be separated from it. Obama might even be Catholic. Madame Blavatsky might be playing mahjong with Voltaire in heaven. Who knows?
On the other hand, Pius XII laid out what makes a person a Catholic. Baptized and not an heretic, apostate or schismatic.
Your answer denies the distinction between material and formal heresy.
In the former, a man remains Catholic.
In the latter, he does not.
Tell me: Do you have the power to know whether a man realizes he is contradicting Church teaching, so as to pass from the material to the former?
I think you are reading these two concerns (the visibility of the Church on the one hand, and the distinction between material/formal heretic and the consequences for Church membership thereof on the other hand) in opposition to eachother.
Kind of like how a Feenyite reads the passages on water baptism as being opposed to baptism of desire.
A broader vision of the whole corpus of ecclesiology would alleviate your concerns, and bring you to the realization that the two do not oppose eachother.
Pax
To make the point yet another way:
Say my grandmother says "there is no Catholic God."
Tell me:
Is she Catholic (i.e., has she put herself outside the Church)?
Point B:
Does your inability to answer the question (since you cannot know the internal forum, and therefore, whether she realizes she is at odds with Catholic teaching) rob the Church of visibility?
Obviously not.
-
Did you Grandmother attend a seminary for numerous years which taught her that God is the God of Catholics and then suddenly pronounce the heresy?
If Francis came forth today an began spouting heresy upon heresy today does that mean that the Church would disappear from view or would it still be the Church with a heretic shouting from the Vatican veranda?
-
Silly boy, a grandmother is in a vastly lower position than the Pope. The Pope's voice is the voice of Christ. "He who hears him, hears Me". This gentleman who currently sits in the Chair has manifestly stated heresy. Do you seriously believe that he is unaware that his statements depart from the deposit of faith? Do you seriously believe that he is unaware of actively pursuing the ʝʊdɛօ/Freemasonic agenda for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr "church"? He who does not gather with Christ, scatters ...
-
Did you Grandmother attend a seminary for numerous years which taught her that God is the God of Catholics and then suddenly pronounce the heresy?
If Francis came forth today an began spouting heresy upon heresy today does that mean that the Church would disappear from view or would it still be the Church with a heretic shouting from the Vatican veranda?
Was her 1950's seminary formation under the tutelage of men like Von Balthazaar, Congar, Kung, Ratzinger, Rahner, Woitila, etc?
-
Silly boy, a grandmother is in a vastly lower position than the Pope. The Pope's voice is the voice of Christ. "He who hears him, hears Me". This gentleman who currently sits in the Chair has manifestly stated heresy. Do you seriously believe that he is unaware that his statements depart from the deposit of faith? Do you seriously believe that he is unaware of actively pursuing the ʝʊdɛօ/Freemasonic agenda for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr "church"? He who does not gather with Christ, scatters ...
Silly Woman-
Do you honestly believe he disputes the teachings of Vatican II represent "developments of doctrine?"
If so, how can he see in them a contradiction?
-
So, SJ, are you saying that Bishop of Rome, Francis is invincibly ignorant (no responsibility before God) or is he vincibly ignorant (responsibility before God)?
-
So, SJ, are you saying that Bishop of Rome, Francis is invincibly ignorant (no responsibility before God) or is he vincibly ignorant (responsibility before God)?
Are you implying that men may know who is invincibly ignorant, and who is vincibly ignorant?
-
One is either a member of the Church or is not. If one has severed himself from the Church through heresy, schism or apostasy, then he has lost that membership.
There cannot be "ecuмenism" to foster a unity which remains fully intact to begin with. For myself, I remain in communion with all who profess the Catholic Faith, regardless of what chapel they go to, whether they are "sedevacantists, RR, SSPX, CMRI, or even in those deceived by the Conciliar church, so long as they have not defected from the Faith.
Once one is Baptized, he becomes a member of the Church. One remains a member as long as he does not sever himself from the Church, through an act which in and of itself would sever him from the Church or are severed by an act of the lawful authorities of the Church for certain crimes.
Every member of the Church, even those in mortal sin remains in communion with each other. To use the term, "tradecuмenism" is at the very least an implicit denial of the fact that all of us who remain members of the Church are already in complete union with each other. It creates the artificial idea that differences in judgment about the status of individuals can divide the Chirch, thereby needing a form of ecuмenism to bring it back together.
This is why I probed Sean to cite a source for his use of the term. I was hoping it would provoke thought on his part to realize that such a term should never be used among Catholics.
It is always a pleasure discussing with you Machabees. I wish you a blessed Advent.
Thank you Ambrose, for adding clarity to this discussion. Well defined.
-
Did you Grandmother attend a seminary for numerous years which taught her that God is the God of Catholics and then suddenly pronounce the heresy?
If Francis came forth today an began spouting heresy upon heresy today does that mean that the Church would disappear from view or would it still be the Church with a heretic shouting from the Vatican veranda?
Was her 1950's seminary formation under the tutelage of men like Von Balthazaar, Congar, Kung, Ratzinger, Rahner, Woitila, etc?
Ah I see, one man's heresy can be blamed upon others. That can remove culpability, sort of an even more liberalized vision of invincible ignorance.
I see that you included Ratzinger and Woytila, to whom do we attribute their heresies? Does not this lead to a type of get out of jail free card for these men and in fact all Conciliarists?
-
Ambrose,
One is either a member of the Church or is not. If one has severed himself from the Church through heresy, schism or apostasy, then he has lost that membership.
A very clear and concise point. It brings to mind a scriptural admonition which is very relevant in this discussion:
I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Now who can deny that this and other Conciliar popes have preached a gospel other than that which the Church and their predecessors including the Apostles preached to us? Now these men by the decree of the prince of the Apostles are accursed and possibly excommunicated. Would the Saint advise us to then let them remain among Christ's faithful preaching their Gospel of destruction? No he makes the point of repeating his admonishment so that there is no escape from his meaning or intent.
Now this scriptural direction was again codified in the Vatican I definition on the infallibility of the pope and its limits, so again there is no question that it directly applies to the pope.
For over fifty years and to this day far fearful and weak men have refused to declare the anathemas which both Holy Scripture and the solemn Magisterium has commanded be done to those among us who are not "the servant of Christ"
Full Definition of ANATHEMA
1
a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority
b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed —usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen — S. J. Gould>
2
a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication
b : the denunciation of something as accursed
c : a vigorous denunciation : curse
-
If a window into the soul is required to say whether one is Catholic or not, then the Church isn't really a visible thing or discernible thing, is it?
In fact, it becomes hideously gnostic, and no one can be said to belong to it or be separated from it. Obama might even be Catholic. Madame Blavatsky might be playing mahjong with Voltaire in heaven. Who knows?
On the other hand, Pius XII laid out what makes a person a Catholic. Baptized and not an heretic, apostate or schismatic.
Your answer denies the distinction between material and formal heresy.
In the former, a man remains Catholic.
In the latter, he does not.
Tell me: Do you have the power to know whether a man realizes he is contradicting Church teaching, so as to pass from the material to the former?
I think you are reading these two concerns (the visibility of the Church on the one hand, and the distinction between material/formal heretic and the consequences for Church membership thereof on the other hand) in opposition to eachother.
Kind of like how a Feenyite reads the passages on water baptism as being opposed to baptism of desire.
A broader vision of the whole corpus of ecclesiology would alleviate your concerns, and bring you to the realization that the two do not oppose eachother.
Pax
Sean, I highly value this post of yours. It makes many things very clear to me, including the thinking of John McFarland. I'm sure you do not realize this, but you and McFarland and the SSPX are novus ordo. You belong to the new order of enshrined contradiction where 2+2=5 and where modernism=Catholicism.
J. Paul is correct to state that the outer rim of the NO plantation is the SSPX.
I'm going to pray for you Sean because your years with the SSPX and your sincere love for this organization has bound your intellect with chains.
Use the common sense that God gave you, Sean. Look at these men that have sat on the throne of St. Peter. They are not Catholic. May God grant that you realize that to believe and hold and affirm this with conviction is not sin and does not automatically make a man embrace SV. It only shows forth that his intellect conforms to external, objective reality.
SV is not the only position for one who states plainly and clearly that these phonies in white are not Catholics.
Look at the fruits of R&R, Sean. Look at the fruits.
Mithrandylan said well in his response to you.
R&R is the principle cause of the collapse of the SSPX into humiliation and shame.
You have work to do Sean. That is apparent by virtue of your continuous online wavering and waffling.
But I have confidence in you. I know you will come through this with your faith intact and with your leadership abilities honed to help other souls.
I am praying for you.
God bless.
-
If a window into the soul is required to say whether one is Catholic or not, then the Church isn't really a visible thing or discernible thing, is it?
In fact, it becomes hideously gnostic, and no one can be said to belong to it or be separated from it. Obama might even be Catholic. Madame Blavatsky might be playing mahjong with Voltaire in heaven. Who knows?
On the other hand, Pius XII laid out what makes a person a Catholic. Baptized and not an heretic, apostate or schismatic.
You are correct, of course.
Sean's answer has nicely demonstrated the feebleness of R&R.
Whereas this one implies the ability to know the internal forum of humankind, as though the CI sedes were modern day St. Padre Pio's (in addition to repudiating Bishop Williamson's teaching on the matter, succinctly found in any pre-Vatican II manual of ecclesiology).
I hate to say this because I like and respect you, but I think that your intellect has error in it.
The proper response to what is happening to the Church is neither to propose with regard to the interior of a man's soul nor to refuse to propose because a man has an interior state of soul.
This whole thing about "I can't judge the Catholicity of another because that Catholicity is a secret thing inside his soul" is novus ordo, modernist filth.
This kind of thinking is destroys rationality, destroys faith, destroys the Christian order, destroys the Church Militant, and sends millions of souls to hell!
Praying for you . . .
-
Did you Grandmother attend a seminary for numerous years which taught her that God is the God of Catholics and then suddenly pronounce the heresy?
If Francis came forth today an began spouting heresy upon heresy today does that mean that the Church would disappear from view or would it still be the Church with a heretic shouting from the Vatican veranda?
Was her 1950's seminary formation under the tutelage of men like Von Balthazaar, Congar, Kung, Ratzinger, Rahner, Woitila, etc?
Ah I see, one man's heresy can be blamed upon others. That can remove culpability, sort of an even more liberalized vision of invincible ignorance.
I see that you included Ratzinger and Woytila, to whom do we attribute their heresies? Does not this lead to a type of get out of jail free card for these men and in fact all Conciliarists?
Then since you post states that seminary formation is of little consequence, I will expect you to refrain from posting any concerns about the new post-Bishop Williamson seminary formation of the branded priests.
-
SSPXism is simply a more militant form of Conservative Conciliarism - not stepping outside of the latter's field of influence and thinking. A gatekeeper ideology protecting Rome from just and objective scrutiny. As you might say, quelling the unrest among the Traditional natives.
This is a key concept. SSPXism operates the brake pedal in the neo-traditionalist car.
Why does the SSPX work so hard to convince the world that it has never broken with rome? Well, because it hasn't.
It has not broken with the revolution. It has not disclaimed it. It has not completely gone out from it. It is a rubber band that stretched as far as it could, and now snaps back into its place.
The SSPX equates breaking away from heresy with breaking away from the Church.
That is serious, mortal error, not to mention insanity - the ultimate effect of living out the violation of the principle of contradiction.
-
If a window into the soul is required to say whether one is Catholic or not, then the Church isn't really a visible thing or discernible thing, is it?
In fact, it becomes hideously gnostic, and no one can be said to belong to it or be separated from it. Obama might even be Catholic. Madame Blavatsky might be playing mahjong with Voltaire in heaven. Who knows?
On the other hand, Pius XII laid out what makes a person a Catholic. Baptized and not an heretic, apostate or schismatic.
You are correct, of course.
Sean's answer has nicely demonstrated the feebleness of R&R.
Whereas this one implies the ability to know the internal forum of humankind, as though the CI sedes were modern day St. Padre Pio's (in addition to repudiating Bishop Williamson's teaching on the matter, succinctly found in any pre-Vatican II manual of ecclesiology).
I hate to say this because I like and respect you, but I think that your intellect has error in it.
The proper response to what is happening to the Church is neither to propose with regard to the interior of a man's soul nor to refuse to propose because a man has an interior state of soul.
This whole thing about "I can't judge the Catholicity of another because that Catholicity is a secret thing inside his soul" is novus ordo, modernist filth.
This kind of thinking is destroys rationality, destroys faith, destroys the Christian order, destroys the Church Militant, and sends millions of souls to hell!
Praying for you . . .
...of course, your inability to comprehend that the consequences for Church membership between material and formal heresy are different, and that barring some sort of public profession of knowingly contradicting Church teaching (or being subject to an ecclesiastical sanction/judgment of formal heresy), the matter pertains to the internal forum, with the presumption being the person in question remains Catholic (because of the visibility of the Church), has caused your response above to roundly condemn Bishop Williamson (who has taught this position for the better part of 35 years).
-
Did you Grandmother attend a seminary for numerous years which taught her that God is the God of Catholics and then suddenly pronounce the heresy?
If Francis came forth today an began spouting heresy upon heresy today does that mean that the Church would disappear from view or would it still be the Church with a heretic shouting from the Vatican veranda?
Was her 1950's seminary formation under the tutelage of men like Von Balthazaar, Congar, Kung, Ratzinger, Rahner, Woitila, etc?
If I were to think this way, then I could not say whether or not Cranmer, Luther, Zwingli, Jerry Falwell, Jessie Jackson, or Billy Graham are not Catholics.
Let's face it - there are many clergy and laymen in the ranks of so called Tradition who actually believe - even after reading the Councils and the Popes!!!!! - that a man can be, simultaneously, both modernist and Catholic.
Aye!!! That's the rub!
Contradiction is the rub!
It's insane ....
diabolical ....
disorientation ....
-
Did you Grandmother attend a seminary for numerous years which taught her that God is the God of Catholics and then suddenly pronounce the heresy?
If Francis came forth today an began spouting heresy upon heresy today does that mean that the Church would disappear from view or would it still be the Church with a heretic shouting from the Vatican veranda?
Was her 1950's seminary formation under the tutelage of men like Von Balthazaar, Congar, Kung, Ratzinger, Rahner, Woitila, etc?
If I were to think this way, then I could not say whether or not Cranmer, Luther, Zwingli, Jerry Falwell, Jessie Jackson, or Billy Graham are not Catholics.
Let's face it - there are many clergy and laymen in the ranks of so called Tradition who actually believe - even after reading the Councils and the Popes!!!!! - that a man can be, simultaneously, both modernist and Catholic.
Aye!!! That's the rub!
Contradiction is the rub!
It's insane ....
diabolical ....
disorientation ....
Please see my response to JPaul on p. 41 of this thread.
-
So, SJ, are you saying that Bishop of Rome, Francis is invincibly ignorant (no responsibility before God) or is he vincibly ignorant (responsibility before God)?
Domitilla!!!
We both know the answer.
Woe to this monster Bergoglio!
How could anyone think he does not know what he is doing? How could anyone think he does not know what the Church taught for 2000 years?
He knows and he deliberately leads Catholics into a different belief system! He says he knows and he says, "We don't do it like that anymore."
Caramba!!!!!
-
Did you Grandmother attend a seminary for numerous years which taught her that God is the God of Catholics and then suddenly pronounce the heresy?
If Francis came forth today an began spouting heresy upon heresy today does that mean that the Church would disappear from view or would it still be the Church with a heretic shouting from the Vatican veranda?
Was her 1950's seminary formation under the tutelage of men like Von Balthazaar, Congar, Kung, Ratzinger, Rahner, Woitila, etc?
Ah I see, one man's heresy can be blamed upon others. That can remove culpability, sort of an even more liberalized vision of invincible ignorance.
I see that you included Ratzinger and Woytila, to whom do we attribute their heresies? Does not this lead to a type of get out of jail free card for these men and in fact all Conciliarists?
It has to, if modernism=Catholicism.
-
Ambrose,
One is either a member of the Church or is not. If one has severed himself from the Church through heresy, schism or apostasy, then he has lost that membership.
A very clear and concise point. It brings to mind a scriptural admonition which is very relevant in this discussion:
I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Now who can deny that this and other Conciliar popes have preached a gospel other than that which the Church and their predecessors including the Apostles preached to us? Now these men by the decree of the prince of the Apostles are accursed and possibly excommunicated. Would the Saint advise us to then let them remain among Christ's faithful preaching their Gospel of destruction? No he makes the point of repeating his admonishment so that there is no escape from his meaning or intent.
Now this scriptural direction was again codified in the Vatican I definition on the infallibility of the pope and its limits, so again there is no question that it directly applies to the pope.
