Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Machabees on February 01, 2013, 12:49:25 AM
-
Essentially, this is a conversation that began in another thread, entitled “News from the front...”, http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22601&min=130&num=5
and evolved into this subject: “A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX”. “Is the Pope Pope; a Formal heretic?”
For context, I have “imported” some of the beginning articles and responses below.
Ambrose wrote:
Sedevacantism is not a doctrine, it is a response to the crisis. The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope. We as Catholics are doing what they tell us to do.
You would not know that because the Society has suppressed and misrepresented the correct Catholic teaching about how to respond to a publicly heretical pope. But, you can read it for yourself, it is in all of the approved books if you take the time.
Ambrose, which reading material are you referring to when you wrote: "The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope."? And, which approved books are you referring to? Can you provide some links?
Thankyou.
-
Ambrose wrote:
Sedevacantism is not a doctrine, it is a response to the crisis. The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope. We as Catholics are doing what they tell us to do.
You would not know that because the Society has suppressed and misrepresented the correct Catholic teaching about how to respond to a publicly heretical pope. But, you can read it for yourself, it is in all of the approved books if you take the time.
Ambrose, which reading material are you referring to when you wrote: "The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope."? And, which approved books are you referring to? Can you provide some links?
Thankyou.
There is so much that is difficult on where to start. But, I can give you a few things that are well worth reading, and if you want more, let me know.
1. Archbishop Lefebvre: In 1986, the Archbishop gave an excellent address to seminarians on sedevacantism. In it he explains the criteria to be used in determining that we are in a state of sedevacante which is the evidence of public heresy such as the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Assisi sacrilege. http://www.sedevacantist.com/lefebvresede.html
Take note on this that some SSPX folks like to quote the Archbishop on earlier statements, pre-1986, but his position was evolving as the crisis continued. If you want to learn more about Archbishop Lefebvre and his thinking on sedevacantism, Restoration Radio just did a very good show on it recently. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2012/09/09/archbishop-lefebvre
2. Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope, Fr. Cekada: In 1995 and revised in 2006, Fr. Cekada put together a great tract which collected with docuмentation the teaching of the Popes and theologians about what happens to a heretical Pope: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf Many of the excerpts are in Appendix I, but if you have time read the entire tract, it is well worth your time.
3. Answering the Objections to the Sedevacantist Position, Bishop Mark Pivarunus, CMRI, http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html This tract gives some excellent references and sources to numerous theologians and canonists.
4. If you have any questions on sedevacantism beyond that, I would refer you to read the Bellarmine Forums, in which hundreds of topics have been put forward covering every aspect of the sedevacantist position since the forum started in 2006. You will find any answer you need there to every question that you may have: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/index.php
God bless, and I hope this helps in your search for the truth!
-
Ambrose wrote:
Sedevacantism is not a doctrine, it is a response to the crisis. The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope. We as Catholics are doing what they tell us to do.
You would not know that because the Society has suppressed and misrepresented the correct Catholic teaching about how to respond to a publicly heretical pope. But, you can read it for yourself, it is in all of the approved books[/b] if you take the time.
Ambrose, which reading material are you referring to when you wrote: "The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope."? And, which approved books are you referring to? Can you provide some links?
Thankyou.
Thanks Ambrose for the links.
I do not know why I received a thumb’s down for an inquiry of information. I can presume of someone’s intention, but then I would be doing the same in “misjudging” as the one who had given a thumb’s down.
None the less, in reading through some of these 29 pages of posts that went from “News from the front...” to a Sedevacantist subject, I am interested in Ambrose’s statement of: "The Popes, doctors, theologians and canonists all state that this is the correct response to a publicly heretical pope." And, “you can read it for yourself; it is in all of the approved books.” Frankly, I have not seen anything in writing to this claim.
Yes I very much desire to know the truth. Scripture says: "test all things", in that testing, I do not have any interest in putting any "emotion" into it, nor any other type of influences, or "admixture". As Bishop Williamson says, “I am a Roman Catholic. Not a conservative Catholic. Not a traditional Catholic, nor any other variant. I am a Roman Catholic.”. Throughout this dark crisis of Martyrdom, and disfigurement in the Catholic Church, I profess the same Faith, in my Baptism, as St. Peter, and all of the Martyrs and Saints (pre-Vat. II).
I am aware of the pre-Neo SSPX position of Sedevacantism, and the basic tenants of the Sedevacantist position itself. I have been in conversations over the years with different exchanges of Sedevacantism that were really an “emotional” argument. I also went to a conference given by Gerry Matitics a few years ago. Gerry’s position of Sedevacantism had two pillars: First, Gerry says that the Pope is a "material and formal" heretic in what he says -therefore the Pope is not the Pope. Second, that there is no longer a valid “form” for consecrating a Bishop (a post-Vat.II) -therefore the Pope is not a Bishop- therefore the Pope is not a Pope.
If someone can answer this, I have always had these 4-simple questions:
- Is what Gerry said (above) still the main two pillars of Sedevacantism? Is it different? Or is there more added to it, and if so, what is it?
- How can Gerry, or others, judge that the Pope is a “formal” heretic? Isn’t it that only another valid Pope and a Council of the Catholic Church do that?
- If the apparition of Fatima is true, in which it is in being approved by the (pre-Vat. II) Catholic Church, and Our Lady said in that apparition: “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”, then, if there is “no” Pope, especially including the last 2 or 3 popes, and there is “no” longer any valid bishops (and cardinals), how can there be a Pope, or even another “elected” pope, to fulfill the promise of our Lady of Fatima for which needs a real / valid Pope who is in the line of St. Peter to do this consecration?
- Our Lord had promised: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia: Where Peter is, there is the Church”. How is it that if there is an eclipsed “Peter”, of “no” Pope in all of these 50-years, that the Catholic Church being in a state of no “Peter”, along with the Catholic Church no longer having “valid” consecrations for a bishop (and cardinal), then it shows that the Catholic Church will always be in a state of “no” Pope? You need a Bishop to consecrate another Bishop. How then, can both off these promises of Our Lady and Our Lord be fulfilled if there is “no” Pope at present, or in the future? Has not therefore, in all of this premise of Sede-vacantist (the chair is vacant…), that “the gates of hell prevailed against it”?
So yes, I am interested if someone can answer these 4-simple questions.
-
Machabees,
You ask good questions. I will try my best to give you good answers.
1. Machabees wrote:
Gerry’s position of Sedevacantism had two pillars: First, Gerry says that the Pope is a "material and formal" heretic in what he says -therefore the Pope is not the Pope. Second, that there is no longer a valid “form” for consecrating a Bishop (a post-Vat.II) -therefore the Pope is not a Bishop- therefore the Pope is not a Pope.
If someone can answer this, I have always had these 4-simple questions:
- Is what Gerry said (above) still the main two pillars of Sedevacantism? Is it different? Or is there more added to it, and if so, what is it?
