Author Topic: A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX (Read 16160 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #90 on:** February 24, 2013, 10:10:40 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

5. The mere adherence to an anti-pope, even one who is a (undeclared) public heretic, does not prove that those who adhere to him are schismatics or heretics, respectively. [Adherence means - adherence to his teaching. Wouldn’t they also be (undeclared) public heretics?]

(your words in brackets)

If it was true adherence to a "pope" as described by pre-Vatican II theology, then yes, they would have followed the Vatican II "popes" into heresy. It is clear that many bishops have done this, and it shows by their words and actions that they have lost the Faith. But, many other cases are not so clear.

But, as the facts show, there are varying degrees of adherence to them. The SSPX for example, does not follow their teachings at all. Could you imagine the SSPX priest being excited about the new encyclical from John Paul II or Benedict XVI? Could you imagine the SSPX bookstore selling Ut Unum Sint?

Those under the Conciliar church who are still Catholic are a different category than the SSPX in that they are in a much more dangerous predicament, as they can more easily be corrupted and led astray. But, the principle remains the same as those in the SSPX. If they have kept the Faith and are either ignorant of the heretical teachings of the anti-pope or resist his teachings in order to remain Catholic, then they have kept the Faith and remain Catholic despite adherence to the anti-pope.

Ambrose · « **Reply #91 on:** February 24, 2013, 10:50:50 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

6. In regards to those bishops of the Roman Rite, the saying of the Novus Ordo Missae would not in and of itself be proof of public heresy. [It would depend on which form of Novus Ordo Missae it is. In the abuses in the Church, there are unfortunately, many different kinds and variations of the Novus Ordo masses out there; some are very “ecuмenically” heretical, and some also add in “clowns”.]

Yes, I agree, that it would further the case of heresy against them. Every piece of evidence leads to a stronger judgment of certainty about the suspected person.

I can tell you a story. Many years ago, I got to know a Conciliar bishop, and during dinner on many occasions he would tell me the Vatican and all of the chanceries of the world needed an excorcism. He loved the traditional Mass, but still said the Novus Ordo publicly. Another guest in his home was a priest who exclusively said the traditional mass, but was unattached to any group at the time, and was seeking incardination into the diocese.

There is no doubt to me that this bishop, despite being under the structure still had the Faith, and was only part of that due to placing his obedience to one who had no right to it. The same for the priest, he did not say the Novus Ordo Missae, but he was still under the Conciliar structure but certainly still had and loved the Catholic Faith.

The examples of this could be replicated many times over. When this crisis finally ends, we may all be surprised how many Catholics still exist under the structure of the Conciliar church.

Machabees · « **Reply #92 on:** February 25, 2013, 07:38:37 PM »

Hello Ambrose,

I do not know if you are preparing a response of your #7 with my reply to that; however, the contents are important and it will help bring this discussion back to the original topic - "Is the Pope Pope; a Formal heretic?"

I will post it again below:

7. There is also a good argument, put forward by John Lane that bishops appointed by the anti-popes, who possess the Catholic Faith, and if it were for the common good could be given habitual jurisdiction as the act would be done with supplied jurisdiction which was supplied to the anti-pope for that individual act. This argument is reasonable, and would substantially increase the numbers of the hierarchy, and I could see this especially in the Eastern Rites. [The emphasis in bold and underlined is mine.] [Ambrose, I do find it interesting that you had written this. In like manner, in another post (above) you had written:

"Now, in addition to the bishops alive with habitual jurisdiction, that I have mentioned above, John Lane has put forth an interesting argument that bishops appointed by the anti-popes would be valid due to supplied jurisdiction given to the anti-pope for that specific act if that act were for the common good.”

Yet, you also had said in the same post (above), that:

“I do believe the question can be applied to Paul VI. It appears that the universal Church did initially accept his claim, so he is in a different category. I believe that there are two possibilities with Paul VI. One could argue that he since he was a public heretic that he was never Pope. This argument is more difficult to prove. The other argument, and this one can be more easily made and proved is that on December 7th, 1965 Paul VI certainly lost his office due to professing public heresy.

Public heretics immediately lose their jurisdiction in the Church, as they are no longer members of the Church. St. Robert teaches, basing his teaching on the universal agreement of the Fathers "Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity."

So my question for you is: Which of these two extremes does your group of sedevacants believe in?

In other words, you cannot say on one hand that: “The Pope lost his office; and the chair of Peter is vacant.”…”Public heretics immediately lose their jurisdiction in the Church, as they are no longer members of the Church.”…”They are ipso-facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity."

Then say on the other hand,: “Bishops appointed by the anti-popes would be valid due to supplied jurisdiction given to the anti-pope.”

Ambrose, in your sedevacant scenario, if he is illegally there with everything else you have said above, then that illegal man cannot appoint, direct, choose, nominate, etc., anyone regardless of Supplied jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction is a Church Law that is used for “abnormal” situations for the Church (members) to function; it is not there for non-members, imposters, to use it, guide from it, and appoint with it. As you said: “He is a NON-member with NO function and dignity.”

Therefore, what remains, is actually your innate understanding of this.

Meaning, as you summarized, you find it: “would be reasonable…and a good argument…that jurisdiction which is supplied to the (undeclared) public heretic bad Pope for the different acts of Government…for the common good of the Church to function”, this innate understanding of yours is precisely what I, RJS, and others are speaking about when we say that the (undeclared) public heretic bad Pope may have lost the “supernatural membership”, but not the membership of government; like an example of a father of a family.

May I suggest, when you have the time, to read the good exchanges RJS had with others in this thread. You will see, as he goes deeper into the question, which it is not really about the Pope, good or bad, heretic or not, it is about the “nature” and “function” of how the Church operates that is the necessary and essential question.

In one of my earlier posts, I have addressed the “nature and function” of this in an example of a father of a family. I will re-post it below.]

Quote

A father of a family is a member of that family, first by natural propagation (let us leave that out to apply this example), he is a member by government and jurisdiction, and a member by the Faith in the "objective" sharing and cultivation of that faith commanded by God to spread that Faith.

One day, this father started, in his person, to "teach" something different to that Faith in the "supernatural life" in his private capacity while in the Chair of his position (like Aaron and the golden calf, Caiaphas condemning Jesus Christ to death, Solomon and his permission of ecuмenical groves to be built to false gods and worship, and many others who had "taught" things contrary to that Faith). The children members started to complain to their father about this. The father listened, or half listened, and continued on; perhaps in human respect, or in peer pressure, or in a different upbringing of “understanding” of that Faith in its meanings and terms, or an outright abandonment of that understanding of the Faith to purposely teach something else, as with many other possibilities (matter/material of the heresy).