For over fifty years and to this day far fearful and weak men have refused to declare the anathemas which both Holy Scripture and the solemn Magisterium has commanded be done to those among us who are not "the servant of Christ"
Full Definition of ANATHEMA
1
a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority
b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed —usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen — S. J. Gould>
2
a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication
b : the denunciation of something as accursed
c : a vigorous denunciation : curse
Catholics have lost their nerve, but and God understands that it takes time to respond to an unprecedented, apocalyptic scenario such as we find ourselves in. But I think the Lord is now calling us to battle:
The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken: and He hath called the earth. From the rising of the sun, to the going down thereof: Out of Sion the loveliness of His beauty. God shall come manifestly: our God shall come, and shall not keep silence. A fire shall burn before Him: and a mighty tempest shall be round about HIM. He shall call heaven from above, and the earth, to judge His people. Gather ye together His saints to Him: who set His covenant before sacrifices.
And the heavens shall declare his justice: for God is judge. Hear, O My people, and I will speak: O Israel, and I will testify to thee: I am God, thy God. I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices: and thy burnt offerings are always in my sight. I will not take calves out of thy house: nor he goats out of thy flocks. For all the beasts of the woods are mine: the cattle on the hills, and the oxen.
I know all the fowls of the air: and with Me is the beauty of the field. If I should be hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Shall I eat the flesh of bullocks? or shall I drink the blood of goats? Offer to God the sacrifice of praise: and pay thy vows to the Most High. And call upon Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me.
But to the sinner God hath said: Why dost thou declare My justices, and take My covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hast hated discipline: and hast cast My words behind thee. If thou didst see a thief thou didst run with him: and with adulterers thou hast been a partaker. Thy mouth hath abounded with evil, and thy tongue framed deceits. Sitting thou didst speak against thy brother, and didst lay a scandal against thy mother' s son:
These things hast thou done, and I was silent. Thou thoughtest unjustly that I should be like to thee: but I will reprove thee, and set before thy face. Understand these things, you that forget God; lest He snatch you away, and there be none to deliver you. The sacrifice of praise shall glorify Me: and there is the way by which I will shew him the salvation of God.
-
This thread is a real humdinger. Thanks to all who so intelligently are contributing.
:popcorn:
Much to think and pray about here. All I want is the Truth, wherever He may be found, without respect to men or groups thereof.
-
(...)
Use the common sense that God gave you, Sean. Look at these men that have sat on the throne of St. Peter. They are not Catholic. May God grant that you realize that to believe and hold and affirm this with conviction is not sin and does not automatically make a man embrace SV. It only shows forth that his intellect conforms to external, objective reality.
SV is not the only position for one who states plainly and clearly that these phonies in white are not Catholics.
(...)
Hello cantatedomino,
I didn't quite realize that you think that the Pope is NOT "catholic".
You mentioned that you think that there is another "position" other than the topic of this thread SV and R&R. And I have been sensing this in a few of your posts; however, I cannot make it out clearly.
If you profess another position, what is it?
-
Sean Johnson,
Then since you post states that seminary formation is of little consequence, I will expect you to refrain from posting any concerns about the new post-Bishop Williamson seminary formation of the branded priests.
Your reply is unrelated to the subject. I did not say that it was of no consequence. Those are your words not mine.
I did infer that a Pope of the Roman Church cannot blame his public heresies on the teachings of others which he should have known were not Catholic truth.
He is not a Protestant who has no knowledge of what the Church has taught. He is aware enough to condemn them on quite a few occasions. He is not the hapless innocent that you portray him to be. Paul VI, JP II, and Ratzinger were not either. JP II studied under LaGrange, and yet he became a heretic.
-
Sean Johnson,
Then since you post states that seminary formation is of little consequence, I will expect you to refrain from posting any concerns about the new post-Bishop Williamson seminary formation of the branded priests.
Your reply is unrelated to the subject I did not say that it was of no consequence. Those are your words not mine.
I did infer that a Pope of the Roman Church cannot blame his public heresies on the teachings of others which he should have known were not Catholic truth.
He is not a Protestant who has no knowledge of what the Church has taught. He is aware enough to condemn them on quite a few occasions. He is not the hapless innocent that you portray him to be. Paul VI, JP II, and Ratzinger were not either. JP II was taught by LaGrange, and yet he became a heretic.
LaGrange was one among 50.
Neither do I say he is innocent.
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
Pius X said evolution was the primary characteristic of modernism.
Hence, the false doctrines to them are "developments" which "evolve" with the "living Church," rather than contradictions.
Hence, they are material heretics, not formal.
Therefore, they do not lose the Chair.
Bishop Williamson has been teaching this for the last 35 years.
Incidentally, this indicates to me he is trying to ally with them for political (i.e., tradcuмenical) reasons, rather than doctrinal (i.e., he himself realizes sedevacantism is ridiculous).
-
Hence, the false doctrines to them are "developments" which "evolve" with the "living Church," rather than contradictions.
Hence, they are material heretics, not formal.
Therefore, they do not lose the Chair.
Bishop Williamson has been teaching this for the last 35 years.
Incidentally, this indicates to me he is trying to ally with them for political (i.e., tradcuмenical) reasons, rather than doctrinal (i.e., he himself realizes sedevacantism is ridiculous).
If one goes off Mgr. Williamson's newsletters, I think what he has been teaching - at least during John Paul II & Benedict's pontificates - is that sedevacantism was to be rejected in the present. However, Mgr Williamson definitely and consistently left the question open as a future possibility. I have already quoted his December 1996 newsletter as an example of such.
Another example was Mgr's February 1988 newsletter in which, while refuting the arguments of a priest who had recently left the FSSPX to embrace sedevacantism, Mgr Williamson wrote:
Of course when churchmen seriously misbehave, it can be difficult still to believe that the Church is divine. But let us remember Our Lord Himself. Which of us, had he been present at the original Way of the Cross, can pretend he would have had no difficulty in believing that this mocked, exhausted, bleeding man was God? So it is understandable if Catholics, watching the neo-modernists in Rome today make such a mockery of Catholic faith and morals, can hardly believe the popes are true popes. However, just as the disfigurement of the Man of Sorrows in His Passion did not prove He was not God, so all the present distortion of the Church does not necessarily prove the popes are not popes.
Does this mean that no amount of misbehaviour in Rome could ever prove it? No. One day, maybe soon, the See of Rome could become vacant. There have been several false popes, or anti-popes, in Church history. Again, for our own times, or times not far off, Our Lady warned us at La Salette that Rome will become the Seat of the Anti-Christ. It is quite possible that with the death of John Paul II (which may not be far off) there will be a vacant See of Rome or an anti-Pope for a while. So sedevacantism may then become true, at which point it may no longer produce the bitter fruits associated with it in recent years. But "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof". Here and now the arguments for sedevacantism are rather less convincing than the arguments against it. How does our former colleague argue his case?
Mgr Williamson's letter, published nearly 16 years ago, can be found here:http://williamsonletters.blogspot.ca/2009/02/why-society-is-neither-liberal-nor.html
-
Hence, the false doctrines to them are "developments" which "evolve" with the "living Church," rather than contradictions.
Hence, they are material heretics, not formal.
Therefore, they do not lose the Chair.
Bishop Williamson has been teaching this for the last 35 years.
Incidentally, this indicates to me he is trying to ally with them for political (i.e., tradcuмenical) reasons, rather than doctrinal (i.e., he himself realizes sedevacantism is ridiculous).
If one goes off Mgr. Williamson's newsletters, I think what he has been teaching - at least during John Paul II & Benedict's pontificates - is that sedevacantism was to be rejected in the present. However, Mgr Williamson definitely and consistently left the question open as a future possibility. I have already quoted his December 1996 newsletter as an example of such.
Another example was Mgr's February 1988 newsletter in which, while refuting the arguments of a priest who had recently left the FSSPX to embrace sedevacantism, Mgr Williamson wrote:
Of course when churchmen seriously misbehave, it can be difficult still to believe that the Church is divine. But let us remember Our Lord Himself. Which of us, had he been present at the original Way of the Cross, can pretend he would have had no difficulty in believing that this mocked, exhausted, bleeding man was God? So it is understandable if Catholics, watching the neo-modernists in Rome today make such a mockery of Catholic faith and morals, can hardly believe the popes are true popes. However, just as the disfigurement of the Man of Sorrows in His Passion did not prove He was not God, so all the present distortion of the Church does not necessarily prove the popes are not popes.
Does this mean that no amount of misbehaviour in Rome could ever prove it? No. One day, maybe soon, the See of Rome could become vacant. There have been several false popes, or anti-popes, in Church history. Again, for our own times, or times not far off, Our Lady warned us at La Salette that Rome will become the Seat of the Anti-Christ. It is quite possible that with the death of John Paul II (which may not be far off) there will be a vacant See of Rome or an anti-Pope for a while. So sedevacantism may then become true, at which point it may no longer produce the bitter fruits associated with it in recent years. But "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof". Here and now the arguments for sedevacantism are rather less convincing than the arguments against it. How does our former colleague argue his case?
Mgr Williamson's letter, published nearly 16 years ago, can be found here:http://williamsonletters.blogspot.ca/2009/02/why-society-is-neither-liberal-nor.html
Pete-
Seems to me you rifle through Bishop Williamson's newsletters to make your point like a conservative rifles through the V2 docs to say they are traditional (i.e., turning a blind eye to all the information which directly contradicts the liberal position).
Do you have any idea how many times Bishop Williamson has taught against the sedevacantist position?
His articles, sermons, and newsletters opposing that fantasy would outumber those leaving the door open by about 15 to 1.
-
Pete Vere seems to be attempting to create context which would eventually be used in hopes of falsely branding + Williamson as a sede. That's the theme this guy has been crafting since his arrival here.
-
Do you have any idea how many times Bishop Williamson has taught against the sedevacantist position?
Yes. Especially since it is always within the context of opposing sedevacantism under the present pope that Mgr. Williamson suggests it as a likely possibility under the next one.
Thus now that he has been expelled from the FSSPX and Francis has been elected Pope, Mgr. Williamson's recent openness to working with sedevacantists is nothing new. Nor, I believe, is it merely political.
-
Pete Vere seems to be attempting to create context which would eventually be used in hopes of falsely branding + Williamson as a sede. That's the theme this guy has been crafting since his arrival here.
I'm quite open to other explanations of Mgr Williamson's recent statements on sedevacantism. Although I disagree with Sean, he makes a reasonable argument from the R&R position that it may only be political on Mgr's part.
-
Sean Johnson,
Then since you post states that seminary formation is of little consequence, I will expect you to refrain from posting any concerns about the new post-Bishop Williamson seminary formation of the branded priests.
Your reply is unrelated to the subject I did not say that it was of no consequence. Those are your words not mine.
I did infer that a Pope of the Roman Church cannot blame his public heresies on the teachings of others which he should have known were not Catholic truth.
He is not a Protestant who has no knowledge of what the Church has taught. He is aware enough to condemn them on quite a few occasions. He is not the hapless innocent that you portray him to be. Paul VI, JP II, and Ratzinger were not either. JP II was taught by LaGrange, and yet he became a heretic.
LaGrange was one among 50.
Neither do I say he is innocent.
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
Pius X said evolution was the primary characteristic of modernism.
Hence, the false doctrines to them are "developments" which "evolve" with the "living Church," rather than contradictions.
Hence, they are material heretics, not formal.
Therefore, they do not lose the Chair.
Bishop Williamson has been teaching this for the last 35 years.
Incidentally, this indicates to me he is trying to ally with them for political (i.e., tradcuмenical) reasons, rather than doctrinal (i.e., he himself realizes sedevacantism is ridiculous).
Sean, he also said that modernism is heresy. If you can determine that he is a modernist, you can determine that he is a heretic.
We can with certainty say that he brings a new doctrine and he is anathema, Bishop Williamson is well aware of this and his failure to say so does not change that reality.
Perhaps he sees that once the Catholic papacy is restored that his allies will no longer be sedevacantists. He may have the foresight to envision the future beyond the present circuмstance. One can hope.
-
So, SJ, are you saying that Bishop of Rome, Francis is invincibly ignorant (no responsibility before God) or is he vincibly ignorant (responsibility before God)?
Domitilla!!!
We both know the answer.
Woe to this monster Bergoglio!
How could anyone think he does not know what he is doing? How could anyone think he does not know what the Church taught for 2000 years?
He knows and he deliberately leads Catholics into a different belief system! He says he knows and he says, "We don't do it like that anymore."
Caramba!!!!!
I try not to take what Frances does personally. I see him as simply an actor playing a role with great professional skill according to a script that has been handed to him. He is an excellent actor like the one playing Obama, who expertly reads his lines from the teleprompter serving as grief councilor in chief for the recurring hoaxes served up by the fake reality-show media. The script writer for these two is very clever, diabolically so.
-
CANTATE: It's probably time for me to define a term. R&R, as I use it here, refers to what some are calling dogmatic R&R, or what some refer to as the neo-SSPX position. Its essential qualities are: refusal to call modernism heresy; refusal to call particular modernists heretics; insistence upon proclaiming that these heretics are our legitimate superiors to whom we owe obedience in all things but sin. R&R tries to yoke Tradition to infidelity; wherefore it is an exercise in internal contradiction and futility.
Hello cantatedomino,
Thank you for terming your understanding of SV and R&R. Though in your description, I can attend that the R&R you had described is what the “neo-R&R” position is; for clarity however, I can assure you that it is not the Scriptural understanding of “Recognize and Resist” as I, and some others, are trying to bring to focus.
I too must quibble with your definition of R&R Cantate. Bp Fellay cannot be true R&R because he works to discontinue his organization's inherited resistance. "Recognize" should not require clasping a wayward pope to one's breast as "my Holiest of Fathers," but simply acknowledging, however tentatively, that the chair appears occupied by the present claimant.
I subjectively find the SV position fraught with too many contradictions. To avoid SV'ism, I feel I must recognize the present claimant as occupying the chair even as I resist his direction because he appears to be working for the enemy.
-
Sean,
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
In saying this are you not judging him in the internal forum?
That clearly contradict you proposition that he cannot be judged that way.
-
Sean Johnson,
Then since you post states that seminary formation is of little consequence, I will expect you to refrain from posting any concerns about the new post-Bishop Williamson seminary formation of the branded priests.
Your reply is unrelated to the subject I did not say that it was of no consequence. Those are your words not mine.
I did infer that a Pope of the Roman Church cannot blame his public heresies on the teachings of others which he should have known were not Catholic truth.
He is not a Protestant who has no knowledge of what the Church has taught. He is aware enough to condemn them on quite a few occasions. He is not the hapless innocent that you portray him to be. Paul VI, JP II, and Ratzinger were not either. JP II was taught by LaGrange, and yet he became a heretic.
LaGrange was one among 50.
Neither do I say he is innocent.
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
Pius X said evolution was the primary characteristic of modernism.
Hence, the false doctrines to them are "developments" which "evolve" with the "living Church," rather than contradictions.
Hence, they are material heretics, not formal.
Therefore, they do not lose the Chair.
Bishop Williamson has been teaching this for the last 35 years.
Incidentally, this indicates to me he is trying to ally with them for political (i.e., tradcuмenical) reasons, rather than doctrinal (i.e., he himself realizes sedevacantism is ridiculous).
Sean, he also said that modernism is heresy. If you can determine that he is a modernist, you can determine that he is a heretic.
We can with certainty say that he brings a new doctrine and he is anathema, Bishop Williamson is well aware of this and his failure to say so does not change that reality.
Perhaps he sees that once the Catholic papacy is restored that his allies will no longer be sedevacantists. He may have the foresight to envision the future beyond the present circuмstance. One can hope.
M-A-T-E-R-I-A-L heretics do not lose the Throne.
-
Sean,
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
In saying this are you not judging him in the internal forum?
That clearly contradict you proposition that he cannot be judged that way.
Wrong again:
The presumption is for material heresy, because formal heresy requires a juridical act, or a public admission of knowingly contradicting Church doctrine.
See how easy this is if you just put your position aside, and let doctrine take you where you need to go?
-
If a window into the soul is required to say whether one is Catholic or not, then the Church isn't really a visible thing or discernible thing, is it?
In fact, it becomes hideously gnostic, and no one can be said to belong to it or be separated from it. Obama might even be Catholic. Madame Blavatsky might be playing mahjong with Voltaire in heaven. Who knows?
On the other hand, Pius XII laid out what makes a person a Catholic. Baptized and not an heretic, apostate or schismatic.
Your answer denies the distinction between material and formal heresy.
In the former, a man remains Catholic.
In the latter, he does not.
Tell me: Do you have the power to know whether a man realizes he is contradicting Church teaching, so as to pass from the material to the former?
I think you are reading these two concerns (the visibility of the Church on the one hand, and the distinction between material/formal heretic and the consequences for Church membership thereof on the other hand) in opposition to eachother.
Kind of like how a Feenyite reads the passages on water baptism as being opposed to baptism of desire.