In regard to Gerry Matatics, I believe he is a case in point of the dangers that can come about when a convert jumps too quickly into matters of theology without the careful training that is needed. Another good example of this is the Dimond brothers.
But, to your point, I do not agree that the two points you mentioned are the two pillars of sedevacantism. First, it is not relevant to the determine if a suspected heretic is a formal heretic or not. How can one make such a determination anyway?
Sedevacantism essentially is built on two pillars, but not the one's you mentioned. They are: (1) It can be proven that Paul VI and his successors are pertinacious public heretics, and due to this they have either lost their office or have never assumed the office of the Papacy to begin with. (2) It is impossible for Paul VI and his successors to have been Popes because if they were Popes, they would have taught heresy and given evil laws to the universal Church. The indefectibiliy and the note of holiness of the Church would prevent such things from happening.
Regarding the destruction of the consecration rite of bishops in the Roman Rite, I believe it is an argument against Benedict XVI being a bishop.
2. Machabees wrote: How can Gerry, or others, judge that the Pope is a “formal” heretic? Isn’t it that only another valid Pope and a Council of the Catholic Church do that?
Yes, you are right. Only the Pope can declare one a heretic. What we are discussing here is what happens to a public heretic prior to the judgment of the Church. Catholics have the right and the duty to defend themselves against a public heretic and when one is detected, and one is morally certain that the culprit has publicly and pertinaciously espoused heresy, then we can privately conclude that they have defected from the Faith, and that if that person held and office in the Church that they have lost their office as they are no longer a Catholic.
If times were normal, our duty would be to report such a person to the Church authorities, and it would be their duty to investigate and publicly judge the heretic. Once the Church declares a person a heretic, then all are bound to recognize that fact. That is why in our current situation, the status of the post Vatican II "popes" is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter.
3. Machabees wrote:
- If the apparition of Fatima is true, in which it is in being approved by the (pre-Vat. II) Catholic Church, and Our Lady said in that apparition: “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”, then, if there is “no” Pope, especially including the last 2 or 3 popes, and there is “no” longer any valid bishops (and cardinals), how can there be a Pope, or even another “elected” pope, to fulfill the promise of our Lady of Fatima for which needs a real / valid Pope who is in the line of St. Peter to do this consecration?
You make a key assumption in the above. There are most certainly bishops with jurisdiction (the hierarchy) still in the world, they are just less visible than they once were. I agree that there are no longer at present any cardinals, but that does not prevent an election of the Pope. In the absence of the Cardinals, the right of election falls to the bishops and the clergy of Rome.
At any point of the crisis, if the remaining bishops and the clergy of Rome would have gathered together to elect to elect a Pope, then that would have been a lawful act. The mechanism of the Church to resolve this crisis would have ended it. It has not yet happened, but it could happen at any time. It may take a miracle to bring this about, but that is what we as Catholics know very well, that miracles can and do happen.
The power to end this crisis and elect a Pope has been sitting in front of all of us the entire time. The best chance of this happening in my opinion would have been in the earlier time of the crisis, when so many bishops were not happy with Vatican II. If only they gathered, declared Paul VI or John Paul II a public heretic and then proceeded to elect a Pope, this could have all ended, but they did not so we must now depend on those bishops and members of the clergy or Rome who God has allowed a long life and who have kept the Faith.
You can be sure of one thing. We will once again have a Pope, and despite the late hour, he will consecrate Russia in union with the remaining bishops. We can be certain of this, as we have the word of Our Lady.
4. Machabees worte:
Our Lord had promised: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia: Where Peter is, there is the Church”. How is it that if there is an eclipsed “Peter”, of “no” Pope in all of these 50-years, that the Catholic Church being in a state of no “Peter”, along with the Catholic Church no longer having “valid” consecrations for a bishop (and cardinal), then it shows that the Catholic Church will always be in a state of “no” Pope? You need a Bishop to consecrate another Bishop. How then, can both off these promises of Our Lady and Our Lord be fulfilled if there is “no” Pope at present, or in the future? Has not therefore, in all of this premise of Sede-vacantist (the chair is vacant…), that “the gates of hell prevailed against it”?
The gates of Hell will never prevail! We can be certain of that. The Petrine Office has continued through the crisis, we just await having a man fill it and become Pope. There is nothing against the Faith which would state that period of sedevacante could not continue for any amount of years.
There are still bishops alive appointed by Pope Pius XII, and others appointed by John XXIII and others until the Roman Rite changed. The rites of the East, kept the sacramental rites intact at least for the most part, and to the best of my knowledge there would be no reason to doubt them.
For myself, I believe there is a strong argument to believe that the state of sedevacante did not begin until December 7, 1965, the day Paul VI officially taught heresy to the universal Church. Using that date as a "line in the sand" we could be certain that all bishops appointed prior to that date have habitual jurisdiction, i.e. they are members of the hierarchy, so long as they have kept the Faith. This also goes for the members of the clergy of Rome, all appointments would have been valid up until that date.
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, One could imagine this to be the case in some Eastern rite dioceses. (A poster on this forum, Nishant, has challenged John Lane on this point indirectly, but as of yet, despite urging by myself and SJB has chosen to not put forth his case against John Lane on the Bellarmine Forums.)
Regardless of the position put forward by Mr. Lane, it is an indisputable fact that there are in the world today bishops lawfully appointed by a Pope prior to December 7, 1965, and that fact alone demonstrates that the visibility of the hierarchy has been maintained through the crisis and is still present to this very day.
So, to conclude your point, the Apostolicity of the Church is safe, as it must be. Some may argue that it hard to conceive of the Church with so few bishops. I would state in reply that the Church once existed with only 11 member of the hierarchy in the entire world, all located in one room.
I hope this helps, and I have prayed for you today for Our Lady to help you in your search for the truth. God bless.
-
Thank you, Ambrose, for your response to my earlier questions.
In reading your response, I do have more questions. Some are for understanding your definitions and some are for clarity in what you had written.
I hope it is ok with you, that as I was responding to you, this post developed into more of my thoughts. So I will actually write two posts to respond. First, this one can be a general part of our conversation, and a second, in specific to the contents of what you had written for some clarity on your thoughts.
In progressing with our good exchange, I think it is important to draw on the same Catholic footing of common understanding; in which, the biggest question here for the whole Church in this unprecedented crisis, is: “Is the Pope the Pope, or not”? And, “Is the Chair vacant, or not”? These two questions are in the height of this overall crisis -for the obvious reasons- it causes massive separation in the whole Church -“When the Shepherd is struck, the sheep are scattered”. These two questions are essentially two separate questions that have their own meanings; yet, they are also relational when it applies to “heresy” in the same person of a residing Pope.
In addition, I know that within this particular crisis, there may be one, or both, of these above questions that arises to a possible “sedevacantism” in this Pope and may be in the other past Popes.