As this persisted in the Providence of this cross in the family, God had provided also many prophecies and apparitions that this crisis will happen, there are now, unfortunately, more divisions and turmoils in the body of the family, which have now developed into different things of understandings, sayings, and beliefs from the original Faith and peace that was in that family to begin with. However, everyone does want the health of the body and membership of the family for the glory of God.

In this cross that continues for many years, there now comes a question in the family by some members: is the father still the father? The obvious to this question is: of course he is; he is the father. He is the father to still provide and govern the family. He still has the jurisdiction of authority to do so unless God removes him and replaces him with another (foster) father.

With this above example, it gives an understanding of today’s unprecedented crisis with speaking about the Pope. Like the father of the family, as with the Pope, the meaning and example is the same.

The Pope is “teaching” something different to that Faith in his private capacity of the "supernatural life", while in the Chair of his position, like Aaron and the golden calf, Caiaphas condemning Jesus Christ to death, Solomon and his permission of ecuмenical groves to be built to false gods and worship, and many others who had "taught" things contrary to that Faith, but they are still members of that governing capacity, with authority, and jurisdiction.

So is the Pope the Pope? Yes. He may have erred in his private capacity in the “supernatural life” like the father in his position; he is none the less, still the member of government, authority, and jurisdiction until God chooses to remove him.

I will also add,

Archbishop Lefebvre's position has always been, first, to keep the Faith of your baptism: "If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." (Galatians 1:9). And secondly, to honor the Authority and Seat of "Moses"; the Authority and Seat of Peter in the "official" Church.

Is the present Pope an [undeclared] heretic losing the membership of the supernatural life of the Catholic faith? Perhaps. However, until he is judged by a competent Authority of another Pope, or Ecclesiastical Council, he still has the Authority of the Chair of Peter in the membership and Head of Government.

Below is a quote of the Archbishop coming from the recent Cathinfo thread: "A Catechism of the Crisis in the SSPX".
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-Catechism-of-the-Crisis-in-the-SSPX

Quote

73. Does that really contradict the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre?
Obviously. “The visible church is recognized by the features that have always given to visibility: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. I ask: Where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more in the official Church (this is not the visible Church, but the official church) or in us, in what we represent, what we are? Clearly we are who preserve the Unity of the faith, which disappeared from the official Church. ... It is not us, but the modernists who are leaving the Church. As for talk of ‘leaving the visible Church,’ it is a mistake to the visible Church one and the same as the official Church. We belong to the visible Church, to the faithful under the authority of the Pope, since we aren’t denying Papal authority, just what he is doing. ... How about ‘Leaving the official Church’, then? In a certain sense, obviously, yes.” (Econe, 09/09/1988)

Ambrose, that certainly is a huge difference the Archbishop had, than a "sedevacant" belief.

Ambrose · « **Reply #93 on:** February 26, 2013, 12:28:26 AM »

Hello Ambrose,

Machabees wrotes:

Quote

I do not know if you are preparing a response of your #7 with my reply to that; however, the contents are important and it will help bring this discussion back to the original topic - "Is the Pope Pope; a Formal heretic?"

I will post it again below:

7. There is also a good argument, put forward by John Lane that bishops appointed by the anti-popes, who possess the Catholic Faith, and if it were for the common good could be given habitual jurisdiction as the act would be done with supplied jurisdiction which was supplied to the anti-pope for that individual act. This argument is reasonable, and would substantially increase the numbers of the hierarchy, and I could see this especially in the Eastern Rites. [The emphasis in bold and underlined is mine.] [Ambrose, I do find it interesting that you had written this. In like manner, in another post (above) you had written:

"Now, in addition to the bishops alive with habitual jurisdiction, that I have mentioned above, John Lane has put forth an interesting argument that bishops appointed by the anti-popes would be valid due to supplied jurisdiction given to the anti-pope for that specific act if that act were for the common good.”

Yet, you also had said in the same post (above), that:

“I do believe the question can be applied to Paul VI. It appears that the universal Church did initially accept his claim, so he is in a different category. I believe that there are two possibilities with Paul VI. One could argue that he since he was a public heretic that he was never Pope. This argument is more difficult to prove. The other argument, and this one can be more easily made and proved is that on December 7th, 1965 Paul VI certainly lost his office due to professing public heresy.

Public heretics immediately lose their jurisdiction in the Church, as they are no longer members of the Church. St. Robert teaches, basing his teaching on the universal agreement of the Fathers "Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity."

So my question for you is: Which of these two extremes does your group of sedevacants believe in?

In other words, you cannot say on one hand that: “The Pope lost his office; and the chair of Peter is vacant.”…”Public heretics immediately lose their jurisdiction in the Church, as they are no longer members of the Church.”…”They are ipso-facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity."

Then say on the other hand,: “Bishops appointed by the anti-popes would be valid due to supplied jurisdiction given to the anti-pope.”

Ambrose, in your sedevacant scenario, if he is illegally there with everything else you have said above, then that illegal man cannot appoint, direct, choose, nominate, etc., anyone regardless of Supplied jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction is a Church Law that is used for “abnormal” situations for the Church (members) to function; it is not there for non-members, imposters, to use it, guide from it, and appoint with it. As you said: “He is a NON-member with NO function and dignity.”

Therefore, what remains, is actually your innate understanding of this.

Meaning, as you summarized, you find it: “would be reasonable…and a good argument…that jurisdiction which is supplied to the (undeclared) public heretic bad Pope for the different acts of Government…for the common good of the Church to function”, this innate understanding of yours is precisely what I, RJS, and others are speaking about when we say that the (undeclared) public heretic bad Pope may have lost the “supernatural membership”, but not the membership of government; like an example of a father of a family.

Hi Machabees,

I had not forgotten to answer this, just delayed by some other threads and obligations beyond this forum. I will answer your post in two separate posts, to keep the ideas separate.

As an aside, you wrote, "your group of sedevacants," in this post. I am not part of a group of sedevacantists. I regard myself only as a Catholic, and my only membership is in the Church. While I have friends that are sedevacantists, there is no group.

This topic is a difficult one to explain if you have not been exposed to the concept of supplied jurisdiction. You appear to be assuming that there is a contradiction in what I wrote. The Church can supply even to those outside the Church if the conditions are met.

In the case of the anti-popes, it is clear that due to pertinacious public heresy that they have lost the Faith, and due to that have lost their membership in the Church, and due to that have lost their offices, if they had them to begin with.

In the case of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, I believe a strong argument can be made that they did not ever have the office of Pope to begin with as they lacked the universal consent of the Church. But, that is another topic altogether.

You may or may not be aware, but the clergy in the traditional groups, SSPX, CMRI, etc., all rely on supplied jurisdiction every time they absolve one in confession. If there are 20 people in the confession line, the Church supplies 20 separate times for the absolution of each penitent.

The Church would also supply jurisdiction to a schismatic priest, who, if no Catholic priest was available, to hear the confession and absolve a Catholic in danger of death.