A broader vision of the whole corpus of ecclesiology would alleviate your concerns, and bring you to the realization that the two do not oppose eachother.
Pax
I appreciate the distinction between materially holding an heresy and actually being guilty of heresy, in this case being a formal manifest heretic. Someone who materially holds a heresy submits to the teaching authority of the Church, and through ignorance believes something contrary to what She teaches. It is apparent to me that Francis neither submits to the teaching authority of the Church, and it is equally apparent that he cannot claim to know her teaching on something so basic on there being no salvation outside of her (as an example).
No one, including the Church, can judge the internal forum. She judges based on externals. She does not require a window into the soul to do so.
The Church's visibility depends in part on her members being identifiable. If, by your rule, a window into the soul is needed to know if a man is a Catholic, then the Church DOES become invisible, because no one can find a Catholic, since no one has a window into the soul-- including our Holy Mother Church.
To make the point yet another way:
Say my grandmother says "there is no Catholic God."
Tell me:
Is she Catholic (i.e., has she put herself outside the Church)?
Point B:
Does your inability to answer the question (since you cannot know the internal forum, and therefore, whether she realizes she is at odds with Catholic teaching) rob the Church of visibility?
Obviously not.
My "inability" to answer the question lies in a lack of information, not in an inherent inability to know whether or not a given person is a member of the Church. Judging the internal forum is NOT required to answer the question. If it was, the Church could NEVER declare anyone excommunicate, because even She cannot judge the internal forum. Luther, Cranmer, Zwingli, et al. could not have been condemned as they were if the Church depended on judging the internal forum.
If your grandmother knows that the Church teaches there is only one God, and a Catholic God, and denies the existence of that God or chooses to follow an idol of the gentiles, all of which are demons, then she is not a Catholic.
But there's much more than that. Francis has publicly participated in false religious services, and even submitted himself to receive a protestant "blessing" in one of them. Has your grandmother done that? This goes far, far beyond "there is no Catholic God," though that statement is bad enough.
And your argument cuts two ways. How can we know with moral certainty that Pius X was a Catholic, if his public teachings and profession of the faith do not suffice? Unless you would just assume that all the baptized are Catholics, since we cannot judge the internal forum-- in which case, what's the big deal if my Lutheran grandma receives Holy Communion at our chapel? I mean, who am I to judge, right?
But reality is much simpler and makes a whole lot more sense! Both ecclesiastical judgements (which bind the faithful) and private judgements based on moral certainty (binding to the person who forms them) are informed by externals.
-
Sean,
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
In saying this are you not judging him in the internal forum?
That clearly contradict you proposition that he cannot be judged that way.
Wrong again:
The presumption is for material heresy, because formal heresy requires a juridical act, or a public admission of knowingly contradicting Church doctrine.
See how easy this is if you just put your position aside, and let doctrine take you where you need to go?
Do you mean that in order for someone to be considered a formal manifest/public heretic, there is some sort of formula they must follow when professing their heresy?
E.g., in the case of Luther: Luther denied transubstantiation. Is his denial of this not enough to make him an heretic? Must he, before denying it, first cite that he plans to contradict what the Church teaches by denying it?
You will not find any heretic profess heresy, prefaced by a remark that they intend to do so. They simply deny a given teaching.
It is true that pertinacity is not PRESUMED but it may be assumed if it is apparent that the person suspect of heresy (in this case, a priest) couldn't reasonably be assumed to be ignorant of what they're denying. If their express admission of being an heretic was required, Arius never would have been condemned. And to my knowledge, I don't think anyone else could ever have been condemned either. Can you give an example of a condemned heretic who admitted to being an heretic with such an explicit admission?
-
Sean is correct so far as he goes. Mere material error in the intellect certainly does not and cannot have ipso facto effects so far as the Papacy is concerned, (especially since the Pope is not subject to canon law but merely to divine law and what is true by intrinsic necessity) it is necessary that the form of pertinacity in the will must also be present, otherwise the composite of heresy is simply not there and there is correspondingly no internal effect in the person concerned.
As applied here, then, Pope Francis is presumed a Catholic in material error and therefore the Pope until the contrary is proven, and in so far as not only public heresy but public and formal heresy is necessary to cause the loss of the pontificate, the pertinacity itself and not merely the publicity must be demonstrated with moral certainty in the external forum. Otherwise, the presumption is as a matter of justice that he remains the Pope.
This is from an excellent and intensive theological study of the question that Archbishop Lefebvre himself highly commended,
As is obvious, we are not discussing the possibility of the Pope being in material heresy. No one denies, that mistakenly or by inadvertence, the Supreme Pontiff can fall into material heresy, as a private person.
And if that authority does not satisfy, one from a traditional theologian.
Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined.
-
Sean,
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
In saying this are you not judging him in the internal forum?
That clearly contradict you proposition that he cannot be judged that way.
Wrong again:
The presumption is for material heresy, because formal heresy requires a juridical act, or a public admission of knowingly contradicting Church doctrine.
See how easy this is if you just put your position aside, and let doctrine take you where you need to go?
Actually not wrong, I did not specify formal heresy and for our purposes material heresy is sufficient. Although through his persistent and public upholding of material heresy he can certainly be suspected of formal heresy and in either case he like his conciliar predecessors, teaches another Gospel and is therefore under the censure of anathema according to Holy Scripture and Vatican I.
Holy writ and a true Council's decrees are the doctrine of the Church.
-
See how easy this is if you just put your position aside, and let doctrine take you where you need to go?
An interesting statement when one considers that the pope has set doctrine aside and taken all of us where we do not want to go.
-
So, SJ, are you saying that Bishop of Rome, Francis is invincibly ignorant (no responsibility before God) or is he vincibly ignorant (responsibility before God)?
Domitilla!!!
We both know the answer.
Woe to this monster Bergoglio!
How could anyone think he does not know what he is doing? How could anyone think he does not know what the Church taught for 2000 years?
He knows and he deliberately leads Catholics into a different belief system! He says he knows and he says, "We don't do it like that anymore."
Caramba!!!!!
I try not to take what Frances does personally. I see him as simply an actor playing a role with great professional skill according to a script that has been handed to him. He is an excellent actor like the one playing Obama, who expertly reads his lines from the teleprompter serving as grief councilor in chief for the recurring hoaxes served up by the fake reality-show media. The script writer for these two is very clever, diabolically so.
That's right; and he surely knows that his employer is not Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic church.
-
CANTATE: It's probably time for me to define a term. R&R, as I use it here, refers to what some are calling dogmatic R&R, or what some refer to as the neo-SSPX position. Its essential qualities are: refusal to call modernism heresy; refusal to call particular modernists heretics; insistence upon proclaiming that these heretics are our legitimate superiors to whom we owe obedience in all things but sin. R&R tries to yoke Tradition to infidelity; wherefore it is an exercise in internal contradiction and futility.
Hello cantatedomino,
Thank you for terming your understanding of SV and R&R. Though in your description, I can attend that the R&R you had described is what the “neo-R&R” position is; for clarity however, I can assure you that it is not the Scriptural understanding of “Recognize and Resist” as I, and some others, are trying to bring to focus.
I too must quibble with your definition of R&R Cantate. Bp Fellay cannot be true R&R because he works to discontinue his organization's inherited resistance. "Recognize" should not require clasping a wayward pope to one's breast as "my Holiest of Fathers," but simply acknowledging, however tentatively, that the chair appears occupied by the present claimant.
I subjectively find the SV position fraught with too many contradictions. To avoid SV'ism, I feel I must recognize the present claimant as occupying the chair even as I resist his direction because he appears to be working for the enemy.
I am able to avoid SV because I see how contrived it is. I have never been attracted to that mindset nor have I ever been tempted to go down that road. For a long time I kind of sort of went along with the R&R canard without giving it much serious thought. What I now realize is that I never bought it at the gut level.
Almost from the beginning of my sojourning with the SSPX, I simply could not say that prayer in the missale that would unite my soul with the present papal claimants. There is something in me that KNOWS they are members of another class of persons, and most certainly not members of the class of persons called "all orthodox believers . . ."
I have absolutely no idea what the metaphysical reality of a JPII, a BVXI, or a Francis the Clown is. I will not attempt to probe a reality veiled by God for a time for His own providential reasons. To me that seems like hardihood and presumption.
All I know is that we must fight these men openly; must accuse them in public of infidelity to Christ; must refuse them submission of any kind; and must build the City of God as if they do not exist.
That's all I know with conviction and certitude; and I believe that is all anyone needs to know to follow God will fidelity, humility, and charity.
God bless you, my friend!
-
Sean is correct so far as he goes. Mere material error in the intellect certainly does not and cannot have ipso facto effects so far as the Papacy is concerned, (especially since the Pope is not subject to canon law but merely to divine law and what is true by intrinsic necessity) it is necessary that the form of pertinacity in the will must also be present, otherwise the composite of heresy is simply not there and there is correspondingly no internal effect in the person concerned.
As applied here, then, Pope Francis is presumed a Catholic in material error and therefore the Pope until the contrary is proven, and in so far as not only public heresy but public and formal heresy is necessary to cause the loss of the pontificate, the pertinacity itself and not merely the publicity must be demonstrated with moral certainty in the external forum. Otherwise, the presumption is as a matter of justice that he remains the Pope.
This is from an excellent and intensive theological study of the question that Archbishop Lefebvre himself highly commended,
As is obvious, we are not discussing the possibility of the Pope being in material heresy. No one denies, that mistakenly or by inadvertence, the Supreme Pontiff can fall into material heresy, as a private person.
And if that authority does not satisfy, one from a traditional theologian.
Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined.
I agree with all of this.
-
And your argument cuts two ways. How can we know with moral certainty that Pius X was a Catholic, if his public teachings and profession of the faith do not suffice?
His canonization by the Church. In that he is St. Pius X.
That being said, I understand your point about internal vs. external forum. A better example in illustrating this point would be St. Pius X's close friend and associate Cardinal Merry del Val.
By his external actions and fidelity to the Church and to St. Pius X, Cardinal del Val was known for his sanctity. Certainly his Litany of Humility is a prayer known to carry many graces. However, these are externals. We do not know the inner state of the Cardinal's soul, although the external evidence suggests strongly that he is with his saintly pontiff in God's presence.
-
If a window into the soul is required to say whether one is Catholic or not, then the Church isn't really a visible thing or discernible thing, is it?
In fact, it becomes hideously gnostic, and no one can be said to belong to it or be separated from it. Obama might even be Catholic. Madame Blavatsky might be playing mahjong with Voltaire in heaven. Who knows?
On the other hand, Pius XII laid out what makes a person a Catholic. Baptized and not an heretic, apostate or schismatic.
Your answer denies the distinction between material and formal heresy.
In the former, a man remains Catholic.
In the latter, he does not.
Tell me: Do you have the power to know whether a man realizes he is contradicting Church teaching, so as to pass from the material to the former?
I think you are reading these two concerns (the visibility of the Church on the one hand, and the distinction between material/formal heretic and the consequences for Church membership thereof on the other hand) in opposition to eachother.
Kind of like how a Feenyite reads the passages on water baptism as being opposed to baptism of desire.
A broader vision of the whole corpus of ecclesiology would alleviate your concerns, and bring you to the realization that the two do not oppose eachother.
Pax
I appreciate the distinction between materially holding an heresy and actually being guilty of heresy, in this case being a formal manifest heretic. Someone who materially holds a heresy submits to the teaching authority of the Church, and through ignorance believes something contrary to what She teaches. It is apparent to me that Francis neither submits to the teaching authority of the Church, and it is equally apparent that he cannot claim to know her teaching on something so basic on there being no salvation outside of her (as an example).
No one, including the Church, can judge the internal forum. She judges based on externals. She does not require a window into the soul to do so.
The Church's visibility depends in part on her members being identifiable. If, by your rule, a window into the soul is needed to know if a man is a Catholic, then the Church DOES become invisible, because no one can find a Catholic, since no one has a window into the soul-- including our Holy Mother Church.
To make the point yet another way:
Say my grandmother says "there is no Catholic God."
Tell me:
Is she Catholic (i.e., has she put herself outside the Church)?
Point B:
Does your inability to answer the question (since you cannot know the internal forum, and therefore, whether she realizes she is at odds with Catholic teaching) rob the Church of visibility?
Obviously not.
My "inability" to answer the question lies in a lack of information, not in an inherent inability to know whether or not a given person is a member of the Church. Judging the internal forum is NOT required to answer the question. If it was, the Church could NEVER declare anyone excommunicate, because even She cannot judge the internal forum. Luther, Cranmer, Zwingli, et al. could not have been condemned as they were if the Church depended on judging the internal forum.
If your grandmother knows that the Church teaches there is only one God, and a Catholic God, and denies the existence of that God or chooses to follow an idol of the gentiles, all of which are demons, then she is not a Catholic.
But there's much more than that. Francis has publicly participated in false religious services, and even submitted himself to receive a protestant "blessing" in one of them. Has your grandmother done that? This goes far, far beyond "there is no Catholic God," though that statement is bad enough.
And your argument cuts two ways. How can we know with moral certainty that Pius X was a Catholic, if his public teachings and profession of the faith do not suffice? Unless you would just assume that all the baptized are Catholics, since we cannot judge the internal forum-- in which case, what's the big deal if my Lutheran grandma receives Holy Communion at our chapel? I mean, who am I to judge, right?
But reality is much simpler and makes a whole lot more sense! Both ecclesiastical judgements (which bind the faithful) and private judgements based on moral certainty (binding to the person who forms them) are informed by externals.
As I explained to JPaul:
The presumption is for material heresy (in which case membership is not forfeit), because formal heresy only comes about by juridical act, or admission.
If therefore you wish to presume, you must presume Francis remains a member of the Church, not that he has departed.
-
Sean,
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
In saying this are you not judging him in the internal forum?
That clearly contradict you proposition that he cannot be judged that way.
Wrong again:
The presumption is for material heresy, because formal heresy requires a juridical act, or a public admission of knowingly contradicting Church doctrine.
See how easy this is if you just put your position aside, and let doctrine take you where you need to go?
Do you mean that in order for someone to be considered a formal manifest/public heretic, there is some sort of formula they must follow when professing their heresy?
E.g., in the case of Luther: Luther denied transubstantiation. Is his denial of this not enough to make him an heretic? Must he, before denying it, first cite that he plans to contradict what the Church teaches by denying it?
You will not find any heretic profess heresy, prefaced by a remark that they intend to do so. They simply deny a given teaching.
It is true that pertinacity is not PRESUMED but it may be assumed if it is apparent that the person suspect of heresy (in this case, a priest) couldn't reasonably be assumed to be ignorant of what they're denying. If their express admission of being an heretic was required, Arius never would have been condemned. And to my knowledge, I don't think anyone else could ever have been condemned either. Can you give an example of a condemned heretic who admitted to being an heretic with such an explicit admission?
Luther was formally declared a heretic.
Why do you think the Inquisition investigated cases of public heresy, rather than simply presume guilt?
Furthermore, Bishop Williamson teaches exactly the opposite of what you maintain:
One who has been ordained in a late 1950's modernist seminary cannot be presumed to have orthodox knowledge of the faith. The momentum was already heading the other direction by then.
-
Sean,
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
In saying this are you not judging him in the internal forum?
That clearly contradict you proposition that he cannot be judged that way.
Wrong again:
The presumption is for material heresy, because formal heresy requires a juridical act, or a public admission of knowingly contradicting Church doctrine.
See how easy this is if you just put your position aside, and let doctrine take you where you need to go?
Actually not wrong, I did not specify formal heresy and for our purposes material heresy is sufficient. Although through his persistent and public upholding of material heresy he can certainly be suspected of formal heresy and in either case he like his conciliar predecessors, teaches another Gospel and is therefore under the censure of anathema according to Holy Scripture and Vatican I.
Holy writ and a true Council's decrees are the doctrine of the Church.
[/quote
...and if one oppose them in ignorance, he remains Catholic.
-
49 pages is enough for me.
Carry on.
-
Sean Johnson,
Holy writ and a true Council's decrees are the doctrine of the Church.
[/quote
...and if one oppose them in ignorance, he remains Catholic.
I knew that invincible ignorance was going to come in somewhere.
Ignorance of the Catholic Faith is now the escape from culpability of the Conciliarists.
You are right, nothing to be gained from pursuing this as it has gone too far off of the rails.
-
Hello Mithrandylan,
Sean,
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
In saying this are you not judging him in the internal forum?
That clearly contradict you proposition that he cannot be judged that way.
Wrong again:
The presumption is for material heresy, because formal heresy requires a juridical act, or a public admission of knowingly contradicting Church doctrine.
See how easy this is if you just put your position aside, and let doctrine take you where you need to go?