With that said, there presently exists different groups in this crisis of the Catholic Church; some Catholics that claim the “chair is already vacant” (sedevacant); some Catholics who do not believe it to be yet; some Catholics who just go along with it; and the rest of the Catholics are in apathy.
In respect to our conversation, and this era’s crisis, that with the proposed tenants of these different secevacantist groups who claim that the “chair is already vacant”, there is one common premise that all of them share, and is built on: “The pope is teaching contrary to the Faith → the Pope is a heretic → he is not the Pope → one cannot follow him → therefore, the chair is vacant (sedevacant).” In this common premise (with 5-parts) within these groups, each group emphasis one, or more, of these parts in a formulation of thesis, and then carry it out into an existence; sometimes without intent; sometimes with intent. In other words, there are very honest individuals who seek out the truth and are led down different roads, and there are some individuals, to say bluntly, who seek out a “lifestyle” of independence to do what they want…
In reading your posts with others, I sense that you are an individual who is seeking out the truth. That is why I am happy to converse with you on this very important subject within this terrible crisis of the Faith.
What continues to guide us in the Catholic Faith, and to discern these particular matters: is Her Wisdom, Doctrine, Saints, Tradition, Canon Law, etc.. In all, Her teaching gives us the balanced answer to this particular situation. Specifically, to discern the allegation that this Pope (and his present Bishops) are teaching things contrary to the Faith, and therefore, is a “heretic” that dismisses his function within his office as a residing Pope.
As there are so many treatises available over the internet that disposes arguments from each group, and proves that Benedict XVI, JPII, and JPVI are heretics, that for the sake of this conversation, I will approach this a little more simply.
Firstly, I very much agree with you that these Vatican II Popes (Cardinals and Bishops) are teaching -Modernism- which is contrary to the deposit of the Faith; In their erroneous teachings, it is very much validated with numerous proofs and in their own writings, that they are deserving in the least to be: “Reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2). And if in their persistence, a most needed ecclesiastical court of trial, as the Holiness of the Church has always done in the historical past.
We know what heresy is, and what a heretic is, we now need to know: “what is the Church’s teaching on the difference between Material and Formal heretics”? And, “How does the Church judge on this matter?
There are many “word” expressions of defining the difference between MATERIAL and FORMAL heretics. Here is a simple one I copied off of the internet: “The Catholic Church expressly distinguishes between ‘material’ and ‘formal’ heretics. A ‘MATERIAL’ heretic is one who externally denies a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of the Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently, from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false prejudice, or by an anti-Catholic upbringing. A ‘FORMAL’ heretic rejects the Church and its teaching absolutely, and with full deliberation, willfully and guiltily.”
So now, “How does the Church judge on this matter”?
Again using a simple “word” expression: “If a baptized Catholic, in defined by the Church, as a “Material” heretic, the one who is in concern does not cease to be part of the Church, rather he must be properly “Reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2). If there is ‘Pertinacity’ in his or her error, then in Justice for the soul, for the common good, and for the fairness of the judgment -it must be tried in an ecclesiastical court to determine if in fact the one in error is a “formal” heretic. When judged if it is certain that he or she is a ‘FORMAL’ heretic. The one is severed from the Church membership; while none the less, still remaining Catholic by the mark of Baptism, but severed from the salvation of the Church.”
The history of the Catholic Church has many examples of these ecclesiastical court judgments. Martin Luther for one, a Catholic priest, erred in “material” heresy, and then judged in an ecclesiastical court as a “Formal” heretic. And so on…
To apply this to a Pope, history shows the Catholic Church resolved this in God’s providence with another ecclesiastical court -with Pope Honorius- he was condemned and excommunicated by the sixth general council in the year 680. And so on… There have also been many other bad Popes in the Church’s history. God’s providence supplied the means and dealt with them when it was “ripe” in his providence for the particular cause God was meeting out to his people. Here is a website I just found with “Top 10 Most Wicked Popes” from the [Catholic Encyclopedia] http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
So the BIG question here is: “what kind of heretic is the Pope(s) -Material or Formal”?
To answer that, in the present difficulty for us on how to “deal” with a RESIDING Pope, is a real problem. We must remember, however, when attempting to accuse the Pope of “FORMAL” heresy, one must keep in mind that it can only be done in the Catholic Church, through the competent authority alone, who alone can issue an ecclesiastical judgment on a “Formal” heretic. And the only authority competent to judge the successor of Peter -is another Pope- or a General Council! Hence, God showed in his providence many times, that He waited until after the “accused” was dead in his obstinacy. Like others in Church history, and in the secular, Pharaoh, Diocletian, etc..
The “trial” for us in this time of having a RISIDING Pope, who is at least a “material” heretic, is waiting on God’s manifest providence. In other words, at every point when God showed He was “ready” to act: it was pronounced, clear, decisive, and complete. The only “Head” above “Peter” is Christ Himself. He certainly does know what He is doing. Do we push it before it is His time? Where is the Providence to convene a General Council to condemn these errors?
Our Lady in La Salette, in God’s providence, manifested: “that Rome will lose the Faith”. The question in our time is, how long will God continue the crisis of “Rome losing the Faith”, then, like in the Old Testament, God moved with a swift mighty hand? It is His Church…
In another meditation, as Jesus Christ Himself went through His Passion and “disfigurement” on the Cross. So too, as it is said, His Bride the Catholic Church will also go through a passion and “disfigurement” of a Cross –and unto a resurrection. It is that time is here in God’s providence to resurrect Her? Or is it in His providence to go through more “disfigurement” of a cross? Did our Lady of Fatima Reign in Her Peace with the consecration of Russia –with a valid residing Pope?
These are good questions; however, it is paramount that we first understand that it is GOD’S Church. It is He who Governs it. Not us! Archbishop Lefebvre always has said: “Do not go ahead of Providence”.
The character of the Pope is still Pope; albeit a very bad Pope. He is still in “office” until God removes him. Like the character of a father of a family who has “sinned”, or is a “material” heretic, he is still in “office” of a Father until God removes him. We, especially laymen, have no right to judge a higher authority. That belongs to God on His time; and for us to avoid sin.
So what else is in the Church’s Wisdom, Doctrine, Saints, Tradition, Canon Law, etc.. Is it to do nothing? Absolutely not! The answer comes under the Highest Law of the Church –for the salvation of souls. It is under her Law of “Supplied Jurisdiction”. I repeat, it is under Supplied Jurisdiction! It is a Law God put into His Church for the Baptized to use in such times of confusion. In other words, this Highest Church Law of “Supplied Jurisdiction” -for the salvation of souls- was made for souls to be protected, and not the other way around, to burden them under false “obedience”!