Now, to the case we are discussing. Would the Church supply for certain particular acts of the anti-pope if they were for the common good of the Church if there was common error about his status? Just so we are clear, we are only discussing cases in which the appointee would be for the common good. The appointment of a heretic certainly would not be for the common good, for example. For myself, I could more easily see this taking place in the Eastern Rites of the Church, perhaps those appointments in going back to the 1960's to the 1980's most especially.

If the conditions were met, the jurisdiction would be supplied. To not believe this, would be to deny the concept of supplied jurisdiction, which can supply in any case in which the conditions are met, even to those outside the Church, as stated above.

Miaskiewcicz in his lengthy dissertation on supplied jurisdiction states:

Quote

There is no jurisdiction that the Church cannot supply. There is no jurisdiction which the Church will not supply, provided that the proper conditions are verified. But as Berutti well points out, no greater nor any more jurisdiction is supplied by the Church in the case of common error than that which in reality corresponds to the measure and coincides with the content either of the jurisdictional competence associated with some entrusted function (munus) or of the authorized powers inherent in some established office (officium), when it is solely to the extent of that function and office that the common error of the faithful has been occasioned.

Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, The Catholic University of America, Canon Law Studies, No. 122, , Miaskiewcicz, 1940, p. 304.

I would urge you to read the entire study. Supplied Jurisdiction is a complex subject, and is commonly misunderstood, and is beyond the explanation I can give you in a post on this forum. You can find the entire dissertation here:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Miaskiewicz--Canon%20209.pdf

Ambrose · « **Reply #94 on:** February 26, 2013, 01:20:40 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

In one of my earlier posts, I have addressed the “nature and function” of this in an example of a father of a family. I will re-post it below.]

Quote:
A father of a family is a member of that family, first by natural propagation (let us leave that out to apply this example), he is a member by government and jurisdiction, and a member by the Faith in the "objective" sharing and cultivation of that faith commanded by God to spread that Faith.

One day, this father started, in his person, to "teach" something different to that Faith in the "supernatural life" in his private capacity while in the Chair of his position (like Aaron and the golden calf, Caiaphas condemning Jesus Christ to death, Solomon and his permission of ecuмenical groves to be built to false gods and worship, and many others who had "taught" things contrary to that Faith). The children members started to complain to their father about this. The father listened, or half listened, and continued on; perhaps in human respect, or in peer pressure, or in a different upbringing of “understanding” of that Faith in its meanings and terms, or an outright abandonment of that understanding of the Faith to purposely teach something else, as with many other possibilities (matter/material of the heresy).

As this persisted in the Providence of this cross in the family, God had provided also many prophecies and apparitions that this crisis will happen, there are now, unfortunately, more divisions and turmoils in the body of the family, which have now developed into different things of understandings, sayings, and beliefs from the original Faith and peace that was in that family to begin with. However, everyone does want the health of the body and membership of the family for the glory of God.

In this cross that continues for many years, there now comes a question in the family by some members: is the father still the father? The obvious to this question is: of course he is; he is the father. He is the father to still provide and govern the family. He still has the jurisdiction of authority to do so unless God removes him and replaces him with another (foster) father.

With this above example, it gives an understanding of today’s unprecedented crisis with speaking about the Pope. Like the father of the family, as with the Pope, the meaning and example is the same.

The Pope is “teaching” something different to that Faith in his private capacity of the "supernatural life", while in the Chair of his position, like Aaron and the golden calf, Caiaphas condemning Jesus Christ to death, Solomon and his permission of ecuмenical groves to be built to false gods and worship, and many others who had "taught" things contrary to that Faith, but they are still members of that governing capacity, with authority, and jurisdiction.

So is the Pope the Pope? Yes. He may have erred in his private capacity in the “supernatural life” like the father in his position; he is none the less, still the member of government, authority, and jurisdiction until God chooses to remove him.

Machabees,
I understand your analogy, and thank you for your thoughts about this.

In regards to a father, he will always by nature and by Divine law be the head of his family. While the family may have to resist him if he is evil, he is still the lawful head.

This differs substantially from an office in the Church or state for that matter. The law of nature, the natural law, determines that the father and the husband retain headship over the wife and children. This is also part of the Divine law.

In regards to the Old Covenant, there was not a Church. There was the chosen people, with the commandments, the belief in the one true God, the coming messiah, etc.

In the new law, Our Lord created the Church and the Petrine office with St. Peter as the first Pope, and the Apostles who would have successors as bishops. In the Church, certain conditions were necessary for a man to become a bishop or to become the Pope.

One of those conditions necessary is that one must be a member of the Church. Those outside the Church cannot possess any office in the Church. (You can find this teaching from many sources, papal, theologians, canonists).

Now, if one is already the Pope or a bishop in the Church, and he falls into heresy, and becomes a heretic, knowing the conflict between the Church's teaching and his heretical ideas, then he would lose his membership in the Church, and by that fact, lose his office.

The offices of the Church are contingent on one remaining a member of the Church. If the membership is lost, the office is lost. Why do you think in the Code, the loss of office for public heresy is not in the section with the censures, it is in the section dealing with resignation. To become a heretic, one of his own will leave the Church, and by that tacitly resigns his office by operation of the law.

Now, I do not want to confuse the issues here. I am not, by saying this minimizing the importance of the declaration on the matter by the Pope. But, as the Code teaches, and as the Doctors and theologians have taught a heretic loses his office from the moment he becomes a heretic, and this is prior to the declaration of the Church.

When we as laypeople or clerics recognize here one professing public heresy, and we have serious grounds for believing the individual is pertinacious, that he understands the conflict between his position and that of the teaching of the Church, then we can conclude that the individual is a heretic prior to the declaration of the Church. I would urge you to read this essay, which explains this point: http://strobertbellarmine.net/judgeheresy.html

When we recognize a heretic, prior to the judgment of the Church, it is our judgment, our certitude of the facts and evidence. We have no authority in the Church. We must await a future Pope to declare this fact, and when he does it will bind the Church. It will not longer be our certitude based on the evidence that these men are public heretics, but it will be the voice of the Church declaring that fact.

I could write another post about a second way of determining that these men are not popes, which is to say that if they were popes, then logically one must conclude the Church has defected as heresy has been taught and evil law promulgated to the universal Church by the "Pope."

Ambrose · « **Reply #95 on:** February 26, 2013, 01:34:10 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

Archbishop Lefebvre's position has always been, first, to keep the Faith of your baptism: "If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." (Galatians 1:9). And secondly, to honor the Authority and Seat of "Moses"; the Authority and Seat of Peter in the "official" Church.

Is the present Pope an [undeclared] heretic losing the membership of the supernatural life of the Catholic faith? Perhaps. However, until he is judged by a competent Authority of another Pope, or Ecclesiastical Council, he still has the Authority of the Chair of Peter in the membership and Head of Government.