Do you mean that in order for someone to be considered a formal manifest/public heretic, there is some sort of formula they must follow when professing their heresy? YES...This is set up by the Holiness of the Catholic Church in a proceeding with a formal council that will put before the [accused], first to show mercy, Catechize for a conversion, then ask for an act of Faith. If in that formal council the [accused], when awareness is shown to him that there is "heresy" in his statement(s), and he returns to the doctrine of the Faith through submission of "un-awareness" (to say it simply), his "heresy" was an act of material heresy that he now retracts.
If in that formal council the [accused], when awareness is shown to him that there is "heresy" in his statement(s), and he does NOT return to the doctrine of the Faith, his "heresy" is now an act of Formal heresy; and is now declared as a formal heretic.
E.g., in the case of Luther: Luther denied transubstantiation. Is his denial of this not enough to make him an heretic? Must he, before denying it, first cite that he plans to contradict what the Church teaches by denying it?
You will not find any heretic profess heresy, prefaced by a remark that they intend to do so. They simply deny a given teaching.
It is true that pertinacity is not PRESUMED but it may be assumed if it is apparent that the person suspect of heresy (in this case, a priest) couldn't reasonably be assumed to be ignorant of what they're denying. No! For the fear of our own salvation for mis-judgeing; we do not have all of the facts. That is why the Office of the Catholic Church, who alone is the Judge given by Christ, takes this upon Herself to show the attributes in Her Wisdom to draw a complete conclusion. If their express admission of being an heretic was required, Arius never would have been condemned. And to my knowledge, I don't think anyone else could ever have been condemned either. Can you give an example of a condemned heretic who admitted to being an heretic with such an explicit admission? Yes, though a formal council of the Catholic Church; of which, has not happened yet for the [accused] Pope Francis, nor the other [accused] Popes.
For the Holiness of the Church, the Good God will provide for this on His time; not on the time of "human desires". It is very obvious that, through the apparitions of the Blessed Mother, there is a Providential chastisement and suffering that the Church is going through. "Rome will be the seat of the anti-Christ..."
Patience my friend...God is doing something; He will provide .
-
As I explained to JPaul:
The presumption is for material heresy (in which case membership is not forfeit), because formal heresy only comes about by juridical act, or admission.
If therefore you wish to presume, you must presume Francis remains a member of the Church, not that he has departed.
Sean, formal heresy is a fact the moment that it occurs. Heresy does not become formal only when the Church declares it to be formal. A formal heretic *may* undergo a trial and *may* have an excommunication inflicted upon him by a superior, but the effect of such an excommunication is quite distinct from the fact of his formal heresy, which naturally must exist prior to any such penalties that may be inflicted upon him by a superior. Think about it. Can a person be judged an heretic if they weren't already an heretic? The judgment of the law proceeds the fact of the crime.
(Additionally, if the crime is certain, the presumption is that the offender is culpable, in this case, pertinacious. Towards the end of my post I address this)
This all goes back to my first post addressing Michael Davies argument, which fails to recognize four very distinct results of manifest heresy:
-According to the Divine Law (See Gal. 1, Tit. 3, Mat. 7, as well as the Church's ordinary magisterium, especially Paul IV's cuм Ex, the 1917 CIC, St. Alphonsus and all other theologians, popes and saints who touch this issue) heretics are cut off from the Body of the Church (i.e., they are not Catholics), and therefore do not participate in the economy of salvation which includes (among many other things) governing the Church.
-According to the 1917 CIC (Canon law is simply the Church applying Divine Law) 188/4, clerics who publicly defect from the faith tacitly resign their office by that fact, and the canon even specifies that this is effect occurs without any trial or declaration.
-According to the same CIC, by virtue of canon 2314, manifest heretics incur a latae sententiae excommunication by the fact of their heresy, which naturally results in the loss of office.
-Finally, such offenders *may* be subject to any and all applicable penalties which require a positive infliction by a lawful superior, and then they suffer the effects of those penalties, which may include excommunication. But again, this effect is distinct from the other three, and would be in addition to these aforementioned effects.
The "new" code of 1983 holds the same provisions, oddly enough. The salient point is that one of the results of manifest heresy is loss of office, but this result is brought about in four distinct ways. It is clear by the Church's laws that no declaration is necessary for one to be considered a manifest heretic, and furthermore no such declaration is absolutely necessary for them to suffer the effects of that, including their loss of office.
Now, it is true that if the Church were not so vastly diminished by the modernist mafia and under such dire persecution that She would certainly rule on the matter in an official capacity, so that faithful Catholics could proceed with Her divine assurance on the matter. But that will not happen so long as the conciliar revolutionaries hold Her holy offices hostage.
Luther was formally declared a heretic.
Why do you think the Inquisition investigated cases of public heresy, rather than simply presume guilt?
Furthermore, Bishop Williamson teaches exactly the opposite of what you maintain:
One who has been ordained in a late 1950's modernist seminary cannot be presumed to have orthodox knowledge of the faith. The momentum was already heading the other direction by then.
And hopefully you see that being "formally declared" an heretic is not the same thing as being a formal heretic. A formal heretic (otherwise simply called "heretic") is someone who while maintaining the title of "Christian" denies or doubts a teaching that is to be held with divine and Catholic faith (we often use the shorthand, "de fide," this includes all of the scriptures, as well as the Church's ordinary AND solemn magisterium) and does so pertinaciously, which means that they know that the Church teaches X and they elect to profess Y.
As concerns the Inquisition, I would not say that an investigation is to be discarded or disallowed. But the Canon Law is plain enough. No trial or declaration is necessary for one to lose his office or be declared an heretic. Such a trial and declaration will eventually come about, because the Church in Her benevolence could never allow Her faithful to continue on scattering, unsure of who their pastors are.
Even Bergoglio admitted to having to read through "decadent Thomistic theology" in seminary in one of his interviews. The seminaries in the forties and fifties had modernists, but it was not the way it is now, where everyone is out of the closet. You really think that in almost eighty years of life, all of which were spent in the religious life, and even before VII, that no one ever told him that there is one Church of Christ? You think that no one ever told him that one cannot attend non-Catholic worship? Or that the God of the Catholic faith is the only God, and the True God? Or any of the other filth he's said (the purpose of the incarnation was to instill a feeling of brotherhood, the Virgin Mary and the Church are similar in all ways, they both have flaws; need I go on?).
He doesn't need to be a great theologian or have a great or even good understanding of Catholic doctrine, and it's *possible that he didn't get it*. But not understanding the faith is entirely different than denying it.
If Francis cannot be expected to be Catholic, then no one else can be. I know protestants who were raise from their first instant to be nothing other than protestants. Do they get to come to mass and receive Holy Communion? Can I pray with them? Because if someone who spent the better part of a decade in seminary before VII (even WITH the modernist leaning) can vouch ignorance on the most elementary points of the faith, anyone can. I don't know how we can possibly hold Fellay or any of the NSSPX priests responsible for their errors, considering that many of them have been subject to a new formation. So much more do our protestant "brothers and sisters" and the Orthodox "deserve a break" for being raised in the wrong religion.
Switching gears slightly, to address Maccabes a bit and address some general statements.
I think it bears mentioning that a lot of the confusion on the issue of heretics and heresy stems from conflating two distinct sciences which deal with these subjects: moral theology and canon law. The moralists concern themselves with whether or not a person is guilty before God. The moralists are naturally dealing with the internal forum. The Canonists deal with the laws of the Church, which are based on externals-- only God judges the internal forum. This current discussion has very little to do with what the moralists have to say.
Here's what some canonists have to say regarding public crimes and presuming guilt:
When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved (c. 2200/2).
Davies must have skipped over that part when he consulted Bouscaren and Ellis.
If the fact of the violation of the law (heresy in this case) is certain, pertinacity is assumed. Also see C. Augustine's commentary: https://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary#page/n3555/mode/2up/search/2200
So, it's built right into the law. If the fact of the crime is certain, the offender is assumed to have intended to commit the crime.
This is just plain common sense, really. If we see someone do something, we assume that they intended to do it! If I open a door, I meant to open a door! If I take the dog out to pee in the snow, I meant to take the dog out to pee in the snow. If I went to mass today, I meant to go to mass.
Now, I suppose it's theoretically possible that if you saw me open a door, it may have been my twin brother. It's also theoretically possible that if you see me taking the dog out, I'm actually sleep-walking.
This is where we must realize that moral certainty gives us license to act, and informs our intellect on what judgements to make. If you see your neighbor murder someone, you are morally certain that he is a murderer, and you ought to consider him one and act accordingly. You do not need to wait until the judge passes a sentence on him and you do not need to wait until judgement day for God to find him guilty to say that he is a murderer and treat him like one. In fact, to deny moral certainty and instead opt for some far-fetched explanation like his doppelganger being responsible for the crime would be an injustice against prudence.
I think that's about all I have for now. Sorry if I missed something.
-
Mithrandylan,
As I explained to JPaul:
The presumption is for material heresy (in which case membership is not forfeit), because formal heresy only comes about by juridical act, or admission.
If therefore you wish to presume, you must presume Francis remains a member of the Church, not that he has departed.
Sean, formal heresy is a fact the moment that it occurs. Heresy does not become formal only when the Church declares it to be formal. A formal heretic *may* undergo a trial and *may* have an excommunication inflicted upon him by a superior, but the effect of such an excommunication is quite distinct from the fact of his formal heresy, which naturally must exist prior to any such penalties that may be inflicted upon him by a superior. Think about it. Can a person be judged an heretic if they weren't already an heretic? The judgment of the law proceeds the fact of the crime.
(Additionally, if the crime is certain, the presumption is that the offender is culpable, in this case, pertinacious. Towards the end of my post I address this)
This is only true when ALL of the accidents, causes, effects, and intentions are in reality together at that moment; like someone intentionally dropping a glass on concrete to see if it would break into pieces and it does. The accidents, causes, effects, and intentions are ALL there in that act.
This is not the same when an [accused] states an alleged heresy. All of the accidents, causes, effects, and intentions are NOT there together for someone to externally judge the severe sentence; you do NOT know clearly the context (accidents); you do NOT know the causes that arrived for that person to say such a thing; you only know the effects because of what the catechism teaches on that statement; you also do NOT know the intention that prompted that statement (evolution of moral decadence).
Therefore, you do NOT have ALL of the accidents, causes, effects, and intentions together to externally judge that act. Further, the highest act of charity for the soul is to presume that it is not in malice nor the evil purported; however, to hold with concern while still maintaing God's authority with the [Pope]. In other words, you have no right to inflict a public judgement without all of the facts; presumption and assumption on another individual is a malice and slander in itself. Simply said.
This all goes back to my first post addressing Michael Davies argument, which fails to recognize four very distinct results of manifest heresy:
-According to the Divine Law (See Gal. 1, Tit. 3, Mat. 7, as well as the Church's ordinary magisterium, especially Paul IV's cuм Ex, the 1917 CIC, St. Alphonsus and all other theologians, popes and saints who touch this issue) heretics are cut off from the Body of the Church (i.e., they are not Catholics), and therefore do not participate in the economy of salvation which includes (among many other things) governing the Church.
-According to the 1917 CIC (Canon law is simply the Church applying Divine Law) 188/4, clerics who publicly defect from the faith tacitly resign their office by that fact, and the canon even specifies that this is effect occurs without any trial or declaration.
-According to the same CIC, by virtue of canon 2314, manifest heretics incur a latae sententiae excommunication by the fact of their heresy, which naturally results in the loss of office.
-Finally, such offenders *may* be subject to any and all applicable penalties which require a positive infliction by a lawful superior, and then they suffer the effects of those penalties, which may include excommunication. But again, this effect is distinct from the other three, and would be in addition to these aforementioned effects.
The "new" code of 1983 holds the same provisions, oddly enough. The salient point is that one of the results of manifest heresy is loss of office, but this result is brought about in four distinct ways. It is clear by the Church's laws that no declaration is necessary for one to be considered a manifest heretic, and furthermore no such declaration is absolutely necessary for them to suffer the effects of that, including their loss of office.
Now, it is true that if the Church were not so vastly diminished by the modernist mafia and under such dire persecution that She would certainly rule on the matter in an official capacity, so that faithful Catholics could proceed with Her divine assurance on the matter. But that will not happen so long as the conciliar revolutionaries hold Her holy offices hostage.
Luther was formally declared a heretic.
Why do you think the Inquisition investigated cases of public heresy, rather than simply presume guilt?
Furthermore, Bishop Williamson teaches exactly the opposite of what you maintain:
One who has been ordained in a late 1950's modernist seminary cannot be presumed to have orthodox knowledge of the faith. The momentum was already heading the other direction by then.
And hopefully you see that being "formally declared" an heretic is not the same thing as being a formal heretic. A formal heretic (otherwise simply called "heretic") is someone who while maintaining the title of "Christian" denies or doubts a teaching that is to be held with divine and Catholic faith (we often use the shorthand, "de fide," this includes all of the scriptures, as well as the Church's ordinary AND solemn magisterium) and does so pertinaciously, which means that they know that the Church teaches X and they elect to profess Y.
As concerns the Inquisition, I would not say that an investigation is to be discarded or disallowed. But the Canon Law is plain enough. No trial or declaration is necessary for one to lose his office or be declared an heretic. Such a trial and declaration will eventually come about, because the Church in Her benevolence could never allow Her faithful to continue on scattering, unsure of who their pastors are.
Not to have a trial or declaration from the authority of the Church FIRST would lead to anarchy; the Church never endorses such rash judgement from Her children.
Even Bergoglio admitted to having to read through "decadent Thomistic theology" in seminary in one of his interviews. The seminaries in the forties and fifties had modernists, but it was not the way it is now, where everyone is out of the closet. You really think that in almost eighty years of life, all of which were spent in the religious life, and even before VII, that no one ever told him that there is one Church of Christ? You think that no one ever told him that one cannot attend non-Catholic worship? Or that the God of the Catholic faith is the only God, and the True God? Or any of the other filth he's said (the purpose of the incarnation was to instill a feeling of brotherhood, the Virgin Mary and the Church are similar in all ways, they both have flaws; need I go on?).
I think that SeanJohnson explained this well:
"Neither do I say he is innocent.
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
Pius X said evolution was the primary characteristic of modernism.
Hence, the false doctrines to them are "developments" which "evolve" with the "living Church," rather than contradictions.
Hence, they are material heretics, not formal.
Therefore, they do not lose the Chair.
Bishop Williamson has been teaching this for the last 35 years."
He doesn't need to be a great theologian or have a great or even good understanding of Catholic doctrine, and it's *possible that he didn't get it*. But not understanding the faith is entirely different than denying it.
If Francis cannot be expected to be Catholic, then no one else can be. I know protestants who were raise from their first instant to be nothing other than protestants. Do they get to come to mass and receive Holy Communion? Can I pray with them? Because if someone who spent the better part of a decade in seminary before VII (even WITH the modernist leaning) can vouch ignorance on the most elementary points of the faith, anyone can. I don't know how we can possibly hold Fellay or any of the NSSPX priests responsible for their errors, considering that many of them have been subject to a new formation. So much more do our protestant "brothers and sisters" and the Orthodox "deserve a break" for being raised in the wrong religion.
Switching gears slightly, to address Maccabes a bit and address some general statements.
I think it bears mentioning that a lot of the confusion on the issue of heretics and heresy stems from conflating two distinct sciences which deal with these subjects: moral theology and canon law. The moralists concern themselves with whether or not a person is guilty before God. The moralists are naturally dealing with the internal forum. The Canonists deal with the laws of the Church, which are based on externals-- only God judges the internal forum. This current discussion has very little to do with what the moralists have to say.
Mithrandylan, I do understand that sedevacantists weigh heavily on canon law and ecclesiastical law; however, if I can offer to you that those two are very much below and only support the Moral Law.
In an example, as many people in the world say that God does not belong in politics. It is actually quite the opposite. Politics are made from policies; and policies and made from morals; and God governs morals; therefore, God has everything to do with politics. Similarly, it is the Moral Law that governs Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Law; so morals, and the moralists, have everything to do with this discussion.
Here's what some canonists have to say regarding public crimes and presuming guilt:
When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved (c. 2200/2).
Davies must have skipped over that part when he consulted Bouscaren and Ellis.
If the fact of the violation of the law (heresy in this case) is certain, pertinacity is assumed. Also see C. Augustine's commentary: https://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary#page/n3555/mode/2up/search/2200
So, it's built right into the law. If the fact of the crime is certain, the offender is assumed to have intended to commit the crime.
This is just plain common sense, really. If we see someone do something, we assume that they intended to do it! If I open a door, I meant to open a door! If I take the dog out to pee in the snow, I meant to take the dog out to pee in the snow. If I went to mass today, I meant to go to mass.
I understand that in your example you are trying to make cause and effect relationship, however, it is NOT plain "common sense", really, to assume that.
In your example, if one opens a door, it cannot mean that you wanted to open it; the door could have a spring on it and the person was trying to close it. Or, it was not latched properly, and a large wind or fan within the house opened it at the right time that the person had his hand on it in order to close it; but another person saw it and thought otherwise.