As this subject of “Supplied Jurisdiction” is well written, and can be found on the internet, I will not need to duplicate it here. However, I have written on it in a “practical” way against the present Neo-SSPX in their desire to “make a deal” with Modernist Rome. http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=21334&min=0&num=5
In brief, Supplied Jurisdiction is a “right” of all baptized souls to receive the Faith and Sacraments of the Catholic Church -unobstructed and unadulterated- bypassing any “jurisdiction” to acquire the “means” of salvation.
Supplied Jurisdiction is the answer for all baptized in a day to day, practical measure, to endure what God had allowed -“Rome will lose the Faith”- until he is ready to restore the Glory of His Church.
Supplied Jurisdiction is the very answer that Archbishop Lefebvre used in the Wisdom of the Church’s Law that gave him the “right”, nay, the “duty” to do what he needed to do.
We do live in unprecedented times. Keep the Faith my friend. Trust in God’s Providence. In the human drama of “original sin”, He knows the hour…it is up to us to stay sanctified all the while embracing His will…Thy will be done.
-
Excellent post Machabees!! Thank you.
This is a topic that isn't very clear in my mind and you've stated some very good points that deserve much consideration.
Ultimately, all these unanswered questions are in God's Hands and we must simply continue to "Watch and Pray".
-
-
All well and good but Archbishop Lefebvre stated in his 1986 address to seminarians " . . . so it is possible we may be obliged to believe this Pope is not Pope. . ."
He was very careful and cautious but . . .
I read in Catholic Prophecy that in the novissimi St. Peter and St. Paul will reappear and that St. Peter will beam a light to the right and correct pope.
This is apparently done as a distrust of the masonically wolf-infested Conclave and therefor as the Divine Providence shall ACT. This Pope will reign with a rod of iron and I foresee many cardinals and bishops and priests expelled.
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude.
-
Machabees wrote:
We know what heresy is, and what a heretic is, we now need to know: “what is the Church’s teaching on the difference between Material and Formal heretics”? And, “How does the Church judge on this matter?
There are many “word” expressions of defining the difference between MATERIAL and FORMAL heretics. Here is a simple one I copied off of the internet: “The Catholic Church expressly distinguishes between ‘material’ and ‘formal’ heretics. A ‘MATERIAL’ heretic is one who externally denies a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of the Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently, from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false prejudice, or by an anti-Catholic upbringing. A ‘FORMAL’ heretic rejects the Church and its teaching absolutely, and with full deliberation, willfully and guiltily.”
So now, “How does the Church judge on this matter”?
Again using a simple “word” expression: “If a baptized Catholic, in defined by the Church, as a “Material” heretic, the one who is in concern does not cease to be part of the Church, rather he must be properly “Reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2). If there is ‘Pertinacity’ in his or her error, then in Justice for the soul, for the common good, and for the fairness of the judgment -it must be tried in an ecclesiastical court to determine if in fact the one in error is a “formal” heretic. When judged if it is certain that he or she is a ‘FORMAL’ heretic. The one is severed from the Church membership; while none the less, still remaining Catholic by the mark of Baptism, but severed from the salvation of the Church.”
The history of the Catholic Church has many examples of these ecclesiastical court judgments. Martin Luther for one, a Catholic priest, erred in “material” heresy, and then judged in an ecclesiastical court as a “Formal” heretic. And so on…
I think the crux of what you are getting at is this: Is is possible to identify a heretic prior to the judgment of the Church? The answer is yes, but that this judgment does not bind any other Catholic.
We can only judge externals in this life anyway, so it is impossible (outside of a miracle) to read a person's conscience.
We make judgments every day. Good parents make judgments about who is a good or bad companion for their children. How do they do this? They judge external public facts.
How do you determine if someone is good or evil? The scriptures warn us to avoid evildoers, but how do we know, as we cannot read their souls? We know because we observe external public actions.
Let us now extend this to heretics. We are warned in the scriptures and constantly by the Fathers of the Church to avoid heretics. But, prior to the judgment of the Church, how can we recognize a heretic? Even in the example you gave about Martin Luther, years had gone by before he was judged by the Pope, so does that mean Catholics were incapable of judging the obvious and public fact about him that he was a heretic? Of course not.
It is impossible for us to see the internal forum of any man's soul. So, then, what are we supposed to do with a man publicly teaching heresy before our us. The Doctors and theologians of the Church state that a pertinacious, public heretic has by this fact lost his membership in the Church and due to that if he held and office in the Church, he has lost his office and by that his jurisdiction over the flock of Christ.
I do not think anyone needs to prove that Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all taught heresy publicly. I believe this is an indisputable fact.
So, the issue here is about pertinacity. This is the point in which a lot of the confusion arises. May I ask you to read the essay by John Daly on this point: http://strobertbellarmine.net/pertinacity.html
I believe the essay works through this point better than I, but the key point is that is possible for a Catholic to determine pertinacity through the person's external actions, i.e. that he is ignoring correction, he refuses to answer objections to his teaching, or, through his training he can be presumed to know better.
The heresies and errors of Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI were well known to Catholics. This is not rocket science as far a theology goes. This is fairly easy to grasp. Every Catholic with some degree of education knew that the Old Covenant ended was replaced by the new covenant. Every Catholic knew that non-Catholic religions were not a means of salvation, and they were not partial churches in partial communion with the Church. Every Catholic knew that we were absolutely forbidden to pray with or participate in rituals of non-Catholic sects. Every Catholic knew that Catholics could never receive holy communion in schismatic or heretical sects, and that they could not ever receive holy communion in the Catholic Church without becoming a Catholic.
These were clear and obvious teachings known to Catholics prior to Vatican II. We are not talking about some obscure area of theology, we are discussing commonly known teaching. It is inconceivable that Ratzinger in his seminary training or in his training to become a theology professor never knew the teaching of the Church on these matters.
Also, his guilt is further proved because at Vatican II he was a periti, i.e. an expert in theology, and he used his stature to battle against the conservatives along with so many other modernists. He even put away his clerical garb and to show his modernism dressed in a suit and tie for the council proceedings.
He has demonstrated that he is not a Catholic. He no longer believes the Faith passed down to and taught clearly by the Church before Vatican II. He is actively teaching Catholics heresy and error, and it is working, as most that call themselves Catholic no longer believe that "outside of the Church, there is no salvation." Most now believe that non-catholics can be saved, in and through their religion, not by converting to the Church.
Now, so what is the status of Benedict XVI? He has the same status as Luther had in the years before the Pope judged him. He is an undeclared heretic. Just as Catholics who recognized Luther's heresy prior to the judgment of the Pope, would have been duty bound to avoid him and warn others against him, we are duty bound to do the same towards Benedict.
A heretic is not a Catholic. When one knows that another is a heretic by his words and actions, and that pertinacity can be shown, then it must be concluded that such a person is outside the Church. One cannot remain a Catholic and not have the Faith.
I hope this helps. God bless.
-
Ambrose,
Here is the second post I was speaking of to respond -to your post- with more questions. Some are for understanding your definitions and some are for clarity in what you had written.
I have been very busy with my work; and today is the first chance I had to respond.