Below is a quote of the Archbishop coming from the recent Cathinfo thread: "A Catechism of the Crisis in the SSPX".
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-Catechism-of-the-Crisis-in-the-SSPX

Quote:
73. Does that really contradict the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre?
Obviously. “The visible church is recognized by the features that have always given to visibility: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. I ask: Where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more in the official Church (this is not the visible Church, but the official church) or in us, in what we represent, what we are? Clearly we are who preserve the Unity of the faith, which disappeared from the official Church. ... It is not us, but the modernists who are leaving the Church. As for talk of ‘leaving the visible Church,’ it is a mistake to the visible Church one and the same as the official Church. We belong to the visible Church, to the faithful under the authority of the Pope, since we aren’t denying Papal authority, just what he is doing. ... How about ‘Leaving the official Church’, then? In a certain sense, obviously, yes.” (Econe, 09/09/1988)

Ambrose, that certainly is a huge difference the Archbishop had, than a "sedevacant" belief.

Machabees,

I posted on a different thread a while back about this very issue of the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre on sedevacantism, I will post it below, as I think it relevant the point you have brought up:

Taken from: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Archbishop-Lefebvre-1986-Address-to-Seminarians (included in this link is also the text of the Archbishop's speech along with the text of St. Robert Bellarmine on a heretical pope. )

Quote

I have read and re-read this speech many times. I believe that the principles given by the Archbishop in this speech need to be studied and reflected upon. The importance of this speech cannot be minimized. It gives the principles to understand the fundamental question of our day: how to determine the status of the Post-Conciliar claimants. I hope the following reflections help those on this forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who have read the above Address of Archbishop Lefebvre, I would urge you to take note of the following principles:

1. The Archbishop understood that a judgment could be made against these popes.

2. He understood that the criteria for judging them would be the evidence that stood against them.

3. He acknowledges that the heretical actions of John Paul are public.

4. He acknowledges that the actions of John Paul are grounds to make him suspect of heresy, and states that if he continues in these actions we could determine that he would be a public heretic. The Archbishop stated: " In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church." Note carefully: Such a judgment would be made prior to the judgment of the Church, and that the judgement would be made with the external evidence of the "popes" actions. Secondly take note that the Archbishop bases this on the teaching of the Church.

5. The Archbishop is clearly looking for more evidence to finally be certain that the John Paul was a public heretic and apostate. He gives a potential answer to that in the 1986 apostasy that was being planned by John Paul II.

6. The Archbishop states exactly what St. Robert teaches, that the Pope cannot be a public heretic. He stated: "it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise?"

7. Based on the principle that a public heretic cannot be a pope, and recognizing the fact of the continued public heresy of John Paul, the Archbishop concludes with: "So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope." (Note: The Archbishop is saying this based on the external evidence known to him, and this judgment could be made without any canonical warnings or council.)

8. The Archbishop gives the standard that is to be used to make the judgment against John Paul II: the evidence. He stated, "It is so important, so grave, so sad, that we prefer to wait until Providence gives us such evidence, that it is no longer possible to refuse to say that the Pope is a heretic." He states again after this that Assisi may be the evidence that he needs to judge the matter.

9. The next principle that the Archbishop gives is that Catholics cannot ignore the matter of the Pope issue. He specifically states that Catholics cannot content themselves with the Sacraments, the Mass, and the true doctrine., and then ignore the Pope. This is an error, and the Archbishop stated that. The reason why is that the Archbishop rightly knew that the Pope is the center of the unity of the Church.

10. The Archbishop then states again that we cannot ignore the heretical actions of the "pope," and that we must judge these acts, saying, "we can't be indifferent to these scandalous events in Rome, we must judge them in the light of our Faith and help Catholics, traditional Catholics, to see that this bad example of the Pope is a great scandal, very dangerous for their souls."

11. The Archbishop then states that the evidence is growing against these men by stating, " I pray for it to be clear beyond doubt, wholly evident. And I think that now we are in this time, I think that it is the answer of God. I would much prefer Providence to be showing us the Vatican returning to Tradition, but instead we see the Vatican plunging into darkness and error. And so it is sure that now it is not as difficult to see as it was one or two years ago, it is more clear and evident that they are no longer truly Catholic. No persecution or revolution in all history has so destroyed the Church as these years since the Council, because today the Faith is being destroyed by men of the Church, by the Pope himself, by Cardinals, by bishops, priests and nuns. It is the wholesale, worldwide and radical destruction of the Faith."

Two points to consider from #11:

He acknowledges that the Pope is destroying the Faith of men.

He acknowledges that in the year or two since the address that the matter has become more clear to him that John Paul II and his henchmen were not Catholic.

Final conclusion: The principles given by Archbishop Lefebvre on sedevacantism are identical to the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.

Machabees · « **Reply #96 on:** March 07, 2013, 05:29:16 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Hello Ambrose,

Machabees wrotes:
Quote

I do not know if you are preparing a response of your #7 with my reply to that; however, the contents are important and it will help bring this discussion back to the original topic - "Is the Pope Pope; a Formal heretic?"

I will post it again below:

7. There is also a good argument, put forward by John Lane that bishops appointed by the anti-popes, who possess the Catholic Faith, and if it were for the common good could be given habitual jurisdiction as the act would be done with supplied jurisdiction which was supplied to the anti-pope for that individual act. This argument is reasonable, and would substantially increase the numbers of the hierarchy, and I could see this especially in the Eastern Rites. [The emphasis in bold and underlined is mine.] [Ambrose, I do find it interesting that you had written this. In like manner, in another post (above) you had written:

"Now, in addition to the bishops alive with habitual jurisdiction, that I have mentioned above, John Lane has put forth an interesting argument that bishops appointed by the anti-popes would be valid due to supplied jurisdiction given to the anti-pope for that specific act if that act were for the common good.”

Yet, you also had said in the same post (above), that:

“I do believe the question can be applied to Paul VI. It appears that the universal Church did initially accept his claim, so he is in a different category. I believe that there are two possibilities with Paul VI. One could argue that he since he was a public heretic that he was never Pope. This argument is more difficult to prove. The other argument, and this one can be more easily made and proved is that on December 7th, 1965 Paul VI certainly lost his office due to professing public heresy.

Public heretics immediately lose their jurisdiction in the Church, as they are no longer members of the Church. St. Robert teaches, basing his teaching on the universal agreement of the Fathers "Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity."

So my question for you is: Which of these two extremes does your group of sedevacants believe in?

In other words, you cannot say on one hand that: “The Pope lost his office; and the chair of Peter is vacant.”…”Public heretics immediately lose their jurisdiction in the Church, as they are no longer members of the Church.”…”They are ipso-facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity."