Likewise, if you take the dog out for a walk in an area that the dog was NOT suppose to pea because of landlord rules, and the dog did it anyway, it was NOT your intention; but another person saw it and thought otherwise.
Also, if one went to mass today, it could have been in reason under duress from a threat from his wife or mother, if he did not go there, there would be a consequence; but another person saw it and thought otherwise.
Conclusion, one cannot rashly judge without ALL of the facts; that is why the Holy Catholic Church reserves judgement to Herself, instituted by Christ. "I would rather be judged by God; than by men."
Now, I suppose it's theoretically possible that if you saw me open a door, it may have been my twin brother. It's also theoretically possible that if you see me taking the dog out, I'm actually sleep-walking.
This is where we must realize that moral certainty gives us license to act, and informs our intellect on what judgements to make. If you see your neighbor murder someone, you are morally certain that he is a murderer, and you ought to consider him one and act accordingly. You do not need to wait until the judge passes a sentence on him and you do not need to wait until judgement day for God to find him guilty to say that he is a murderer and treat him like one. In fact, to deny moral certainty and instead opt for some far-fetched explanation like his doppelganger being responsible for the crime would be an injustice against prudence.
Would this not be a rash judgement also, as explained above? It could have been in self defense; and in many cases, it was; but another person saw it and thought otherwise. So no...there is no "realiz[ation] that moral certainty gives us license to act, and informs our intellect on what judgements to make." God forbid. That would be anarchy; that is why there are courts of justice, to state if there is guilt, or if there is no guilt.
God's authority alone passes that judgment through His Church; not from Her children; especially in regards to a Pope. This is where sedevacantists fall into error. They see the effects; but rash judge on ALL of the other areas with presumption and assumption to draw and formulate the "opinions" they pick out of from law; void of the higher Moral Law. Opinions found in the text of Law is only a means and a tool; it is not an end in itself. As such, to judge rashly is a private interpretation that, for justice sake, should not be acted on until the Holiness of the Church courts and declares such with Her Wisdom and just judgements.
I think that's about all I have for now. Sorry if I missed something.
God bless.
-
LaGrange was one among 50.
Neither do I say he is innocent.
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
Pius X said evolution was the primary characteristic of modernism.
Hence, the false doctrines to them are "developments" which "evolve" with the "living Church," rather than contradictions.
Hence, they are material heretics, not formal.
Therefore, they do not lose the Chair.
Bishop Williamson has been teaching this for the last 35 years.
Incidentally, this indicates to me he is trying to ally with them for political (i.e., tradcuмenical) reasons, rather than doctrinal (i.e., he himself realizes sedevacantism is ridiculous).
According to canon law 188.4 they lose the office by the operation of the law. The formal declaration establishing formal heresy comes later. If there is a delay between the time of the public heresy and the formal declaration, any exercise of the functions of the office are illicit and invalid. If it was a case merely of a some sort of ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication then the acts would still be valid but in the case of a defection from the faith the acts are invalid. So even if he occupies the office everything he does is illicit and invalid. Effectively the office is vacated even if it is physically occupied. It is possible for people to be mistaken about the fact of a public heresy so it behooves Catholics to be very careful about these things but I don't think there is any credible defense for Francis.
-
First things first. By point of clarification, I may have muddied the waters and jumped the gun a little with my comments on canon 2200, so to avoid any confusion or dispel any that has already occurred:
I don't mean to say that the canon allows pertinacity to be assumed. It means that once the crime is certain (in this case, heresy) the offender is to be presumed to have committed it with the required malice and culpability (i.e., he is not be presumed to be ignorant or acting under coercion). It does not mean that the requisite properties which would make a material act formal are to be presumed, those still must be established for the crime to be certain in the first place, and for canon 2200 to even apply. In other words, if Sean's grandma inadvertently expresses an heresy, we don't assume pertinacity. But once pertinacity is established, we assume, for practical and legal purposes that she is guilty of the crime, and cannot claim some other excuse.
So, Maccabes...
I said:
formal heresy is a fact the moment that it occurs. Heresy does not become formal only when the Church declares it to be formal. A formal heretic *may* undergo a trial and *may* have an excommunication inflicted upon him by a superior, but the effect of such an excommunication is quite distinct from the fact of his formal heresy, which naturally must exist prior to any such penalties that may be inflicted upon him by a superior. Think about it. Can a person be judged an heretic if they weren't already an heretic? The judgment of the law proceeds the fact of the crime.
To which you replied:
This is only true when ALL of the accidents, causes, effects, and intentions are in reality together at that moment; like someone intentionally dropping a glass on concrete to see if it would break into pieces and it does. The accidents, causes, effects, and intentions are ALL there in that act.
I agree. Put simply, if the required elements are present which make heresy formal, then it is formal at the moment that those elements are present. At that moment, it becomes a fact, i.e., something that is true. Additionally, at the moment that a person formally holding to heresy professes it publicly, the heresy is manifest, and this also is a fact, i.e., something that is true.
But, as you can imagine, we part ways when you say this:
This is not the same when an [accused] states an alleged heresy. All of the accidents, causes, effects, and intentions are NOT there together for someone to externally judge the severe sentence; you do NOT know clearly the context (accidents); you do NOT know the causes that arrived for that person to say such a thing; you only know the effects because of what the catechism teaches on that statement; you also do NOT know the intention that prompted that statement (evolution of moral decadence).
First of all, I don't think there's anything alleged about Francis' heresies. It is public knowledge that the man has publicly participated in non-Catholic worship. There are many other heretical statements (no Catholic God, Our Lady might have felt tricked into being the Mother of God, atheists can go to Heaven, etc.) as well. Whether or not he has professed heresy really isn't up for debate. What remains to be established (and what we are discussing) is whether or not the formal aspect which would make him an heretic. That is, is he pertinacious, i.e., does he know what the Church teaches on any of these issues?
Therefore, you do NOT have ALL of the accidents, causes, effects, and intentions together to externally judge that act. Further, the highest act of charity for the soul is to presume that it is not in malice nor the evil purported; however, to hold with concern while still maintaing God's authority with the [Pope]. In other words, you have no right to inflict a public judgement without all of the facts; presumption and assumption on another individual is a malice and slander in itself. Simply said.
You mean that I do not have all that is required to judge the internal forum of the act. The external is publicly known and indisputable. I have just listed several of Francis' professed heresies. I agree we are bound in charity to assume the most favorable interpretation of a person's actions, and I appreciate the caution that most Catholics take in examining this issue, in fact I deem it necessary because it's clearly the desire of the Church that we treat other members of the Church with God's love. Nevertheless, we are never required to assume against reason; Our Lord warned us of wolves in sheep's clothing-- a warning that He would not have given if we were incapable or forbidden to use our intellect informed by the external facts we observe to make certain judgements and decisions.
There is no evidence to suggest that Francis' heresies are the result of some excusing factor, or even some diminishing factor. On the other hand, there is evidence that supports him knowing what the Church teaches on these issues. Even considering that modernists had made their way into the seminaries by the time he was there, you must contend that on each of his heresies, that he is invincibly ignorant. So, from the age of reason until now, the teaching of the Church on every single one of the issues which he publicly doubts or denies were never made sufficiently clear to him. This is why I brought up the issue of certainty, which I will get to addressing a little later in this post.
As to your use of the world "public judgement," let me be very clear that I don't intend to, nor do I consider myself capable of binding anyone to any conclusion I may have privately reached on the nature of the crisis, whether it's the illegitimacy of the new mass or any other conclusion common among traditionalists. I am publicly sharing these private judgements (which bind only my own conscience), but that is quite different than issuing a "public judgement" which seems to suggest that I have some sort of authority that I don't.
As concerns the Inquisition, I would not say that an investigation is to be discarded or disallowed. But the Canon Law is plain enough. No trial or declaration is necessary for one to lose his office or be declared an heretic. Such a trial and declaration will eventually come about, because the Church in Her benevolence could never allow Her faithful to continue on scattering, unsure of who their pastors are.
To which you replied:
Not to have a trial or declaration from the authority of the Church FIRST would lead to anarchy; the Church never endorses such rash judgement from Her children.
No, it wouldn't. If it would, then the Church is a provocateur of anarchy, since Her own law provides that in the event of a cleric publicly defecting from the faith, he tacitly resigns his office without any need for such a trial (canon 188/4). Furthermore, by virtue of canon 2314, all heretics incur a latae sententiae excommunication, that is, excommunication by the fact of their heresy, quite distinct from ferendae sententiae excommunication, which must be inflicted by a superior. You are simply mistaken on this point.
"Neither do I say he is innocent.
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
Pius X said evolution was the primary characteristic of modernism.
Hence, the false doctrines to them are "developments" which "evolve" with the "living Church," rather than contradictions.
Hence, they are material heretics, not formal.
Therefore, they do not lose the Chair.
Bishop Williamson has been teaching this for the last 35 years."
No person is inherently incapable of spotting contradiction, unless the person is insane, in which case he can't hold office by virtue of his insanity. A person can be so decadent and degrade their reason and their faith so often and so drastically that it could be practically impossible to recover, but the fact remains that their degradation of the gifts God gave them is due to their own fault, and at some point they knew the truth, and have now abandoned it. That is the definition of an heretic, you know. A baptised person who once held the Catholic faith and now denies (a part of) it. Someone who never held the faith to begin with is not an heretic, even though they may not be a Catholic.
Neither can you use an heresy to excuse an heresy. I agree that they view doctrine as evolving. That does not forgive them for holding to such evolutions! Their holding to such an evolution is a heresy, and if they are aware that the Church teaches an immutable truth, they are pertinacious in believing in such an evolution.
Catholics, to remain Catholic, must also submit to the rule of faith, i.e., they must proceed with docility and submission to the teaching authority of the Church. This principle is what forgives a Catholic who materially holds an heresy; if he desires to submit to the teaching of the Church and is simply unaware of what that teaching is, he is saved from being a formal heretic by virtue of his ignorance, and he is saved from being a material heretic by virtue of his submission to the teaching authority of the Church.
Which brings me to another subject that really must be clarified, i.e., material heresy vs. formal heresy, and material heretics vs. formal heretics.
It seems evident enough that everyone involved in this discussion appreciates that there are two constituents which make a thing: form and matter. A table may be made of wood (it's material constituent) but unless it has legs to stand upon and a flat surface to eat upon (it's formal constituent), it lacks the form of a table, and is therefore not a table. From here, I'll quote John Daly (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/pertinacity.html) who will illumine for us the relationship between material heresy and material heretics with more precision than I could hope to: (emphases added)
With regard to the sin of heresy, it was said that the matter was the intellectual error involved in assenting to a heterodox proposition, while the form was the obstinate attachment of the will. And once again this distinction usefully clarified the fact that one who assents to a heterodox proposition by inadvertence, without obstinate attachment of the will, was not guilty of the sin of heresy (just as a pile of wood, while holding the material constituent to be a table, but lacking the formal constituent, is not a table).
What muddied the waters was the misleading linguistic development by which material heresy was said to make the person professing it a material heretic. No conclusion could seem more natural to the layman, but it does not in fact follow in logic. A retired lion-trainer is not, after all, a man who trains retired lions! And a serious problem arises when one designates as a material heretic anyone who assents, without moral guilt, to a heretical proposition. The first is that you have created a category which comprises two quite distinct sorts of member and you therefore run the risk of confusing the two. For according to that definition, a good Catholic who inadvertently holds a condemned doctrine, not realising that it is condemned is a material heretic. And so too is a Protestant if he is invincibly ignorant of the Church's status. And while it is true that there is a resemblance between the two cases (for both indeed hold in their minds unorthodox doctrine and neither is culpable in the eyes of God for doing so), nevertheless there is also a huge gulf between them. For the former is a Catholic, habitually adhering to the Catholic rule of faith, whereas the latter is a non-Catholic, with no knowledge of the correct rule of faith and tossed about on the treacherous sea of private opinion.
The inevitable consequence of this misleading assimilation of two such different sorts of person is that they will gradually come to be considered truly alike. This could happen in either of two ways. Mistaken Catholics could be regarded as no better than Protestants in good faith (and some “hard-liners” have practically taken this view, arguing that the most innocent error creates a presumption of heretical animus - a notion we have already seen to be false). More common has been the no less calamitous view that a Protestant, if invincibly ignorant of the status of the Church, is no worse off than a Catholic who inadvertently makes an incorrect doctrinal statement - as though adherence to the Catholic rule of faith, i.e. submission to the Magisterium, were irrelevant, whereas in fact it is what juridical membership of the Church depends on.
Correctly, the material element involved in being a heretic is conscious dissent from the Catholic rule of faith, while the formal element is the perverse state of the will which this entails. The distinction thus made, a Catholic who inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertence may perhaps be said to have advanced a material heresy; but he cannot be called a material heretic. He is not a heretic in any sense. A heretic is one who dissents altogether from the Catholic rule of faith, and he will be called a material heretic if he is invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church which he rejects, and a formal heretic if the Church's authority has been sufficiently proposed to him, so that his dissent from it is culpable. (This is clearly explained by Cardinal Billot: De Ecclesia Christi, ed. 4, pp. 289-290)
So according to the correct usage of the term, as outlined above, a Catholic can never become a material heretic. He is not invincibly ignorant of the Church's authority, and any conscious dissent from her teachings will therefore make him a formal heretic. Material heretics are exclusively those baptised non-Catholics who err in good faith. That is why Dr Ludwig Ott notes that “public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.311)
And in fact Dr Ott's preferred expression - “heretics who err in good faith” is the one used in the Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), which completely eschews the potentially misleading term “material heretics”
I think it bears mentioning that a lot of the confusion on the issue of heretics and heresy stems from conflating two distinct sciences which deal with these subjects: moral theology and canon law. The moralists concern themselves with whether or not a person is guilty before God. The moralists are naturally dealing with the internal forum. The Canonists deal with the laws of the Church, which are based on externals-- only God judges the internal forum. This current discussion has very little to do with what the moralists have to say.
Mithrandylan, I do understand that sedevacantists weigh heavily on canon law and ecclesiastical law; however, if I can offer to you that those two are very much below and only support the Moral Law.
In an example, as many people in the world say that God does not belong in politics. It is actually quite the opposite. Politics are made from policies; and policies and made from morals; and God governs morals; therefore, God has everything to do with politics. Similarly, it is the Moral Law that governs Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Law; so morals, and the moralists, have everything to do with this discussion.
Of course, and I did not mean to place undue emphasis on the distinct sciences, since as you say, they are very much related and supporting one another. I simply mean to point out that whether or not a person is guilty before God for a particular offense is distinct from whether or not they are guilty of a crime/offense, or ought to be considered guilty of a crime/offense for which they are rendered non-members of the Church. These are two distinct issues, and we are dealing with both of them, I admit, but we must not confuse them.
I understand that in your example you are trying to make cause and effect relationship, however, it is NOT plain "common sense", really, to assume that.
In your example, if one opens a door, it cannot mean that you wanted to open it; the door could have a spring on it and the person was trying to close it. Or, it was not latched properly, and a large wind or fan within the house opened it at the right time that the person had his hand on it in order to close it; but another person saw it and thought otherwise.
Likewise, if you take the dog out for a walk in an area that the dog was NOT suppose to pea because of landlord rules, and the dog did it anyway, it was NOT your intention; but another person saw it and thought otherwise.
Also, if one went to mass today, it could have been in reason under duress from a threat from his wife or mother, if he did not go there, there would be a consequence; but another person saw it and thought otherwise.
Conclusion, one cannot rashly judge without ALL of the facts; that is why the Holy Catholic Church reserves judgement to Herself, instituted by Christ. "I would rather be judged by God; than by men."
Actually, my argument of opening the door was to point out that a positive action performed is an action intended. It is true in the absolute sense that there are other possible explanations, but as concerns moral certainty (which I will be getting to) there must be evidence (a reason) to believe what is believed. Humans commonly perform actions that they intend to. Exceptionally, a person may perform a deliberate action (distinct from accidents like vehicle collisiosn) without the requisite intention (sleepwalking, insanity, etc.) but some sort of evidence must be present to question whether or not an intent was lacking. We can see this principle at work with the sacraments. If a Catholic minister performs a Catholic rite, it is assumed that he intended to do so. If, on the other hand, some manifest observation casts doubt onto the intention, at that point (and only at that point) may we doubt that there was an intention to perform the act.
This is where we must realize that moral certainty gives us license to act, and informs our intellect on what judgements to make. If you see your neighbor murder someone, you are morally certain that he is a murderer, and you ought to consider him one and act accordingly. You do not need to wait until the judge passes a sentence on him and you do not need to wait until judgement day for God to find him guilty to say that he is a murderer and treat him like one. In fact, to deny moral certainty and instead opt for some far-fetched explanation like his doppelganger being responsible for the crime would be an injustice against prudence.