I will actually write in “blue” within your post to respond.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machabees,
You ask good questions. I will try my best to give you good answers.
1. Machabees wrote:
Quote:
Gerry’s position of Sedevacantism had two pillars: First, Gerry says that the Pope is a "material and formal" heretic in what he says -therefore the Pope is not the Pope. Second, that there is no longer a valid “form” for consecrating a Bishop (a post-Vat.II) -therefore the Pope is not a Bishop- therefore the Pope is not a Pope.
If someone can answer this, I have always had these 4-simple questions:
- Is what Gerry said (above) still the main two pillars of Sedevacantism? Is it different? Or is there more added to it, and if so, what is it?
In regard to Gerry Matatics, I believe he is a case in point of the dangers that can come about when a convert jumps too quickly into matters of theology without the careful training that is needed. Another good example of this is the Dimond brothers.
But, to your point, I do not agree that the two points you mentioned are the two pillars of sedevacantism. First, it is not relevant to the determine if a suspected heretic is a formal heretic or not. [Actually, it is very relevant, especially when we are speaking of the Pope, and his “Public office”; it is imperative to know the difference. The “presumption” of a person “privately” believing that someone is a “Material” heretic, does not: A). mean that he is. B). automatically “expel” that someone from a “public office” because of a “private” belief. One can privately “avoid” the sin and the sinner; but an “inferior” cannot remove a superior, and that superior is still there until God removes him. God created this Chair (office) of the Pope. It is God that Governs it with His providence; God gives and God takes away.
Many times in history, God had clearly manifested his judgment(s). Take the incident of Moses and Aaron after the strong arm of God in the parting of the sea; Moses went up to the mountain, and Aaron, who was in the “office” of the High Priest, took the people of God and “taught” them how to sin in worshiping the false god of the golden calf. “And Aaron said to them: Take the golden earrings from the ears of your wives, and your sons and daughters, and bring them to me.” Etc… (Exodus 32:2). Yet, God DID NOT remove him from his office. Rather, God publically upbraided him and continued on (…). There is the story of King David, the story of Saul, of Caiaphas the high priest who condemned “God” – our Lord Jesus Christ to death. Isn’t that what JPVI, JPII, and Benedict XVI are doing with the Religion of God…? Yet, God did NOT remove them from “office”! This is very important. It is God who raises; and God who “disposes”. Not the “people” take over His designs, and His order. God forms the world. God formed the Old Testament for His son’s birth, and providential way of the Cross of Redemption, and God so too forms the New Testament, of which we are still living in. it is not over yet –there is more “drama” to come for our Lady’s Role to “Birth” in the Second Coming of the Messiah.] How can one make such a determination anyway? [Precisely. It is in the medium of God’s order with ecclesiastical courts He put in place for His Church to determine this, for the salvation of the soul, and for the common good of the whole Church.] Sedevacantism essentially is built on two pillars, but not the one's you mentioned. They are: (1) It can be proven that Paul VI and his successors are pertinacious public heretics, [Yes, after they were elected Popes. Before, I do not know.] and due to this they have either lost their office or have never assumed the office of the Papacy to begin with. [Ambrose, not to know a definitive on this “either or”, and take a real position of “sedevacant”, would it not be rash? Not to know is a “bridge of assumption”.] (2) It is impossible for Paul VI and his successors to have been Popes because if they were Popes, they would have taught heresy and given evil laws to the universal Church. [That is another bridge. Yes one can be a valid Pope in its form, and be in office; but fall afterwards, and be a bad Pope. If a spouse on the day of his/her wedding sinned afterwards, it does not “un-effect” the marriage. It only prohibits the grace of a fruitful union; same too of the “mark” in the soul of a Pope, bishop, priest, or religious.] The indefectibiliy and the note of holiness of the Church would prevent such things from happening. [No, the Pope himself is NOT infallible. He is still a “man” with original sin and can fall –like St. Peter.]
Regarding the destruction of the consecration rite of bishops in the Roman Rite, I believe it is an argument against Benedict XVI being a bishop.
2. Machabees wrote:
Quote:
How can Gerry, or others, judge that the Pope is a “formal” heretic? Isn’t it that only another valid Pope and a Council of the Catholic Church do that?
Yes, you are right. Only the Pope can declare one a heretic. [Precisely.] What we are discussing here is what happens to a public heretic prior to the judgment of the Church. Catholics have the right and the duty to defend themselves against a public heretic and when one is detected, and one is morally certain that the culprit has publicly and pertinaciously espoused heresy, then we can privately conclude[/u] [emphasis mine.] that they have defected from the Faith, and that if that person held and office in the Church that they have lost their office as they are no longer a Catholic. [It is here again, Ambrose, that you have bridged an individual “private” conclusion, which does not “publicly” expel someone from a public office. That needs to be done “publicly” with God -unmistakably- manifesting it.]
If times were normal, our duty would be to report such a person to the Church authorities, and it would be their duty to investigate and publicly judge the heretic. [Yes.] Once the Church declares a person a heretic, then all are bound to recognize that fact. [Yes.] That is why in our current situation, the status of the post Vatican II "popes" is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter. [Precisely! That is what I am trying to say. It is a “private” matter until the Church herself (God) judged the matter. Until then, therefore, it is very imprudent to believe that the Pope is not the Pope, or that the “Chair” is empty! To be a “sedevacant”, is going before God’s providence.]
3. Machabees wrote:
Quote:
- If the apparition of Fatima is true, in which it is in being approved by the (pre-Vat. II) Catholic Church, and Our Lady said in that apparition: “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”, then, if there is “no” Pope, especially including the last 2 or 3 popes, and there is “no” longer any valid bishops (and cardinals), how can there be a Pope, or even another “elected” pope, to fulfill the promise of our Lady of Fatima for which needs a real / valid Pope who is in the line of St. Peter to do this consecration?
You make a key assumption in the above. There are most certainly bishops with jurisdiction (the hierarchy) still in the world, they are just less visible than they once were. I agree that there are no longer at present any cardinals, but that does not prevent an election of the Pope. In the absence of the Cardinals, the right of election falls to the bishops and the clergy of Rome. [Ambrose, wouldn’t this be an assumption on your part? If all of the Cardinals and Bishops in the world are following the errors and heresies of Vatican II like the Pope, and consequentially teaching error, then in the “bridging” you have done earlier, all of the Cardinals and BISHOPS are in error, and have “lost” their office. So there can be no election of a new Pope!]