Then say on the other hand,: “Bishops appointed by the anti-popes would be valid due to supplied jurisdiction given to the anti-pope.”

Ambrose, in your sedevacant scenario, if he is illegally there with everything else you have said above, then that illegal man cannot appoint, direct, choose, nominate, etc., anyone regardless of Supplied jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction is a Church Law that is used for “abnormal” situations for the Church (members) to function; it is not there for non-members, imposters, to use it, guide from it, and appoint with it. As you said: “He is a NON-member with NO function and dignity.”

Therefore, what remains, is actually your innate understanding of this.

Meaning, as you summarized, you find it: “would be reasonable…and a good argument…that jurisdiction which is supplied to the (undeclared) public heretic bad Pope for the different acts of Government…for the common good of the Church to function”, this innate understanding of yours is precisely what I, RJS, and others are speaking about when we say that the (undeclared) public heretic bad Pope may have lost the “supernatural membership”, but not the membership of government; like an example of a father of a family.

Hi Machabees,

I had not forgotten to answer this, just delayed by some other threads and obligations beyond this forum. I will answer your post in two separate posts, to keep the ideas separate.

As an aside, you wrote, "your group of sedevacants," in this post. I am not part of a group of sedevacantists. I regard myself only as a Catholic, and my only membership is in the Church. While I have friends that are sedevacantists, there is no group.

This topic is a difficult one to explain if you have not been exposed to the concept of supplied jurisdiction. You appear to be assuming that there is a contradiction in what I wrote. The Church can supply even to those outside the Church if the conditions are met.

In the case of the anti-popes, it is clear that due to pertinacious public heresy that they have lost the Faith, and due to that have lost their membership in the Church, and due to that have lost their offices, if they had them to begin with.

In the case of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, I believe a strong argument can be made that they did not ever have the office of Pope to begin with as they lacked the universal consent of the Church. But, that is another topic altogether.

You may or may not be aware, but the clergy in the traditional groups, SSPX, CMRI, etc., all rely on supplied jurisdiction every time they absolve one in confession. If there are 20 people in the confession line, the Church supplies 20 separate times for the absolution of each penitent.

The Church would also supply jurisdiction to a schismatic priest, who, if no Catholic priest was available, to hear the confession and absolve a Catholic in danger of death.

Now, to the case we are discussing. Would the Church supply for certain particular acts of the anti-pope if they were for the common good of the Church if there was common error about his status? Just so we are clear, we are only discussing cases in which the appointee would be for the common good. The appointment of a heretic certainly would not be for the common good, for example. For myself, I could more easily see this taking place in the Eastern Rites of the Church, perhaps those appointments in going back to the 1960's to the 1980's most especially.

If the conditions were met, the jurisdiction would be supplied. To not believe this, would be to deny the concept of supplied jurisdiction, which can supply in any case in which the conditions are met, even to those outside the Church, as stated above.

Miaskiewcicz in his lengthy dissertation on supplied jurisdiction states:

Quote
There is no jurisdiction that the Church cannot supply. There is no jurisdiction which the Church will not supply, provided that the proper conditions are verified. But as Berutti well points out, no greater nor any more jurisdiction is supplied by the Church in the case of common error than that which in reality corresponds to the measure and coincides with the content either of the jurisdictional competence associated with some entrusted function (munus) or of the authorized powers inherent in some established office (officium), when it is solely to the extent of that function and office that the common error of the faithful has been occasioned.

Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, The Catholic University of America, Canon Law Studies, No. 122, , Miaskiewcicz, 1940, p. 304.

I would urge you to read the entire study. Supplied Jurisdiction is a complex subject, and is commonly misunderstood, and is beyond the explanation I can give you in a post on this forum. You can find the entire dissertation here:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Miaskiewicz--Canon%20209.pdf

Hello Ambrose,

I am well aware of Supplied Jurisdiction, what it is, and what it does.

However, you still have not answered my question:

Quote

You cannot say on one hand that: “The Pope lost his office; and the chair of Peter is vacant.”…”Public heretics immediately lose their jurisdiction in the Church, as they are no longer members of the Church.”…”They are ipso-facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity."

Then say on the other hand,: “Bishops appointed by the anti-popes would be valid due to supplied jurisdiction given to the anti-pope.”

Ambrose, in your sedevacant scenario, if he is illegally there with everything else you have said above, then that illegal man cannot appoint, direct, choose, nominate, etc., anyone regardless of Supplied jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction is a Church Law that is used for “abnormal” situations for the Church (members) to function; it is not there for non-members, imposters, to use it, guide from it, and appoint with it. As you said: “He is a NON-member with NO function and dignity.”

Machabees · « **Reply #97 on:** March 07, 2013, 06:45:19 PM »

Ambrose,

I do find sedevacantism very interesting, in that you had said many times in posts past, that sedevacantism is a "private" matter and others are not obliged to believe your conclusions.

In other words, whether those who are in "groups" or are "individuals", you all are representative to a "private" conclusion with "external" manifestations in separate societies of religious gatherings "encouraging" others in believing what another "privately" thinks on the matter[/u].

Simply, if the Pope is an undeclared heretic, as you had written many times, and the Holiness of the Church, by God's voice, has not manifested a "conclusion" to this crisis that He is allowing for the greater good of a certain something, then no one (laity) can go around "privately" declaring that the Pope is an "anti-Pope". That would be much like Protestantism; with an independent spirit.

As Bishop Williamson has said in His recent conference in Post Falls: "Protestantism and Sedevacantism are two sides of the same coin".

Protestantism: To individually "protest" against God's Church, and His order, is one of disaster.

Sedevacantism: To individually "privately believe" (Dogmatic Sedevacantism or other) that the order of God's church, His providence, is empty for 50-years of visible authority is also one of disaster.

Open the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, you will never find an eclipse of Visible Authority; it is not in God's order. So this question obliges one to raise to a stronger and humbler Faith while looking at this "mystery". If God is God, then He knows what He is doing (...).

There are so many "private" variations of sedevacantism, it leads to "private interpretation" and a type of an independent democratic spirit of "self-governance" within the Church. The Church that only God had Created, only He Governs, only He sanctifies, and only that He Provides for -there is no room for "private" interpretations.

I understand, Ambrose, what you are writing; by itself is not the answer. The part that sedevacants are not arriving at is the "whole" picture of the crisis, with the elements of human nature, human history, Biblical history, La Salette, Fatima, etc., is that there is a reason God allowed this crisis; it is a lot BIGGER than "is the Pope the Pope or not", important as it is, it is not the main issue.

This is a universal SHAKING of the whole world to its very foundation; all Catholics, pagans, atheists, and false religions, etc., are affected. All of the past, present, and future history is in axis of this present, unprecedented, crisis. The Old Testament has its unique human drama; the New Testament also has its own human drama that is being played out, before our very eyes, in God's plan -for His Son, Jesus Christ.