To which you replied:
Would this not be a rash judgement also, as explained above? It could have been in self defense; and in many cases, it was; but another person saw it and thought otherwise. So no...there is no "realiz[ation] that moral certainty gives us license to act, and informs our intellect on what judgements to make." God forbid. That would be anarchy; that is why there are courts of justice, to state if there is guilt, or if there is no guilt.
God's authority alone passes that judgment through His Church; not from Her children; especially in regards to a Pope. This is where sedevacantists fall into error. They see the effects; but rash judge on ALL of the other areas with presumption and assumption to draw and formulate the "opinions" they pick out of from law; void of the higher Moral Law. Opinions found in the text of Law is only a means and a tool; it is not an end in itself. As such, to judge rashly is a private interpretation that, for justice sake, should not be acted on until the Holiness of the Church courts and declares such with Her Wisdom and just judgements.
What you are proposing is not true. Consider the following from McHugh and Callan (https://archive.org/stream/moraltheologyaco35354gut/pg35354.txt), which would be confirmed in any other theology manual that deals with the conscience:
643. Kinds of Certitude.--Judgments may be certain in a greater or less
degree.
(a) They are metaphysically certain, when error is absolutely
impossible, the opposite of what is held by the mind being a
contradiction in terms which omnipotence itself could not make true.
Example: The judgments that the same, identical act cannot be both good
and bad, that good is to be done and evil to be avoided, that God is to
be honored, are metaphysically certain, since they result immediately
from the very concepts of being, of goodness, and of God.
(b) Judgments are physically certain, when error is impossible
according to the laws of nature, the opposite of what is held by the
mind being unrealizable except through intervention of another cause.
Example: The judgments that he who takes poison will destroy life, that
he who applies fire to a house will destroy property, are physically
certain. because natural agencies, like poison and fire, act infallibly
when applied to suitable matters and under suitable conditions and left
to their course, unless they are overruled by superior power.
(c) Judgments are morally certain, when error is impossible according
to what is customary among mankind, the opposite of what is held by the
mind being so unlikely that it would be imprudent to be moved by it.
Examples: One is morally certain that what a reputedly truthful and
competent person relates to one is true. A person is morally certain
that a conclusion he has drawn about his duty in a particular instance
is correct, if he believes that he has overlooked no means of reaching
the truth. Testimony and inference, since they come from free and
fallible agencies, may lead into error; but, when they appear to have
the requisite qualities indicative of truth, they are for the most part
reliable and in practical life have to be considered as such.
...
644. As to the certainty that is required in the judgment of
conscience, the following points must be noted:
(a) Metaphysical certainty is not required, since conscience does not
deal with primary propositions, but with deductions about particular
acts. The first moral principles, which are the object of synderesis,
and at least some of the general conclusions, which are the object of
moral science, are metaphysically certain (see above 145, 300), as they
are based on necessary relations; but the particular conclusions, which
are the object of conscience, are concerned with the contingent and the
individual.
(b) Physical certainty is not required for the judgment of conscience,
since conscience is not concerned with the activities of natural
agents, but with the activities of moral agents that act with freedom
and responsibility.
(c) Moral certitude, therefore, is sufficient for the conclusions drawn
by conscience. That a higher kind of certitude is not necessary should
not surprise us, for it would be unreasonable to expect that the same
degree of assent be given to judgments that are concerned with
particular and contingent cases as to those that are concerned with
universal and necessary principles.
...
646. Moral certitude in the wide sense is sufficient for a safe
conscience, even in matters of great importance, since it is frequently
the only kind of certitude one can have, and he who would strive to be
free from every slight and baseless suspicion would be soon involved in
a maze of scruples and perplexities.
A judgement which is based on observable facts and is exempt from probable and/or positive doubt (also called "reasonable doubt") is a judgement made with moral certainty, and moral certainty is all that is required to make a judgement.
....
The idea that an apparent fact cannot inform our judgement and allow us to act with safety is borne of scruples and gnosticism. As I mentioned prior, Christ instructed us to be wary of false prophets. This requires us to make judgements based on facts (evidence). We have all already done this regarding the New Mass and the Novus Ordo teachings. Is it so unruly to suggest that the same can be done regarding the men who have spread them? It is certain that it is unruly to claim that any such judgements are "rash" or "presumptuous" provided that they are made with moral certainty.
Are you morally certain that he IS the pope? Because all you have proposed are negative doubts, i.e., "what ifs." We are not to act against positive or probable doubts. A doubtful pope is no pope, just as a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament.
May God bless you, too.
-
LaGrange was one among 50.
Neither do I say he is innocent.
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
Pius X said evolution was the primary characteristic of modernism.
Hence, the false doctrines to them are "developments" which "evolve" with the "living Church," rather than contradictions.
Hence, they are material heretics, not formal.
Therefore, they do not lose the Chair.
Bishop Williamson has been teaching this for the last 35 years.
Incidentally, this indicates to me he is trying to ally with them for political (i.e., tradcuмenical) reasons, rather than doctrinal (i.e., he himself realizes sedevacantism is ridiculous).
According to canon law 188.4 they lose the office by the operation of the law. The formal declaration establishing formal heresy comes later. If there is a delay between the time of the public heresy and the formal declaration, any exercise of the functions of the office are illicit and invalid. If it was a case merely of a some sort of ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication then the acts would still be valid but in the case of a defection from the faith the acts are invalid. So even if he occupies the office everything he does is illicit and invalid. Effectively the office is vacated even if it is physically occupied. It is possible for people to be mistaken about the fact of a public heresy so it behooves Catholics to be very careful about these things but I don't think there is any credible defense for Francis.
Thank you for your honesty. Highlighted above in red, you have answered your own question; if there is a possibility that we can be mistaken, then the presumption is still with God in the authority of the Pope to recognize that authority and resist any [errors].
Also, based on that honest statement, you have shown that sedevacantism is a formed group that is fitted with an extreme rash judgement(s); and in haste, acts on their rash judgement(s) with independence against God's authority BEFORE God had manifested His own just judgement on this matter; on His time.
As God has shown in the Old Testament, it could be many more years before He wills to rectify this situation of Vatican II, or it could be right around the corner. No matter. He is the Head of His Church, and He will govern it the way He sees the need...in the greater good for the salvation of souls.
Modernism has been going on for over 100-years. God is obviously allowing something to happen for a greater good for something else to happen -for the Glory of His Son- through His Blessed Mother.
Let us be patient with the chastisement He is doing to the world...and to us, to personally sanctify us.
God is worth all of our suffering; even if we do not understand why He is allowing it.
The prudence is not on the neo-R&R, but on the Scriptural Foundation of Recognize and resist. "With fear and trembling work out your salvation." (Philippians 2:12).
"Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again..." (Matthew 7:1-2).
-
First things first. By point of clarification, I may have muddied the waters and jumped the gun a little with my comments on canon 2200, so to avoid any confusion or dispel any that has already occurred:
I don't mean to say that the canon allows pertinacity to be assumed. It means that once the crime is certain (in this case, heresy) the offender is to be presumed to have committed it with the required malice and culpability (i.e., he is not be presumed to be ignorant or acting under coercion). It does not mean that the requisite properties which would make a material act formal are to be presumed, those still must be established for the crime to be certain in the first place, and for canon 2200 to even apply. In other words, if Sean's grandma inadvertently expresses an heresy, we don't assume pertinacity. But once pertinacity is established, we assume, for practical and legal purposes that she is guilty of the crime, and cannot claim some other excuse.
So, Maccabes...
I said:
formal heresy is a fact the moment that it occurs. Heresy does not become formal only when the Church declares it to be formal. A formal heretic *may* undergo a trial and *may* have an excommunication inflicted upon him by a superior, but the effect of such an excommunication is quite distinct from the fact of his formal heresy, which naturally must exist prior to any such penalties that may be inflicted upon him by a superior. Think about it. Can a person be judged an heretic if they weren't already an heretic? The judgment of the law proceeds the fact of the crime.
To which you replied:
This is only true when ALL of the accidents, causes, effects, and intentions are in reality together at that moment; like someone intentionally dropping a glass on concrete to see if it would break into pieces and it does. The accidents, causes, effects, and intentions are ALL there in that act.
I agree. Put simply, if the required elements are present which make heresy formal, then it is formal at the moment that those elements are present. At that moment, it becomes a fact, i.e., something that is true. Additionally, at the moment that a person formally holding to heresy professes it publicly, the heresy is manifest, and this also is a fact, i.e., something that is true.
But, as you can imagine, we part ways when you say this:
This is not the same when an [accused] states an alleged heresy. All of the accidents, causes, effects, and intentions are NOT there together for someone to externally judge the severe sentence; you do NOT know clearly the context (accidents); you do NOT know the causes that arrived for that person to say such a thing; you only know the effects because of what the catechism teaches on that statement; you also do NOT know the intention that prompted that statement (evolution of moral decadence).
First of all, I don't think there's anything alleged about Francis' heresies. It is public knowledge that the man has publicly participated in non-Catholic worship. There are many other heretical statements (no Catholic God, Our Lady might have felt tricked into being the Mother of God, atheists can go to Heaven, etc.) as well. Whether or not he has professed heresy really isn't up for debate. What remains to be established (and what we are discussing) is whether or not the formal aspect which would make him an heretic. That is, is he pertinacious, i.e., does he know what the Church teaches on any of these issues?
Therefore, you do NOT have ALL of the accidents, causes, effects, and intentions together to externally judge that act. Further, the highest act of charity for the soul is to presume that it is not in malice nor the evil purported; however, to hold with concern while still maintaing God's authority with the [Pope]. In other words, you have no right to inflict a public judgement without all of the facts; presumption and assumption on another individual is a malice and slander in itself. Simply said.
You mean that I do not have all that is required to judge the internal forum of the act. The external is publicly known and indisputable. I have just listed several of Francis' professed heresies. I agree we are bound in charity to assume the most favorable interpretation of a person's actions, and I appreciate the caution that most Catholics take in examining this issue, in fact I deem it necessary because it's clearly the desire of the Church that we treat other members of the Church with God's love. Nevertheless, we are never required to assume against reason; Our Lord warned us of wolves in sheep's clothing-- a warning that He would not have given if we were incapable or forbidden to use our intellect informed by the external facts we observe to make certain judgements and decisions.
There is no evidence to suggest that Francis' heresies are the result of some excusing factor, or even some diminishing factor. On the other hand, there is evidence that supports him knowing what the Church teaches on these issues. Even considering that modernists had made their way into the seminaries by the time he was there, you must contend that on each of his heresies, that he is invincibly ignorant. So, from the age of reason until now, the teaching of the Church on every single one of the issues which he publicly doubts or denies were never made sufficiently clear to him. This is why I brought up the issue of certainty, which I will get to addressing a little later in this post.
As to your use of the world "public judgement," let me be very clear that I don't intend to, nor do I consider myself capable of binding anyone to any conclusion I may have privately reached on the nature of the crisis, whether it's the illegitimacy of the new mass or any other conclusion common among traditionalists. I am publicly sharing these private judgements (which bind only my own conscience), but that is quite different than issuing a "public judgement" which seems to suggest that I have some sort of authority that I don't.
As concerns the Inquisition, I would not say that an investigation is to be discarded or disallowed. But the Canon Law is plain enough. No trial or declaration is necessary for one to lose his office or be declared an heretic. Such a trial and declaration will eventually come about, because the Church in Her benevolence could never allow Her faithful to continue on scattering, unsure of who their pastors are.
To which you replied:
Not to have a trial or declaration from the authority of the Church FIRST would lead to anarchy; the Church never endorses such rash judgement from Her children.
No, it wouldn't. If it would, then the Church is a provocateur of anarchy, since Her own law provides that in the event of a cleric publicly defecting from the faith, he tacitly resigns his office without any need for such a trial (canon 188/4). Furthermore, by virtue of canon 2314, all heretics incur a latae sententiae excommunication, that is, excommunication by the fact of their heresy, quite distinct from ferendae sententiae excommunication, which must be inflicted by a superior. You are simply mistaken on this point.
"Neither do I say he is innocent.
I say he is a modernist, and therefore incapable of spotting contradiction.
Pius X said evolution was the primary characteristic of modernism.
Hence, the false doctrines to them are "developments" which "evolve" with the "living Church," rather than contradictions.
Hence, they are material heretics, not formal.
Therefore, they do not lose the Chair.
Bishop Williamson has been teaching this for the last 35 years."
No person is inherently incapable of spotting contradiction, unless the person is insane, in which case he can't hold office by virtue of his insanity. A person can be so decadent and degrade their reason and their faith so often and so drastically that it could be practically impossible to recover, but the fact remains that their degradation of the gifts God gave them is due to their own fault, and at some point they knew the truth, and have now abandoned it. That is the definition of an heretic, you know. A baptised person who once held the Catholic faith and now denies (a part of) it. Someone who never held the faith to begin with is not an heretic, even though they may not be a Catholic.
Neither can you use an heresy to excuse an heresy. I agree that they view doctrine as evolving. That does not forgive them for holding to such evolutions! Their holding to such an evolution is a heresy, and if they are aware that the Church teaches an immutable truth, they are pertinacious in believing in such an evolution.
Catholics, to remain Catholic, must also submit to the rule of faith, i.e., they must proceed with docility and submission to the teaching authority of the Church. This principle is what forgives a Catholic who materially holds an heresy; if he desires to submit to the teaching of the Church and is simply unaware of what that teaching is, he is saved from being a formal heretic by virtue of his ignorance, and he is saved from being a material heretic by virtue of his submission to the teaching authority of the Church.
Which brings me to another subject that really must be clarified, i.e., material heresy vs. formal heresy, and material heretics vs. formal heretics.
It seems evident enough that everyone involved in this discussion appreciates that there are two constituents which make a thing: form and matter. A table may be made of wood (it's material constituent) but unless it has legs to stand upon and a flat surface to eat upon (it's formal constituent), it lacks the form of a table, and is therefore not a table. From here, I'll quote John Daly (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/pertinacity.html) who will illumine for us the relationship between material heresy and material heretics with more precision than I could hope to: (emphases added)
With regard to the sin of heresy, it was said that the matter was the intellectual error involved in assenting to a heterodox proposition, while the form was the obstinate attachment of the will. And once again this distinction usefully clarified the fact that one who assents to a heterodox proposition by inadvertence, without obstinate attachment of the will, was not guilty of the sin of heresy (just as a pile of wood, while holding the material constituent to be a table, but lacking the formal constituent, is not a table).
What muddied the waters was the misleading linguistic development by which material heresy was said to make the person professing it a material heretic. No conclusion could seem more natural to the layman, but it does not in fact follow in logic. A retired lion-trainer is not, after all, a man who trains retired lions! And a serious problem arises when one designates as a material heretic anyone who assents, without moral guilt, to a heretical proposition. The first is that you have created a category which comprises two quite distinct sorts of member and you therefore run the risk of confusing the two. For according to that definition, a good Catholic who inadvertently holds a condemned doctrine, not realising that it is condemned is a material heretic. And so too is a Protestant if he is invincibly ignorant of the Church's status. And while it is true that there is a resemblance between the two cases (for both indeed hold in their minds unorthodox doctrine and neither is culpable in the eyes of God for doing so), nevertheless there is also a huge gulf between them. For the former is a Catholic, habitually adhering to the Catholic rule of faith, whereas the latter is a non-Catholic, with no knowledge of the correct rule of faith and tossed about on the treacherous sea of private opinion.
The inevitable consequence of this misleading assimilation of two such different sorts of person is that they will gradually come to be considered truly alike. This could happen in either of two ways. Mistaken Catholics could be regarded as no better than Protestants in good faith (and some “hard-liners” have practically taken this view, arguing that the most innocent error creates a presumption of heretical animus - a notion we have already seen to be false). More common has been the no less calamitous view that a Protestant, if invincibly ignorant of the status of the Church, is no worse off than a Catholic who inadvertently makes an incorrect doctrinal statement - as though adherence to the Catholic rule of faith, i.e. submission to the Magisterium, were irrelevant, whereas in fact it is what juridical membership of the Church depends on.
Correctly, the material element involved in being a heretic is conscious dissent from the Catholic rule of faith, while the formal element is the perverse state of the will which this entails. The distinction thus made, a Catholic who inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertence may perhaps be said to have advanced a material heresy; but he cannot be called a material heretic. He is not a heretic in any sense. A heretic is one who dissents altogether from the Catholic rule of faith, and he will be called a material heretic if he is invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church which he rejects, and a formal heretic if the Church's authority has been sufficiently proposed to him, so that his dissent from it is culpable. (This is clearly explained by Cardinal Billot: De Ecclesia Christi, ed. 4, pp. 289-290)
So according to the correct usage of the term, as outlined above, a Catholic can never become a material heretic. He is not invincibly ignorant of the Church's authority, and any conscious dissent from her teachings will therefore make him a formal heretic. Material heretics are exclusively those baptised non-Catholics who err in good faith. That is why Dr Ludwig Ott notes that “public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.311)
And in fact Dr Ott's preferred expression - “heretics who err in good faith” is the one used in the Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), which completely eschews the potentially misleading term “material heretics”
I think it bears mentioning that a lot of the confusion on the issue of heretics and heresy stems from conflating two distinct sciences which deal with these subjects: moral theology and canon law. The moralists concern themselves with whether or not a person is guilty before God. The moralists are naturally dealing with the internal forum. The Canonists deal with the laws of the Church, which are based on externals-- only God judges the internal forum. This current discussion has very little to do with what the moralists have to say.