At any point of the crisis, if the remaining bishops and the clergy of Rome would have gathered together to elect to elect a Pope, then that would have been a lawful act. The mechanism of the Church to resolve this crisis would have ended it. It has not yet happened, but it could happen at any time. It may take a miracle to bring this about, but that is what we as Catholics know very well, that miracles can and do happen. [Yes of course miracles can happen if God wanted it to. He could have done this many times by now; but think of your logic for a moment. How can the erroneous Vatican II Bishops who believe in the said errors, and teach these errors, which you say they then “lost” their office and have no “jurisdiction”, come illegally and convene a General Council, to “lawfully” dismiss the errors of THEIR prior Popes, in whom have “lost” their office from teaching error, then these “unlawful” Bishops elect another Pope? Will this new “elected” Pope be like unto themselves, as the very same prelates have been “electing” all of these past years in JPVI, JPII, and Benedict XVI? Or will these “illegally and illegitimate” prelates “elect” an anti-Vatican II Pope? Yes, miracles do happen; but scripture shows in the drama of the Old Testament, God created an order and He does not go outside of it –it is up to man to return to God’s established order; it is a “slow” process; but that is the order and drama of his creation.]
The power to end this crisis and elect a Pope has been sitting in front of all of us the entire time. The best chance of this happening in my opinion would have been in the earlier time of the crisis, when so many bishops were not happy with Vatican II. If only they gathered, declared Paul VI or John Paul II a public heretic and then proceeded to elect a Pope, this could have all ended, but they did not so we must now depend on those bishops and members of the clergy or Rome who God has allowed a long life and who have kept the Faith. [Who in the errors of modernistic Rome have “kept” the Faith?]
You can be sure of one thing. We will once again have a Pope, and despite the late hour, he will consecrate Russia in union with the remaining bishops. We can be certain of this, as we have the word of Our Lady.
4. Machabees worte:
Quote:
Our Lord had promised: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia: Where Peter is, there is the Church”. How is it that if there is an eclipsed “Peter”, of “no” Pope in all of these 50-years, that the Catholic Church being in a state of no “Peter”, along with the Catholic Church no longer having “valid” consecrations for a bishop (and cardinal), then it shows that the Catholic Church will always be in a state of “no” Pope? You need a Bishop to consecrate another Bishop. How then, can both off these promises of Our Lady and Our Lord be fulfilled if there is “no” Pope at present, or in the future? Has not therefore, in all of this premise of Sede-vacantist (the chair is vacant…), that “the gates of hell prevailed against it”?
The gates of Hell will never prevail! We can be certain of that. The Petrine Office has continued through the crisis, we just await having a man fill it and become Pope. There is nothing against the Faith which would state that period of sedevacante could not continue for any amount of years. [???? Ambrose, this is a “Visible” Church with a real governing “Chair”. One that is on a “lampstand” that Teaches, Governs, and Sanctifies; not an eclipsed one.]
There are still bishops alive appointed by Pope Pius XII, and others appointed by John XXIII and others until the Roman Rite changed. [Yes, and they also teach these same errors of Vatican II. So have they “lost” there office like the Pope, or have they not? You would have to agree that it cannot be two ways.] The rites of the East, kept the sacramental rites intact at least for the most part, and to the best of my knowledge there would be no reason to doubt them.
For myself, I believe there is a strong argument to believe that the state of sedevacante did not begin until December 7, 1965, the day Paul VI officially taught heresy to the universal Church. [You said above about JPVI: “(1) It can be proven that Paul VI and his successors are pertinacious public heretics, and due to this they have either lost their office or have never assumed the office of the Papacy to begin with.”] Using that date as a "line in the sand" we could be certain that all bishops appointed prior to that date have habitual jurisdiction, i.e. they are members of the hierarchy, so long as they have kept the Faith. This also goes for the members of the clergy of Rome, all appointments would have been valid up until that date.
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, [Well that is very strange. If it is an “anti-Pope” as you say, meaning that he is not a Pope, and the Chair is vacant, that this anti-pope has NO FUNCTION to govern. Therefore, any “appointment” is illegal and does not mean anything. Again, this is another bridge of sedevacantism to try and “create” a system of “beliefs” to “justify” their existence.] One could imagine this to be the case in some Eastern rite dioceses. (A poster on this forum, Nishant, has challenged John Lane on this point indirectly, but as of yet, despite urging by myself and SJB has chosen to not put forth his case against John Lane on the Bellarmine Forums.) [It really seems in these last couple of paragraphs that your group of “sedevacantists” is trying to put out a “straw man” type of existence.]
Regardless of the position put forward by Mr. Lane, it is an indisputable fact that there are in the world today bishops lawfully appointed by a Pope prior to December 7, 1965, and that fact alone demonstrates that the visibility of the hierarchy has been maintained through the crisis and is still present to this very day. [I repeat, if they teach the heresies of Vatican II –modernism- then according to your logic of the Pope doing the same and “losing” his office, then equally, these other Bishops “lose” their office. Do they not?]
So, to conclude your point, the Apostolicity of the Church is safe, as it must be. Some may argue that it hard to conceive of the Church with so few bishops. I would state in reply that the Church once existed with only 11 member of the hierarchy in the entire world, all located in one room. [Yes, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and the 4-validly consecrated Bishops they have laid their hands on to.]
I hope this helps, and I have prayed for you today for Our Lady to help you in your search for the truth. God bless. [I do thank you for this and please be assured of my prayers for you and yours.]
God bless you.
-
All well and good but Archbishop Lefebvre stated in his 1986 address to seminarians " . . . so it is possible we may be obliged to believe this Pope is not Pope. . ."
He was very careful and cautious but . . .
I read in Catholic Prophecy that in the novissimi St. Peter and St. Paul will reappear and that St. Peter will beam a light to the right and correct pope.
This is apparently done as a distrust of the masonically wolf-infested Conclave and therefor as the Divine Providence shall ACT. This Pope will reign with a rod of iron and I foresee many cardinals and bishops and priests expelled.
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude.
We need to remember that Archbishop Lefebvre was raised by God for His Church in this extraordinary time. He was a very highly trained and "decorated" prelate. In his Missionary life in serving the Church, he also had a lot of experience.
Thus, any and all context of Archbishop Lefebvre, in doctrine, ecclesiology, theology, history, and philosophy, has shown that it was always in context of the Church he served (less any personal sin from himself).
Yes, the Archbishop was very careful and cautious, that is why he has always said "that he is just an Archbishop; he cannot do anything himself. It needs to come from another Pope". The Archbishop himself never went beyond that -it would be imprudent. None the less, he knew what he can do, the Church provides the Highest Law of the Church -for the salvation of souls- the universal law of "Supplied Jurisdiction". All Catholics need to know and study what it is; it is the protection and movement of the baptized to receive the Faith without hindrance. (Please see my other posts that explain this in more detail).
We need to trust and have Faith in God's Providence.
He is God...and He is good at it.
-
Ambrose,
Thanks for your response. I do agree with most everything you have written in this particular post below. The question really is not that Benedict XVI, JPII, and JPVI teach “heresy”, I do agree they are teaching modernism; but the bigger question is: “Is the Pope still the Pope, and secondly, is he still holding his ‘office’ as the Pope”.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the crux of what you are getting at is this: Is is possible to identify a heretic prior to the judgment of the Church? [Yes.] The answer is yes, but that this judgment does not bind any other Catholic.