Ambrose · « **Reply #98 on:** March 08, 2013, 02:38:34 AM »

Hello Machabees,

I hope that you are having a fruitful and blessed Lent!

To your questions:

You wrote:

Quote

Hello Ambrose,

I am well aware of Supplied Jurisdiction, what it is, and what it does.

However, you still have not answered my question:

Quote:
You cannot say on one hand that: “The Pope lost his office; and the chair of Peter is vacant.”…”Public heretics immediately lose their jurisdiction in the Church, as they are no longer members of the Church.”…”They are ipso-facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity."

Then say on the other hand,: “Bishops appointed by the anti-popes would be valid due to supplied jurisdiction given to the anti-pope.”

Ambrose, in your sedevacant scenario, if he is illegally there with everything else you have said above, then that illegal man cannot appoint, direct, choose, nominate, etc., anyone regardless of Supplied jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction is a Church Law that is used for “abnormal” situations for the Church (members) to function; it is not there for non-members, imposters, to use it, guide from it, and appoint with it. As you said: “He is a NON-member with NO function and dignity.”

I believe I did answer it, but perhaps I have failed to answer it clearly. You say that the Church cannot supply to a non-member of the Church, but what do you base this on? Are you aware that the Church can and does supply jurisdiction to schismatics (non-members of the Church) who hear the confessions of Catholics in danger of death. There was good discussion about this recently with some good source material if you have some time: http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1301

I do stand by the fact that the anti-pope is illegally there, he is a public heretic and cannot be pope. But, with that being said, the Church's teaching on supplied jurisdiction applies whenever the conditions are met. In my post I quoted the following to support that position:

Quote

There is no jurisdiction that the Church cannot supply. There is no jurisdiction which the Church will not supply, provided that the proper conditions are verified. But as Berutti well points out, no greater nor any more jurisdiction is supplied by the Church in the case of common error than that which in reality corresponds to the measure and coincides with the content either of the jurisdictional competence associated with some entrusted function (munus) or of the authorized powers inherent in some established office (officium), when it is solely to the extent of that function and office that the common error of the faithful has been occasioned.

Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, The Catholic University of America, Canon Law Studies, No. 122, , Miaskiewcicz, 1940, p. 304. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Miaskiewicz--Canon%20209.pdf

I think, to answer the question of whether jurisdiction would be applied to the anti-pope, we would first have to see if the conditions were met.

1. Is there a common error about the status of the anti-pope?: Among most Catholics there is a common error. Many accept his claim and in some dioceses it appears that almost all accept his claim.

2. Are his appointments for the common good?: In most cases, I would argue that they are not for the common good, but in some cases it could be argued.

Some cases of this, in my opinion may be the bishops of the eastern rites, at least in the earlier days of the Conciliar church who have kept the Faith and it would have been for the common good of the diocese having a lawful bishop who can govern a diocese is good for the souls under his care.

I also believe this could apply to bishops in the Roman Rite, who had kept the Faith, and were appointed before the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI. There would be no reason to think that the conditions as described above would not have been met.

Lastly, I believe it may be argued in other cases, but we would have to look at the particulars. In all cases that I described or in any other bishop's case, if they were indeed a bishop and the Church supplied jurisdiction to the anti-pope for the appointment, the conditions must have been met.

I hope this further clarifies. God bless.

Ambrose · « **Reply #99 on:** March 09, 2013, 12:39:43 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

Ambrose,

I do find sedevacantism very interesting, in that you had said many times in posts past, that sedevacantism is a "private" matter and others are not obliged to believe your conclusions.

In other words, whether those who are in "groups" or are "individuals", you all are representative to a "private" conclusion with "external" manifestations in separate societies of religious gatherings "encouraging" others in believing what another "privately" thinks on the matter.

Machabees,

Thank you for your thoughts. I will respond to your points below.

Quote

I do find sedevacantism very interesting, in that you had said many times in posts past, that sedevacantism is a "private" matter and others are not obliged to believe your conclusions.

In other words, whether those who are in "groups" or are "individuals", you all are representative to a "private" conclusion with "external" manifestations in separate societies of religious gatherings "encouraging" others in believing what another "privately" thinks on the matter.

Simply, if the Pope is an undeclared heretic, as you had written many times, and the Holiness of the Church, by God's voice, has not manifested a "conclusion" to this crisis that He is allowing for the greater good of a certain something, then no one (laity) can go around "privately" declaring that the Pope is an "anti-Pope". That would be much like Protestantism; with an independent spirit.

Sedevacantism is a private judgment of a public fact. So, in one sense it is private, but in another sense it is public. We could not form such a judgment of another if the evidence was not public, and if we could not be certain that the public heretic was pertinacious.

Yes, you are not obliged to believe anything I tell you, sedevacantism or not. I have no authority to teach or govern you. The only obligation comes from you, if you see these truths, then you are obliged to adhere to the truth, not because I told you, but because you see the truth of it. The truth places an obligation on us, for those who clearly see it.

Think of it this way: You live in a small town, and you see a burglar coming out a broken window holding a crowbar a bag of money and jewelry and as the man climbing out the window you clearly recognized him as the well respected mayor of the town. You report the matter and as word spreads around town, the people say, "He must have saw things wrong, it could not have been the mayor," and "maybe he is making this up," and so forth. You keep insisting on the truth, but to no avail. They do no believe you. But, no matter what anyone else says, even if the whole town refuses to believe what you say, you know the truth, and you cannot deny what you saw.

In this story, are you obliged to believe the truth of what you saw, despite the fact that no one believes you? Can you deny your own senses and the evidence you witnessed? Everyone else may have a different take on the evidence, but you know what you saw, and you are bound to your own conscience, and this is regardless of any public judgment from a court.

This is what I am telling you. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have publicly taught heresy to the universal Church. This is a fact and there is public evidence to support this. According to the law of the Church, guilt is presumed, but in our case, guilt can also be presumed for additional reasons, that the heretics were well educated in the faith, and also that the heretics were opposed by those with the Faith at the Second Vatican Council by the orthodox bishops, such as those led by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Catholics can identify a heretic prior to the judgment of the Church. They can identify a heretic by his words, his writings and his actions. This is not the same as declaring one a heretic with authority. We are only witnessing to the fact that this person is a public heretic. Such a person cannot be a member of the Church, therefore he cannot hold office in the Church. This was the clear teaching of St. Robert based on the universal agreement of the fathers.

In regards to encouraging others to recognize a heretic, we are doing our duty in charity to our neighbor. To remain silent when and allow an undeclared heretic free reign to harm the souls of Catholics would be a complete disregard for the spiritual welfare of our neighbor. If a man was was leading other men over a cliff, would you have a duty to warn those who he was leading to their death, to not follow him?