Mithrandylan, I do understand that sedevacantists weigh heavily on canon law and ecclesiastical law; however, if I can offer to you that those two are very much below and only support the Moral Law.
In an example, as many people in the world say that God does not belong in politics. It is actually quite the opposite. Politics are made from policies; and policies and made from morals; and God governs morals; therefore, God has everything to do with politics. Similarly, it is the Moral Law that governs Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Law; so morals, and the moralists, have everything to do with this discussion.
Of course, and I did not mean to place undue emphasis on the distinct sciences, since as you say, they are very much related and supporting one another. I simply mean to point out that whether or not a person is guilty before God for a particular offense is distinct from whether or not they are guilty of a crime/offense, or ought to be considered guilty of a crime/offense for which they are rendered non-members of the Church. These are two distinct issues, and we are dealing with both of them, I admit, but we must not confuse them.
I understand that in your example you are trying to make cause and effect relationship, however, it is NOT plain "common sense", really, to assume that.
In your example, if one opens a door, it cannot mean that you wanted to open it; the door could have a spring on it and the person was trying to close it. Or, it was not latched properly, and a large wind or fan within the house opened it at the right time that the person had his hand on it in order to close it; but another person saw it and thought otherwise.
Likewise, if you take the dog out for a walk in an area that the dog was NOT suppose to pea because of landlord rules, and the dog did it anyway, it was NOT your intention; but another person saw it and thought otherwise.
Also, if one went to mass today, it could have been in reason under duress from a threat from his wife or mother, if he did not go there, there would be a consequence; but another person saw it and thought otherwise.
Conclusion, one cannot rashly judge without ALL of the facts; that is why the Holy Catholic Church reserves judgement to Herself, instituted by Christ. "I would rather be judged by God; than by men."
Actually, my argument of opening the door was to point out that a positive action performed is an action intended. It is true in the absolute sense that there are other possible explanations, but as concerns moral certainty (which I will be getting to) there must be evidence (a reason) to believe what is believed. Humans commonly perform actions that they intend to. Exceptionally, a person may perform a deliberate action (distinct from accidents like vehicle collisiosn) without the requisite intention (sleepwalking, insanity, etc.) but some sort of evidence must be present to question whether or not an intent was lacking. We can see this principle at work with the sacraments. If a Catholic minister performs a Catholic rite, it is assumed that he intended to do so. If, on the other hand, some manifest observation casts doubt onto the intention, at that point (and only at that point) may we doubt that there was an intention to perform the act.
This is where we must realize that moral certainty gives us license to act, and informs our intellect on what judgements to make. If you see your neighbor murder someone, you are morally certain that he is a murderer, and you ought to consider him one and act accordingly. You do not need to wait until the judge passes a sentence on him and you do not need to wait until judgement day for God to find him guilty to say that he is a murderer and treat him like one. In fact, to deny moral certainty and instead opt for some far-fetched explanation like his doppelganger being responsible for the crime would be an injustice against prudence.
To which you replied:
Would this not be a rash judgement also, as explained above? It could have been in self defense; and in many cases, it was; but another person saw it and thought otherwise. So no...there is no "realiz[ation] that moral certainty gives us license to act, and informs our intellect on what judgements to make." God forbid. That would be anarchy; that is why there are courts of justice, to state if there is guilt, or if there is no guilt.
God's authority alone passes that judgment through His Church; not from Her children; especially in regards to a Pope. This is where sedevacantists fall into error. They see the effects; but rash judge on ALL of the other areas with presumption and assumption to draw and formulate the "opinions" they pick out of from law; void of the higher Moral Law. Opinions found in the text of Law is only a means and a tool; it is not an end in itself. As such, to judge rashly is a private interpretation that, for justice sake, should not be acted on until the Holiness of the Church courts and declares such with Her Wisdom and just judgements.
What you are proposing is not true. Consider the following from McHugh and Callan (https://archive.org/stream/moraltheologyaco35354gut/pg35354.txt), which would be confirmed in any other theology manual that deals with the conscience:
643. Kinds of Certitude.--Judgments may be certain in a greater or less
degree.
(a) They are metaphysically certain, when error is absolutely
impossible, the opposite of what is held by the mind being a
contradiction in terms which omnipotence itself could not make true.
Example: The judgments that the same, identical act cannot be both good
and bad, that good is to be done and evil to be avoided, that God is to
be honored, are metaphysically certain, since they result immediately
from the very concepts of being, of goodness, and of God.
(b) Judgments are physically certain, when error is impossible
according to the laws of nature, the opposite of what is held by the
mind being unrealizable except through intervention of another cause.
Example: The judgments that he who takes poison will destroy life, that
he who applies fire to a house will destroy property, are physically
certain. because natural agencies, like poison and fire, act infallibly
when applied to suitable matters and under suitable conditions and left
to their course, unless they are overruled by superior power.
(c) Judgments are morally certain, when error is impossible according
to what is customary among mankind, the opposite of what is held by the
mind being so unlikely that it would be imprudent to be moved by it.
Examples: One is morally certain that what a reputedly truthful and
competent person relates to one is true. A person is morally certain
that a conclusion he has drawn about his duty in a particular instance
is correct, if he believes that he has overlooked no means of reaching
the truth. Testimony and inference, since they come from free and
fallible agencies, may lead into error; but, when they appear to have
the requisite qualities indicative of truth, they are for the most part
reliable and in practical life have to be considered as such.
...
644. As to the certainty that is required in the judgment of
conscience, the following points must be noted:
(a) Metaphysical certainty is not required, since conscience does not
deal with primary propositions, but with deductions about particular
acts. The first moral principles, which are the object of synderesis,
and at least some of the general conclusions, which are the object of
moral science, are metaphysically certain (see above 145, 300), as they
are based on necessary relations; but the particular conclusions, which
are the object of conscience, are concerned with the contingent and the
individual.
(b) Physical certainty is not required for the judgment of conscience,
since conscience is not concerned with the activities of natural
agents, but with the activities of moral agents that act with freedom
and responsibility.
(c) Moral certitude, therefore, is sufficient for the conclusions drawn
by conscience. That a higher kind of certitude is not necessary should
not surprise us, for it would be unreasonable to expect that the same
degree of assent be given to judgments that are concerned with
particular and contingent cases as to those that are concerned with
universal and necessary principles.
...
646. Moral certitude in the wide sense is sufficient for a safe
conscience, even in matters of great importance, since it is frequently
the only kind of certitude one can have, and he who would strive to be
free from every slight and baseless suspicion would be soon involved in
a maze of scruples and perplexities.
A judgement which is based on observable facts and is exempt from probable and/or positive doubt (also called "reasonable doubt") is a judgement made with moral certainty, and moral certainty is all that is required to make a judgement.
....
The idea that an apparent fact cannot inform our judgement and allow us to act with safety is borne of scruples and gnosticism. As I mentioned prior, Christ instructed us to be wary of false prophets. This requires us to make judgements based on facts (evidence). We have all already done this regarding the New Mass and the Novus Ordo teachings. Is it so unruly to suggest that the same can be done regarding the men who have spread them? It is certain that it is unruly to claim that any such judgements are "rash" or "presumptuous" provided that they are made with moral certainty.
Are you morally certain that he IS the pope? Because all you have proposed are negative doubts, i.e., "what ifs." We are not to act against positive or probable doubts. A doubtful pope is no pope, just as a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament.
May God bless you, too.
I am sorry at this moment I do not have the time to read this longer post, though I did just see your last paragraph; I will read the rest of your post a little later on.
However, like Clemens Maria, you have answered your own question; and it is right in front of you.
You had said: "A doubtful pope is no pope, just as a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament."
If you saw the Holy Eucharist coming out of a Tabernacle from the Novus Ordo, one can lend that there is doubt that it is a "True Sacrament" because of the new norms (...); however, if that same Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was right in front of you, would you step on it like it is a piece of bread?
Or, as taught in the Catechism, if you have doubt that it is a True Sacrament, wouldn't you treat it as if it was a True Sacrament until verified; less you cause a sacrilege to your soul and scandal to the Church?
So in the example, a doubtful Pope IS a Pope until verified; less you commit a grave offense to your soul and scandal to the Church.
-
Or, as taught in the Catechism, if you have doubt that it is a True Sacrament, wouldn't you treat it as if it was a True Sacrament until verified; less you cause a sacrilege to your soul and scandal to the Church?
More accurately, you would defer to the sacrament because it might be a true sacrament.
-
yes, but i would not receive it...
-
yes, but i would not receive it...
Of course not! You just would not step upon it.
-
thats what i said...
-
Maccabees,
You are making things up. I don't doubt that they make sense to you, but the ideas you're sharing won't be found in Catholic teaching. St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and the Papacy taught that a doubtful pope is no pope. He is not alone, but there is not a weightier opinion than his on the matter.
As concerns sacraments, it is a mortal sin to receive doubtful sacraments. If a Catholic minister performs a Catholic sacrament (and has the requisite intention, which we assume based on him fulfilling the requisite form and matter) then the sacrament is not dubious. If, however, one of these three things are lacking, it is dubious and we cannot approach it.
All doubts (whether it be pope, sacraments or something else) must be resolved, yes, but you are very incorrect in saying that one should act against the doubt before resolution. In fact, this can actually be sinful because it shows a disregard for the truth, and if the subject of the doubt is whether or not an action is lawful, it shows a disregard for the moral law.
-
Mithrandylan,
I do recognize the difference between us.
You, the sedevacantists, begin on the basis of the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law and then try to support it with the Moral Law.
I, on the Scriptural Foundation Pillar of Recognize and Resist, begin on the basis of the Moral Law and then support it with the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
Facts:
- The Moral Law is the higher science than the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
- The Moral Law gives substance to the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
- The Moral Law can sit by itself not needing the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law; though when in its proper order, there is harmony.
In contrast:
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law is the lesser science than the Moral Law.
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law depends on the Moral Law for substance and guidance.
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law cannot sit by itself without the Moral Law; when upside down, not in its proper order, there is disorder.
Conclusion:
- The sedevacantist position is in disorder.
-
The axiom a "doubtful pope is no pope" should be jumped on by the Resistance and other traditional clergy allergic to sedevacantism. Not only do they get to practically continue on as they are, but they get to make a lot more sense than they do now.
The canonists Wernz & Vidal:
"…jurisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship. However, if a pope is truly and permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject. For the law, 'Obedience is owed to the legitimately-elected successor of St. Peter,' does not oblige if it is doubtful; and it most certainly is doubtful if the law has been doubtfully promulgated, for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition. But if the fact of the legitimate election of a particular successor of St. Peter is only doubtfully demonstrated, the promulgation is doubtful; hence that law is not duly and objectively constituted of its necessary parts, and it remains truly doubtful and therefore cannot impose any obligation. Indeed it would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law. Nor could appeal be made to the principle of possession, for the case in question is that of a Roman pontiff who is not yet in peaceful possession. Consequently in such a person there would be no right of command - i.e. he would lack papal jurisdiction."
That makes so much more sense than "he's certainly the pope, and we're certainly going to resist him."
Catholics don't have to be sedevacantists as such to reject the heretics who have usurped Rome. They only have to doubt their legitimacy, and such a doubt gives "license" to resisting. If one is morally certain that any of the VII popes are popes, and one simultaneously resists them, then one is certainly schismatic.
But what faithful Catholic could possibly have moral certainty to these men's claims? They are heretics! Ergo, I do not think the R&R position is inherently schismatic, nor do I think a given R&R Catholic is a schismatic; because I don't think that anyone who is a serious Catholic and not woefully ignorant (culpably or inculpably) of the crisis couldn't possibly not have doubts to these claims.
-
Mithrandylan,
Please put the text books down for a moment, see the sun, the stars, breathe in the fresh air, and know that God has complete control over the situation; He knows what He is doing.
For the sedevacantists to remove themselves, and their legacy, from an eclipse of God's authority, the Pope, is a worse position than to submit to God's mystery of what we cannot control, and recognize God's authority in the Pope while resisting any errors.
It is very Catholic in every other situation when there is doubt in a chosen and elected authority God had provided; until God manifests His will otherwise.
On a side note. I am sure that sedevacantists do "recognize and resist" the doubtful Presidency of Obama who is in office; isn't that a contradiction?
God bless and Merry Christ-Mass...
-
Mithrandylan,
I do recognize the difference between us.
You, the sedevacantists, begin on the basis of the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law and then try to support it with the Moral Law.
I, on the Scriptural Foundation Pillar of Recognize and Resist, begin on the basis of the Moral Law and then support it with the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
Facts:
- The Moral Law is the higher science than the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
- The Moral Law gives substance to the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
- The Moral Law can sit by itself not needing the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law; though when in its proper order, there is harmony.
In contrast:
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law is the lesser science than the Moral Law.
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law depends on the Moral Law for substance and guidance.
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law cannot sit by itself without the Moral Law; when upside down, not in its proper order, there is disorder.
Conclusion:
- The sedevacantist position is in disorder.
Who said I was a sedevacantist? Anyways, I have no idea what this reply is supposed to mean. Is this some psychotheological analysis?
I haven't a clue what your point is here, so I really don't know what to say to you. Are you trying to cast doubt onto the Church's laws, to make them seem as if they do not cause the effects which they clearly state they do? I certainly hope not! The Church's ecclesiastical laws are informed by the Divine Law, and are also part of Her ordinary magisterium, to which all Catholics owe assent. Point: we can trust the Church's laws.
I wrote you a novella, Maccabees. Addressed a lot of specific points. Maybe we can get back to the specifics?
To refresh your memory on a few key points that you have yet to sufficiently address:
1) Moral certainty makes a conscience act safely. Sedevacantists cannot be blamed of being rash or presumptuous if they are morally certain that a given claimant is not the pope
2) Doubts must be resolved before one can act
2.1) Considering the nature of jurisdiction, a doubtful superior cannot be treated as if he were a legitimate superior, i.e., a doubtful pope is no pope
2.3) ["A doubtful pope is no pope" is not the same as having moral certainty that a man isn't the pope, but the practical effect is the same]
3) It is evident that Bergoglio (though we could equally say JPII, PVI or BXVI) has publicly expressed heresy.
4) Heretics are forbidden from office, and if they defect while holding an office, they lose their office by that fact, and by more than one operation of law, and by more than one "set" of laws (since heretics are not members of the Church both as an effect of Divine Law and ecclesiastical law)
5) How can one have moral certainty that a person who was raised a Catholic, educated in Catholic seminary and spent his entire life around religion is not aware (i.e., ignorant of) the most elementary dogmas of the faith?
-----
Sedevacantism is not disordered at all, it is perfectly logical. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but given the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily. What is disordered is to claim everything that the sedevacantists claim, but deny the conclusion.
-
Mithrandylan,
1. Please put the text books down for a moment, see the sun, the stars, breathe in the fresh air, and know that God has complete control over the situation; He knows what He is doing.
2. For the sedevacantists to remove themselves, and their legacy, from an eclipse of God's authority, the Pope, is a worse position than to submit to God's mystery of what we cannot control, and recognize God's authority in the Pope while resisting any errors.
3. It is very Catholic in every other situation when there is doubt in a chosen and elected authority God had provided; until God manifests His will otherwise.
4. On a side note. I am sure that sedevacantists do "recognize and resist" the doubtful Presidency of Obama who is in office; isn't that a contradiction?
God bless and Merry Christ-Mass...
1. It's pitch black and a little below zero. I'm safer inside. A question for you, is why do you think the idea that we are without a pope means that God doesn't have control over the situation? On the contrary, for Catholics to still exist, for the faith to still be taught, for the sacraments to still be accessible while the modernist mafia has usurped and defiled all that which has belonged to Christ's Bride illustrates just how in control He really is.
2. Submitting to mystery is fine by me. Submitting to contradiction is not. Sedevacantism, or at least doubting the VII papacies is submitting to mystery. Where do we go from here? Where is the Church? Do we have a pope? What happened? Don't worry, God's in control! On the other hand, telling me that a manifest heretic is certainly pope is telling me to submit to contradiction.
3. This is simply false. A doubtful superior does not command obedience. On the other hand, a legitimate superior does, insofar as his jurisdictional acts are concerned.