We can only judge externals in this life anyway, so it is impossible (outside of a miracle) to read a person's conscience.
We make judgments every day. Good parents make judgments about who is a good or bad companion for their children. How do they do this? They judge external public facts.
How do you determine if someone is good or evil? The scriptures warn us to avoid evildoers, but how do we know, as we cannot read their souls? We know because we observe external public actions.
Let us now extend this to heretics. We are warned in the scriptures and constantly by the Fathers of the Church to avoid heretics. But, prior to the judgment of the Church, how can we recognize a heretic? Even in the example you gave about Martin Luther, years had gone by before he was judged by the Pope, so does that mean Catholics were incapable of judging the obvious and public fact about him that he was a heretic? Of course not. [All correct. But the answer is, avoid the sin, not the office.]
It is impossible for us to see the internal forum of any man's soul. So, then, what are we supposed to do with a man publicly teaching heresy before our us. The Doctors and theologians of the Church state that a pertinacious, public heretic has by this fact lost his membership in the Church and due to that if he held and office in the Church, he has lost his office and by that his jurisdiction over the flock of Christ. [I have been reading, time allotted, through some of the “links” you provided. And I have not found any such quotes that you say. If you have direct sources, in context, could you please provide them.]
I do not think anyone needs to prove that Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all taught heresy publicly. I believe this is an indisputable fact.
So, the issue here is about pertinacity. This is the point in which a lot of the confusion arises. May I ask you to read the essay by John Daly on this point: http://strobertbellarmine.net/pertinacity.html
I believe the essay works through this point better than I, but the key point is that is possible for a Catholic to determine pertinacity through the person's external actions, i.e. that he is ignoring correction, he refuses to answer objections to his teaching, or, through his training he can be presumed to know better.
The heresies and errors of Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI were well known to Catholics. This is not rocket science as far a theology goes. This is fairly easy to grasp. Every Catholic with some degree of education knew that the Old Covenant ended was replaced by the new covenant. Every Catholic knew that non-Catholic religions were not a means of salvation, and they were not partial churches in partial communion with the Church. Every Catholic knew that we were absolutely forbidden to pray with or participate in rituals of non-Catholic sects. Every Catholic knew that Catholics could never receive holy communion in schismatic or heretical sects, and that they could not ever receive holy communion in the Catholic Church without becoming a Catholic.
These were clear and obvious teachings known to Catholics prior to Vatican II. We are not talking about some obscure area of theology, we are discussing commonly known teaching. It is inconceivable that Ratzinger in his seminary training or in his training to become a theology professor never knew the teaching of the Church on these matters.
Also, his guilt is further proved because at Vatican II he was a periti, i.e. an expert in theology, and he used his stature to battle against the conservatives along with so many other modernists. He even put away his clerical garb and to show his modernism dressed in a suit and tie for the council proceedings.
He has demonstrated that he is not a Catholic. He no longer believes the Faith passed down to and taught clearly by the Church before Vatican II. He is actively teaching Catholics heresy and error, and it is working, as most that call themselves Catholic no longer believe that "outside of the Church, there is no salvation." Most now believe that non-catholics can be saved, in and through their religion, not by converting to the Church. [Yes, you have described all well.]
Now, so what is the status of Benedict XVI? He has the same status as Luther had in the years before the Pope judged him. He is an undeclared heretic. Just as Catholics who recognized Luther's heresy prior to the judgment of the Pope, would have been duty bound to avoid him and warn others against him, we are duty bound to do the same towards Benedict. [Yes. Avoid the sin, not the office.]
[All is well up until this next paragraph. It is here where you make an un-connected bridge again. In other words, you have a syllogism that does not actually work. For an understanding, definitions need to be made. ]
A heretic is not a Catholic. [Not correct. Firstly, to be Catholic is a mark on the soul from baptism. Once you have it; you never “lose” it. When an individual “privately” assumes another is a heretic –it does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A perceived “material” heretic -does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A “formal” heretic, when judged by the Church, does NOT make him “un-catholic”, however, it DOES remove the “formal” heretic from the salvation of the Church.] When one knows that another is a heretic by his words and actions, and that pertinacity can be shown, then it must be concluded that such a person is outside the Church. [No. That would be very rash and harsh without a competent “authority” to deem it so. Imagine what would happen in secular society if the same applies for “anyone” to suspect, judge, and cut another off from society without due process? That would be more than chaos; it would be tyranny on the streets. Would it not?] One cannot remain a Catholic and not have the Faith.
[Yes the Faith is, or it is not; yet there are “seeds” that a baptized soul has that takes time to grow. In the apostolate, it is not our place to bring this “judgment” onto others, as like “all or nothing”. It is much more complex than that. We cannot be to rash to “privately” judge away someone, and then begin to “teach” that it is so. Is it possible that we do not know all of the facts? In example, think of all of those generations of “Catholics” who were “validly” baptized in the sacrament, and were raised in the novus ordo. Those that are older, and know better, have one kind of a judgment on them; then there are those that are “validly” baptized and “never” knew. Does that make them “un-Catholic”? Or, does it go back to the “innocence” of knowledge that they have before God and a “natural” law?
It is all food for thought; however, it is a “better” position to give compassion and mercy, and give the rest up to God; all the while to sanctify ourselves, avoid sin, and hold up the office that God has ordained until He provides the decision like in the Old Testament. Here is another example of St. Catherine of Sienna. Who was raised by God when time was “ripe”, to “decide” which one of the “many” popes was the “valid” Pope for the time. You talk about confusion…wow. The point is: keep the Faith. Time is short; God will answer when it is His time. He always does.]
I hope this helps. God bless.
God bless.
-
Oops... in all of the editing, I missed to put the color "blue" in these last paragraphs with my comments in it.
Here are my comments that stayed in the "black"; and then below, I will correct it, to put in the color "blue".
[All is well up until this next paragraph. It is here where you make an un-connected bridge again. In other words, you have a syllogism that does not actually work. For an understanding, definitions need to be made. ]
A heretic is not a Catholic. [Not correct. Firstly, to be Catholic is a mark on the soul from baptism. Once you have it; you never “lose” it. When an individual “privately” assumes another is a heretic –it does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A perceived “material” heretic -does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A “formal” heretic, when judged by the Church, does NOT make him “un-catholic”, however, it DOES remove the “formal” heretic from the salvation of the Church.] When one knows that another is a heretic by his words and actions, and that pertinacity can be shown, then it must be concluded that such a person is outside the Church. [No. That would be very rash and harsh without a competent “authority” to deem it so. Imagine what would happen in secular society if the same applies for “anyone” to suspect, judge, and cut another off from society without due process? That would be more than chaos; it would be tyranny on the streets. Would it not?] One cannot remain a Catholic and not have the Faith.