In addition to helping Catholics recognize the heretic, in this particular case, we must also help them to recognize the status of the anti-pope, as it is the anti-pope who is the heretic. The Pope, as you know is the supreme authority in the Church, he was the power to teach Catholics and they must submit, he has the power to promulgate law and they must obey, he cannot be ignored, and if a Catholic falsely believes in the claim of these men, they can easily be led astray.

If we do not warn our neighbor about the the status of these men, we are failing in charity. We would not be telling them that the man dressed as a shepherd, acting as a shepherd is in reality a wolf who is leading them to Hell.

Quote

Archbishop Lefebvre also knew that the Pope question could not be ignored, he said 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 a 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. He is the centre of the Church and has a great influence on all Catholics by his attitudes, his words and his acts. All men read in the newspapers the Pope's words and on television they see his travels. And so, slowly, slowly, many Catholics are losing the Catholic Faith by the scandal of the Pope's partaking in false religions. This ecuмenism is a scandal in the true sense of the word, an encouragement to sin. Catholics are losing faith in the Catholic Church. They think all religions are good because the Pope in this way befriends men of all religions. (Address to Seminarians, 1986)

Ambrose · « **Reply #100 on:** March 09, 2013, 01:08:09 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

Simply, if the Pope is an undeclared heretic, as you had written many times, and the Holiness of the Church, by God's voice, has not manifested a "conclusion" to this crisis that He is allowing for the greater good of a certain something, then no one (laity) can go around "privately" declaring that the Pope is an "anti-Pope". That would be much like Protestantism; with an independent spirit.

Machabees,

I am continuing this on a separate post as the ideas are separate for the purpose of clarity.

You and I agree that there is great mystery to what is happening to the Church, and that God is in control and that He will draw good out of this.

But, when you say that the laity or the clergy cannot warn others of a public heretic acting as an imposter to the office of papacy, then I respectfully disagree. It is our duty to love our neighbor, but how can be love our neighbor if we do not warn him of the wolf that is trying to devour him?

The case against these men is iron-clad. It is impossible that these men could have been popes. If these men were truly popes, then the Church would have defected, heresy and grave errors against the Faith would have been taught by the "pope" to the universal Church. This is directly against the apostolicity of the Church which protects the Church from teaching any new doctrine, not found in deposit of Faith. In addition the Church protects the apostolic lines, there should never be doubt about the episcopal lines of bishops. If the Church recognizes a line they are safe, but how many traditional catholics have serious doubts about them. In addition to this, the Church would have given evil through its canons and through its sacramental rites. This is directly against the holiness of the Church.

If we are wrong on this, the Church has failed, and that is impossible. The Church is the pillar of truth, she cannot be the pillar of heresy and error. The Church cannot give stones rather than bread. If the Church claiming to be the Apostolic Church is doing these things then it is not the Church, it is a pack of wolves. These men claiming to be St. Peter's successor, if they truly were his successor would have forever changed the Church to an unholy, impious unapostolic, heretical erroneous church which leads those who follow it to Hell.

It is a fact that these men are not popes, I and all who see this lack any authority to bind you to this fact. You do not have to believe me, I have no authority over you. But, you cannot ignore your own conscience which commands obedience to the truth. If you see the truth of this, then you cannot ignore it. The facts I have spoken of are public facts, the theology is known, the canons on this are known, and when the facts are applied to the theology and the sacred canons, there can only be one result.

Ambrose · « **Reply #101 on:** March 09, 2013, 01:40:49 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

Machabees wrote:

As Bishop Williamson has said in His recent conference in Post Falls: "Protestantism and Sedevacantism are two sides of the same coin".

Protestantism: To individually "protest" against God's Church, and His order, is one of disaster.

Sedevacantism: To individually "privately believe" (Dogmatic Sedevacantism or other) that the order of God's church, His providence, is empty for 50-years of visible authority is also one of disaster.

Open the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, you will never find an eclipse of Visible Authority; it is not in God's order. So this question obliges one to raise to a stronger and humbler Faith while looking at this "mystery". If God is God, then He knows what He is doing (...).

There are so many "private" variations of sedevacantism, it leads to "private interpretation" and a type of an independent democratic spirit of "self-governance" within the Church. The Church that only God had Created, only He Governs, only He sanctifies, and only that He Provides for -there is no room for "private" interpretations.

I understand, Ambrose, what you are writing; by itself is not the answer. The part that sedevacants are not arriving at is the "whole" picture of the crisis, with the elements of human nature, human history, Biblical history, La Salette, Fatima, etc., is that there is a reason God allowed this crisis; it is a lot BIGGER than "is the Pope the Pope or not", important as it is, it is not the main issue.

This is a universal SHAKING of the whole world to its very foundation; all Catholics, pagans, atheists, and false religions, etc., are affected. All of the past, present, and future history is in axis of this present, unprecedented, crisis. The Old Testament has its unique human drama; the New Testament also has its own human drama that is being played out, before our very eyes, in God's plan -for His Son, Jesus Christ.

Machabees,

First off, let me state that I am one who thinks well of Bp. Williamson and in general agree with on most things. On matters of our Catholic Faith, we would agree on all things.

With that said, I do not know why Bp. Williamson has said these things. But I will now answer the objections, always with respect to the bishop.

Protesants deny the authority of the Church, the believe that they can privately interpret scripture and they do not accept Sacred Tradition or the authority of the Church.

Sedevacantists, on the other hand completely adhere to the teaching of the Church, the accept the authority of scripture and of course the authority of the Church.

Sedevacantists are not the aggressors here. We are reacting to what is being forced upon us. When the crisis began in the 1960's Catholics were taken off guard, they did not know what to do, as heresy was being taught by the Pope and the bishops. Eventually the Novus Ordo came, and many Catholics eventually retreated from the Conciliar church. In this time of crisis, the reaction was to retreat and resist the heresy and evil being imposed upon them. This was a good and correct Catholic reaction.

As time went on, in the 1970's and 80's some Catholics continued the initial reaction and continued to adhere to these popes in name, but not in practice. Others, wanted deeper answers, and wanted to understand how heresy can be taught to the universal Church by the Pope, how evil can come from the Church, and how the Church can give an impious and sacrilegious mass.

These Catholics who made the judgment that these things could not have come from the Church and the men who imposed them could not have been Popes, as the Popes could not do such things, as if these men were Popes, then the Church would have been bound to evil and heresy.

Sedevacantists are ready to submit to the lawful authority of the Church when it comes again, and they also realize in the absence of authority that they are not an authority.

Sedevacantists also realize that there must be a visible authority in the Church, as in all interregnums, the hierarchy continues, and it is to this day present in the world, in those bishops who have been lawfully appointed and who have kept the Faith.

Sedevacantists also recognize that the particular church of Rome cannot defect, and that there is still alive in the world today, some or at least one member of the Roman clergy, who have not defected, and by that have kept the Faith.