4. It would be an error in judgement. But we are talking about sedevacantism, not sedevacantists. This does not disprove sedevacantism, this does not prove sedeplenism, this does not cause moral certainty surrounding the legitimacy of these men's claims, nor does it resolve the doubt surrounding them.
Merry Christmas to you, too.
-
Mithrandylan,
Please put the text books down for a moment, see the sun, the stars, breathe in the fresh air, and know that God has complete control over the situation; He knows what He is doing.
For the sedevacantists to remove themselves, and their legacy, from an eclipse of God's authority, the Pope, is a worse position than to submit to God's mystery of what we cannot control, and recognize God's authority in the Pope while resisting any errors.
It is very Catholic in every other situation when there is doubt in a chosen and elected authority God had provided; until God manifests His will otherwise.
On a side note. I am sure that sedevacantists do "recognize and resist" the doubtful Presidency of Obama who is in office; isn't that a contradiction?
God bless and Merry Christ-Mass...
“We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope.”[1] (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986)
The SSPX obstinately operates outside of communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, even though it recognizes it as the Catholic hierarchy. This is actually schismatic.
-
Mithrandylan,
I do recognize the difference between us.
You, the sedevacantists, begin on the basis of the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law and then try to support it with the Moral Law.
I, on the Scriptural Foundation Pillar of Recognize and Resist, begin on the basis of the Moral Law and then support it with the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
Facts:
- The Moral Law is the higher science than the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
- The Moral Law gives substance to the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
- The Moral Law can sit by itself not needing the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law; though when in its proper order, there is harmony.
In contrast:
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law is the lesser science than the Moral Law.
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law depends on the Moral Law for substance and guidance.
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law cannot sit by itself without the Moral Law; when upside down, not in its proper order, there is disorder.
Conclusion:
- The sedevacantist position is in disorder.
Who said I was a sedevacantist? Anyways, I have no idea what this reply is supposed to mean. Is this some psychotheological analysis?
I haven't a clue what your point is here, so I really don't know what to say to you. Are you trying to cast doubt onto the Church's laws, to make them seem as if they do not cause the effects which they clearly state they do? I certainly hope not! The Church's ecclesiastical laws are informed by the Divine Law, and are also part of Her ordinary magisterium, to which all Catholics owe assent. Point: we can trust the Church's laws.
I wrote you a novella, Maccabees. Addressed a lot of specific points. Maybe we can get back to the specifics?
To refresh your memory on a few key points that you have yet to sufficiently address:
1) Moral certainty makes a conscience act safely. Sedevacantists cannot be blamed of being rash or presumptuous if they are morally certain that a given claimant is not the pope
2) Doubts must be resolved before one can act
2.1) Considering the nature of jurisdiction, a doubtful superior cannot be treated as if he were a legitimate superior, i.e., a doubtful pope is no pope
2.3) ["A doubtful pope is no pope" is not the same as having moral certainty that a man isn't the pope, but the practical effect is the same]
3) It is evident that Bergoglio (though we could equally say JPII, PVI or BXVI) has publicly expressed heresy.
4) Heretics are forbidden from office, and if they defect while holding an office, they lose their office by that fact, and by more than one operation of law, and by more than one "set" of laws (since heretics are not members of the Church both as an effect of Divine Law and ecclesiastical law)
5) How can one have moral certainty that a person who was raised a Catholic, educated in Catholic seminary and spent his entire life around religion is not aware (i.e., ignorant of) the most elementary dogmas of the faith?
-----
Sedevacantism is not disordered at all, it is perfectly logical. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but given the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily. What is disordered is to claim everything that the sedevacantists claim, but deny the conclusion.
Mithrandylan,
If you are not a sedevacantist, I do apologize. You do write in a staunch position as a sedevacantist. Are you though a sedevacantist?
Yes I have addressed this, and these, questions many times; however, you do not wish to associate the answer to what you are looking for...I’m sorry for that.
Your whole premise, and the sedevacantists, is faulty; therefore, the conclusion is faulty; and you wish others to be entrapped in that philosophy.
Sedevacantist submit they can be wrong in their conclusions, as you have admitted to, and operate on private interpretation, from the opinions of the canonists (...) i.e. from the Traditional Pillar (fathers of the Church...) and the Ecclesiastical Laws.
Sedevacantists, as human beings, who err, have NO, I repeat NO, moral certitude in the absolute judgment on God's highest authority in the Church; that belongs to God alone. Nor do they have any basis to judge at all the authority of God and His Chair. You invoke and provide plentiful opinions from the texts of Law; they must be prepared, as you do, and submitted to the Church authorities. If you cannot do that because of a “block” in the process, then you, and we, must wait until God removes that “block”.
For the sedevacantist movement to “act” anyway to eclipse the authority of God, the Pope, sets itself up as an independent class and a "Legalistic" movement; which is a hindrance to the need in front of them.
There are no contradictions in God, in the Faith, and in this crisis to understand that the Pope was placed there by God’s providence. To associate this is not a contradiction. How and why he got there is NOT in our realm of understanding; but only speculation and assumption.
As it is, Sedevacantists weigh heavily on, and conclude on, these “speculation and assumptions”; that is why, in addition to, being built on a faulty premise; and thus resides on a faulty conclusion.
A story of doubt. One day, we were told that there is a very hungry man-eating lion that someone thought he saw go behind a door. Though he was in doubt, not remembering which of the many doors the lion went behind, we were told that everyone needed to open all the doors to find out where he is. Who now is morally “certain” that the lion is not behind those doors? Do you have a doubt in the situation? Do you want to open one of the doors…?
Doubt is doubt; and remains so. There is no moral “certitude” otherwise.
May God bless you and your family.
-
Mithrandylan,
Please put the text books down for a moment, see the sun, the stars, breathe in the fresh air, and know that God has complete control over the situation; He knows what He is doing.
For the sedevacantists to remove themselves, and their legacy, from an eclipse of God's authority, the Pope, is a worse position than to submit to God's mystery of what we cannot control, and recognize God's authority in the Pope while resisting any errors.
It is very Catholic in every other situation when there is doubt in a chosen and elected authority God had provided; until God manifests His will otherwise.
On a side note. I am sure that sedevacantists do "recognize and resist" the doubtful Presidency of Obama who is in office; isn't that a contradiction?
God bless and Merry Christ-Mass...
“We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope.”[1] (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986)
The SSPX obstinately operates outside of communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, even though it recognizes it as the Catholic hierarchy. This is actually schismatic.
Hello gooch, if you can please finish the rest of Archbishop Lefebvre's context and thoughts on the subject; he acted them out in the rest of his life; he recognized and resisted contrary from the sedevacantists ideas that also existed in his time.
Is not the position of the sedevacantists to eclipse the Pope from authority not "schismatic"?
God bless.
-
Mithrandylan,
I do recognize the difference between us.
You, the sedevacantists, begin on the basis of the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law and then try to support it with the Moral Law.
I, on the Scriptural Foundation Pillar of Recognize and Resist, begin on the basis of the Moral Law and then support it with the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
Facts:
- The Moral Law is the higher science than the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
- The Moral Law gives substance to the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
- The Moral Law can sit by itself not needing the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law; though when in its proper order, there is harmony.
In contrast:
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law is the lesser science than the Moral Law.
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law depends on the Moral Law for substance and guidance.
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law cannot sit by itself without the Moral Law; when upside down, not in its proper order, there is disorder.
Conclusion:
- The sedevacantist position is in disorder.
Who said I was a sedevacantist? Anyways, I have no idea what this reply is supposed to mean. Is this some psychotheological analysis?
I haven't a clue what your point is here, so I really don't know what to say to you. Are you trying to cast doubt onto the Church's laws, to make them seem as if they do not cause the effects which they clearly state they do? I certainly hope not! The Church's ecclesiastical laws are informed by the Divine Law, and are also part of Her ordinary magisterium, to which all Catholics owe assent. Point: we can trust the Church's laws.
I wrote you a novella, Maccabees. Addressed a lot of specific points. Maybe we can get back to the specifics?
To refresh your memory on a few key points that you have yet to sufficiently address:
1) Moral certainty makes a conscience act safely. Sedevacantists cannot be blamed of being rash or presumptuous if they are morally certain that a given claimant is not the pope
2) Doubts must be resolved before one can act
2.1) Considering the nature of jurisdiction, a doubtful superior cannot be treated as if he were a legitimate superior, i.e., a doubtful pope is no pope
2.3) ["A doubtful pope is no pope" is not the same as having moral certainty that a man isn't the pope, but the practical effect is the same]
3) It is evident that Bergoglio (though we could equally say JPII, PVI or BXVI) has publicly expressed heresy.
4) Heretics are forbidden from office, and if they defect while holding an office, they lose their office by that fact, and by more than one operation of law, and by more than one "set" of laws (since heretics are not members of the Church both as an effect of Divine Law and ecclesiastical law)
5) How can one have moral certainty that a person who was raised a Catholic, educated in Catholic seminary and spent his entire life around religion is not aware (i.e., ignorant of) the most elementary dogmas of the faith?
-----
Sedevacantism is not disordered at all, it is perfectly logical. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but given the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily. What is disordered is to claim everything that the sedevacantists claim, but deny the conclusion.
Mithrandylan,
If you are not a sedevacantist, I do apologize. You do write in a staunch position as a sedevacantist. Are you though a sedevacantist?
Yes I have addressed this, and these, questions many times; however, you do not wish to associate the answer to what you are looking for...I’m sorry for that.
Your whole premise, and the sedevacantists, is faulty; therefore, the conclusion is faulty; and you wish others to be entrapped in that philosophy.
Sedevacantist submit they can be wrong in their conclusions, as you have admitted to, and operate on private interpretation, from the opinions of the canonists (...) i.e. from the Traditional Pillar (fathers of the Church...) and the Ecclesiastical Laws.
Sedevacantists, as human beings, who err, have NO, I repeat NO, moral certitude in the absolute judgment on God's highest authority in the Church; that belongs to God alone. Nor do they have any basis to judge at all the authority of God and His Chair. You invoke and provide plentiful opinions from the texts of Law; they must be prepared, as you do, and submitted to the Church authorities. If you cannot do that because of a “block” in the process, then you, and we, must wait until God removes that “block”.
For the sedevacantist movement to “act” anyway to eclipse the authority of God, the Pope, sets itself up as an independent class and a "Legalistic" movement; which is a hindrance to the need in front of them.
There are no contradictions in God, in the Faith, and in this crisis to understand that the Pope was placed there by God’s providence. To associate this is not a contradiction. How and why he got there is NOT in our realm of understanding; but only speculation and assumption.
As it is, Sedevacantists weigh heavily on, and conclude on, these “speculation and assumptions”; that is why, in addition to, being built on a faulty premise; and thus resides on a faulty conclusion.
A story of doubt. One day, we were told that there is a very hungry man-eating lion that someone thought he saw go behind a door. Though he was in doubt, not remembering which of the many doors the lion went behind, we were told that everyone needed to open all the doors to find out where he is. Who now is morally “certain” that the lion is not behind those doors? Do you have a doubt in the situation? Do you want to open one of the doors…?
Doubt is doubt; and remains so. There is no moral “certitude” otherwise.
May God bless you and your family.
Maccabees,
You said that "the whole premise" was wrong. Do you know what premise that is? First, it ought to be said that there is more than one argument to advance the sedevacantist thesis, or at least advance it enough to sufficiently illustrate that the conciliar papacies are dubious. I have focused almost entirely on the argument which I think is the most obvious: they are manifest heretics, manifests heretics are not Catholics and therefore may not hold office in the Church, (the papacy is an office in the Church), ergo... they do not hold it.
Surely you agree that heretics are not Catholics.
Do you also agree that non-Catholics cannot hold office in the Chucrh? I'm sure you do.
Then, what is immediately at hand is whether or not they are heretics. If they are, they can't possibly be popes. And by heretics, I mean manifest heretics, i.e., a person who, while still holding the title of Christian who publicly denies or doubts a de fide teaching of the Church (that is, something which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith) while simultaneously being aware of what the Church actually teaches (in other words, they are not ignorant of the teaching they are doubting or denying).
As far as "private interpretation" is concerned, I would not say that the case against the conciliar popes is private interpretation. It is private "opinion" inasmuch as it is a theory that, at least to this point, has only been publicly advanced by those without a mission from the Church (with the possible exception of Bishop de Castro Meyer) and is therefore an opinion which does not bind any Catholic the way that the Church's magisterium binds. That does not mean that you can disregard it prima facie. As concerns the theologians and canonists opinions, you should be careful not to dismiss them so readily. There is a reason that sedevacantists cite theologians: the theologians support their case! Which theologians have you cited in your argument, which becomes more and more vague as this thread goes on? The approved theologians teach our priests, who eventually become bishops, whose teaching, when unanimous is an act of the infallible ordinary magisterium. Their opinions should not be dismissed as "mere opinions." If you have another approved source which argues against my sources, cite it. Otherwise, all you can offer are nagging doubts, i.e., "what ifs."
Regarding your comment about having no moral certitude, I can only gather that you do not know what moral certainty is, and I'll have to refer you back to my long post where I quoted McHugh and Callan. Leaving that aside for the time being, I agree with all my heart that this must be resolved by the authorities competent to do so, and I'm not sure what I've said that would lead you to believe that I don't. But what you are pointing out here is not a flaw in the thesis, you are only pointing out what is already known and obvious, that the crisis will not be resolved without the intervention of whatever faithful bishops are left.
You said:
"For the sedevacantist movement to “act” anyway to eclipse the authority of God, the Pope, sets itself up as an independent class and a "Legalistic" movement; which is a hindrance to the need in front of them."
How do the sedevacantists act? They pray their rosaries, they go to mass, they do exactly what the non-sedevacantist does. No authority is being eclipsed. I asked a while back if you attend the NO? I assume you don't. This sword cuts both ways. By what authority do you have to declare that a liturgy of the Catholic Church provokes impiety? Don't you know that the Council of Trent issues an anathema to anyone who says such? The private judgement made by the sedevacantist towards the conciliar popes is exactly the same in principle as the judgement non-sedevacantist Catholics have made regarding VII, the NO Mass and all of the other conciliar pomps. What authority do you presume? Examine your own position of non-attendance and non adherence to the NO liturgy and it's teachings and you should easily come to see how the same principles guide the sedevacantist in his decision.
You said:
"There are no contradictions in God, in the Faith, and in this crisis to understand that the Pope was placed there by God’s providence. To associate this is not a contradiction. How and why he got there is NOT in our realm of understanding; but only speculation and assumption."
Of course there are no contradictions in God or the faith. Everything that happens is a matter of God's providence, that does not mean these men are popes. That is the point of contention. It is a contradiction to say that a non-Catholic can hold office in the Catholic Church. If they are Catholics, then they can be pope. If they aren't, that fact alone excludes them.
Your sentimental take on doubt means nothing in the face of approved Catholic theologians. I quoted Wernz and Vidal in my last post, who gave ample reason why a doubtful pope can not be treated like a pope (i.e., he commands no obedience). Do you disagree with them? If a doubtful pope is owed obedience, then how do you justify the SSPX position which is that a certain pope is NOT owed obedience? Don't answer that question, because I'm sure you mis-spoke. Instead, please do focus on either showing that the conciliar popes are not heretics (which is really the way to make your case, instead of appealing to nagging doubts, which mean nothing) or cite a theologian, saint, pontiff or anyone who teaches that a doubtful superior is to be regarded as a true superior until he is proven to not be a superior.
May the Divine Infant bless you this Christmas.
(will be off to midnight mass soon, will probably not be replying soon).
-
Mithrandylan,
Please put the text books down for a moment, see the sun, the stars, breathe in the fresh air, and know that God has complete control over the situation; He knows what He is doing.
For the sedevacantists to remove themselves, and their legacy, from an eclipse of God's authority, the Pope, is a worse position than to submit to God's mystery of what we cannot control, and recognize God's authority in the Pope while resisting any errors.
It is very Catholic in every other situation when there is doubt in a chosen and elected authority God had provided; until God manifests His will otherwise.
On a side note. I am sure that sedevacantists do "recognize and resist" the doubtful Presidency of Obama who is in office; isn't that a contradiction?
God bless and Merry Christ-Mass...
“We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope.”[1] (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986)
The SSPX obstinately operates outside of communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, even though it recognizes it as the Catholic hierarchy. This is actually schismatic.
Hello gooch, if you can please finish the rest of Archbishop Lefebvre's context and thoughts on the subject; he acted them out in the rest of his life; he recognized and resisted contrary from the sedevacantists ideas that also existed in his time.
Is not the position of the sedevacantists to eclipse the Pope from authority not "schismatic"?
God bless.
Hello MachabessI
I don't believe so since we have seen the quotes from Bellarmine stating a heretic ceases to be a pope...but what do you make of this canon
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”
Merry Christmas