There is an eclipse today, it appears to the uneducated and to those who lack faith that the Church has failed, that the hierarchy has completely failed and has lost the Faith.

But, what we do know is the Church cannot fail, the hierarchy is less visible than it once was, and is greatly diminished in number. But, with effort they can be found. The Apostolicity of the Church must continue until the end, the succession of the Apostles in both mission and order cannot be broken.

On all of your other points, I agree with you, this crisis is a shaking of the world and the Church, is is as though we are living in a time of opposites, what was once known to be true is now considered false, and what was false is now true. Everything is upside down, and the longer this crisis goes on the more intense gets, all truth, whether natural or Divine has been flipped over in the modern world.

In my opinion, we as the remaining Catholics cannot effectively resist this evil until a Pope comes again to lead us. The successor of St. Peter can do combat with this beast, and we can stand behind him, to be led by him, and perhaps die with him, but it will be him sent by God who will lead us.

Let us pray that the day will come soon. God bless you, thank you for this discussion and be assured of my prayers during this Lent.

Ambrose · « **Reply #102 on:** March 09, 2013, 06:40:03 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

Machabees wrote:

As Bishop Williamson has said in His recent conference in Post Falls: "Protestantism and Sedevacantism are two sides of the same coin".

Protestantism: To individually "protest" against God's Church, and His order, is one of disaster.

Sedevacantism: To individually "privately believe" (Dogmatic Sedevacantism or other) that the order of God's church, His providence, is empty for 50-years of visible authority is also one of disaster.

Open the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, you will never find an eclipse of Visible Authority; it is not in God's order. So this question obliges one to raise to a stronger and humbler Faith while looking at this "mystery". If God is God, then He knows what He is doing (...).

There are so many "private" variations of sedevacantism, it leads to "private interpretation" and a type of an independent democratic spirit of "self-governance" within the Church. The Church that only God had Created, only He Governs, only He sanctifies, and only that He Provides for -there is no room for "private" interpretations.

I understand, Ambrose, what you are writing; by itself is not the answer. The part that sedevacants are not arriving at is the "whole" picture of the crisis, with the elements of human nature, human history, Biblical history, La Salette, Fatima, etc., is that there is a reason God allowed this crisis; it is a lot BIGGER than "is the Pope the Pope or not", important as it is, it is not the main issue.

This is a universal SHAKING of the whole world to its very foundation; all Catholics, pagans, atheists, and false religions, etc., are affected. All of the past, present, and future history is in axis of this present, unprecedented, crisis. The Old Testament has its unique human drama; the New Testament also has its own human drama that is being played out, before our very eyes, in God's plan -for His Son, Jesus Christ.

Machabees,

First off, let me state that I am one who thinks well of Bp. Williamson and in general agree with on most things. On matters of our Catholic Faith, we would agree on all things.

With that said, I do not know why Bp. Williamson has said these things. But I will now answer the objections, always with respect to the bishop.

Protesants deny the authority of the Church, the believe that they can privately interpret scripture and they do not accept Sacred Tradition or the authority of the Church.

Sedevacantists, on the other hand completely adhere to the teaching of the Church, the accept the authority of scripture and of course the authority of the Church.

Sedevacantists are not the aggressors here. We are reacting to what is being forced upon us. When the crisis began in the 1960's Catholics were taken off guard, they did not know what to do, as heresy was being taught by the Pope and the bishops. Eventually the Novus Ordo came, and many Catholics eventually retreated from the Conciliar church. In this time of crisis, the reaction was to retreat and resist the heresy and evil being imposed upon them. This was a good and correct Catholic reaction.

As time went on, in the 1970's and 80's some Catholics continued the initial reaction and continued to adhere to these popes in name, but not in practice. Others, wanted deeper answers, and wanted to understand how heresy can be taught to the universal Church by the Pope, how evil can come from the Church, and how the Church can give an impious and sacrilegious mass.

These Catholics who made the judgment that these things could not have come from the Church and the men who imposed them could not have been Popes, as the Popes could not do such things, as if these men were Popes, then the Church would have been bound to evil and heresy.

Sedevacantists are ready to submit to the lawful authority of the Church when it comes again, and they also realize in the absence of authority that they are not an authority.

Sedevacantists also realize that there must be a visible authority in the Church, as in all interregnums, the hierarchy continues, and it is to this day present in the world, in those bishops who have been lawfully appointed and who have kept the Faith.

Sedevacantists also recognize that the particular church of Rome cannot defect, and that there is still alive in the world today, some or at least one member of the Roman clergy, who have not defected, and by that have kept the Faith.

There is an eclipse today, it appears to the uneducated and to those who lack faith that the Church has failed, that the hierarchy has completely failed and has lost the Faith.

But, what we do know is the Church cannot fail, the hierarchy is less visible than it once was, and is greatly diminished in number. But, with effort they can be found. The Apostolicity of the Church must continue until the end, the succession of the Apostles in both mission and order cannot be broken.

On all of your other points, I agree with you, this crisis is a shaking of the world and the Church, is is as though we are living in a time of opposites, what was once known to be true is now considered false, and what was false is now true. Everything is upside down, and the longer this crisis goes on the more intense gets, all truth, whether natural or Divine has been flipped over in the modern world.

In my opinion, we as the remaining Catholics cannot effectively resist this evil until a Pope comes again to lead us. The successor of St. Peter can do combat with this beast, and we can stand behind him, to be led by him, and perhaps die with him, but it will be him sent by God who will lead us.

Let us pray that the day will come soon. God bless you, thank you for this discussion and be assured of my prayers during this Lent.

trento · « **Reply #103 on:** March 09, 2013, 10:46:47 AM »

"But, what we do know is the Church cannot fail, the hierarchy is less visible than it once was, and is greatly diminished in number. But, with effort they can be found."

I'll be interested to know if any sedes have found this 'eclipsed hierarchy'. If anyone says it was Cardinal Siri, please seriously rethink your position:

Ambrose · « **Reply #104 on:** March 09, 2013, 01:24:35 PM »

Quote from: trento

"But, what we do know is the Church cannot fail, the hierarchy is less visible than it once was, and is greatly diminished in number. But, with effort they can be found."

I'll be interested to know if any sedes have found this 'eclipsed hierarchy'. If anyone says it was Cardinal Siri, please seriously rethink your position:

Trento,

They are in plain sight, but they are obscured due to the Conciliar church. They are all of the bishops lawfully appointed who have not defected from the Faith. It is not easy to identify them, because the crisis in the Church has made it difficult to differentiate them from the bishops who have lost the Faith.

In order to know who they are it would be necessary to know things about them such as their writings, speeches, sermons, actions, etc. Adherence to the anti-pope is not proof in and of itself that they have defected from the Faith.