[All is well up until this next paragraph. It is here where you make an un-connected bridge again. In other words, you have a syllogism that does not actually work. For an understanding, definitions need to be made. ]
A heretic is not a Catholic. [Not correct. Firstly, to be Catholic is a mark on the soul from baptism. Once you have it; you never “lose” it. When an individual “privately” assumes another is a heretic –it does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A perceived “material” heretic -does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A “formal” heretic, when judged by the Church, does NOT make him “un-catholic”, however, it DOES remove the “formal” heretic from the salvation of the Church.] When one knows that another is a heretic by his words and actions, and that pertinacity can be shown, then it must be concluded that such a person is outside the Church. [No. That would be very rash and harsh without a competent “authority” to deem it so. Imagine what would happen in secular society if the same applies for “anyone” to suspect, judge, and cut another off from society without due process? That would be more than chaos; it would be tyranny on the streets. Would it not?] One cannot remain a Catholic and not have the Faith.
-
Hi Ambrose,
Yes, in the current discussion that is definitely the case. Please don't think I was referring to you in any way. I more wanted to speak generally because I didn't want to single anyone here out and because on this board in the past and on other boards and in different gatherings of people I've been in, on both sides, there has been a lot of vitriol and different claims laid on the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre. But, again, yes, definitely agree with you on the tenor of the current discussion and your comments in particular have been very moderate and cordial.
And, yes, I agree with you and Bowler; there is room for friendly discussion on the issue. It just seems that such never actually ends up happening. There is always someone that takes the discussion off the tracks and then things usually devolve from there.
Grant
Like yourself, I hate the discord among Catholics. I believe the best we can do is imitate Our Lord and Our Lady and behave accordingly with patience and charity.
There are serious consequences to not understanding the "Pope issue" correctly. Bp. Fellay and those who follow him are following the logic that one must remain submissive to the Roman Pontiff, which is why they are negotiating with Benedict XVI.
Once Catholics see Benedict for who he is, a public heretic and destroyer of the Church, and one is not the Pope, the problem ends. There will be no more reason to try to place oneself under him.
Sedevacantism is not necessary for salvation, but it makes a Catholic safer in the crisis. The truth always is always good, even if the truth is hard. For this reason, I believe it is important to discuss this topic, in charity to our Catholic brothers and sisters, to keep them safe from the Wolf.
Ambrose,
I see in your post that two "roads" are defined. You are proposing an "either / or" solution.
One road, that "Bp. Fellay and those who follow him are following the logic that one must remain submissive to the Roman Pontiff, which is why they are negotiating with Benedict XVI."
Yes, Bishop Fellay is “negotiating” with Modernist Rome to be absorbed into the conciliar church. Bishop Fellay, and company, have fallen into a different belief -far left- system from Archbishop Lefebvre. That is why there is a present crisis in the SSPX.
And the other road, "Once Catholics see Benedict for who he is, a public heretic and destroyer of the Church, and one is not the Pope, the problem ends. There will be no more reason to try to place oneself under him."
This is the totally opposite -far right- extreme which also tries to dismiss the “problem”.
We have gone over many principles, in other posts, on how the Church responds to these matters. Archbishop Lefebvre has always stood on the Faith, with the prudence, of the third "middle" answer.
Yes, Archbishop Lefebvre seen and knew of the problems with the Pope and Bishops teaching error. He also knew that you do not put the Faith in danger either. The Archbishop for many years, up to the consecrating of Bishops in 1988, has discerned, and tried to show conciliar Rome her ambiguous errors. “Reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2). After 1988, he no longer tried; instead, he insisted on ambiguous Rome to be clear, and profess the anti-modernist oath, the condemnation of errors in St. Pius X’s encyclicals, etc. For the protection of the Faith, he did not “negotiate” with them to be “absorbed” into their den. Yes, one can say now that he signed the Protocol; he also knew that was a mistake, and publicly recanted with an apology.
Archbishop Lefebvre also stated many times in what the Church teaches, "that he is only an Archbishop; he cannot do anything himself. It needs to come from another Pope". The Archbishop himself never went beyond what the Church teaches -it would be very imprudent. Even a man like Archbishop Lefebvre had seen the weakness on both sides of the “either / or”. He stood firm on the Church’s “third” answer -the prudent middle road- and waited for God’s Providence to manifest His will. God blessed him…
So it is in the third answer, Ambrose, that there is no “negotiating” with modernist Rome; and neither to have an “all or nothing” approach. The consequence to bridge a sedevacant, and “teach” it, is equally disastrous.
When you say: “Sedevacantism is not necessary for salvation, but it makes a Catholic safer in the crisis.”, is a long stretch again. To have a “private” belief that the Pope is not the Pope, which you have said in your other response, is NOT safer at all. It is a “private” interpretation. In other words, it is NOT secure in the Church’s judgment; for which you did recognize in another post: “He is an undeclared heretic.” “Yes, you are right. Only the Pope can declare one a heretic.” “then we can privately conclude.” “If times were normal, our duty would be to report such a person to the Church authorities, and it would be their duty to investigate and publicly judge the heretic. Once the Church declares a person a heretic, then all are bound to recognize that fact. That is why in our current situation, the status of the post Vatican II "popes" [as a heretic] [/u]is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter.”
So you have rightly stated that for sedevacantists, it is on your own “private” discernment that you believe it to be so, and “is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter.” So as it shows in your own words, Ambrose, that the Pope is -OBJECTIVELY- still the Pope and he is -OBJECTIVELY- still in the office of the Pope until the Church judges the matter.
I hope these principles help you to see more clearly as Archbishop Lefebvre had seen them.
God bless.
-
Machabees,
Thank you for your responses. I will respond to each point, but let me start here in this post.
You wrote:
[All is well up until this next paragraph. It is here where you make an un-connected bridge again. In other words, you have a syllogism that does not actually work. For an understanding, definitions need to be made. ]
A heretic is not a Catholic. [Not correct. Firstly, to be Catholic is a mark on the soul from baptism. Once you have it; you never “lose” it. When an individual “privately” assumes another is a heretic –it does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A perceived “material” heretic -does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A “formal” heretic, when judged by the Church, does NOT make him “un-catholic”, however, it DOES remove the “formal” heretic from the salvation of the Church.] When one knows that another is a heretic by his words and actions, and that pertinacity can be shown, then it must be concluded that such a person is outside the Church. [No. That would be very rash and harsh without a competent “authority” to deem it so. Imagine what would happen in secular society if the same applies for “anyone” to suspect, judge, and cut another off from society without due process? That would be more than chaos; it would be tyranny on the streets. Would it not?] One cannot remain a Catholic and not have the Faith.
A Catholic can lose his membership in the Church. It is true that baptism brings one into the Church, but that membership is contingent on certain factors. First, one must keep the Faith. Second, one must remain in subjection to the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in union with him, and also remain in communion with other Catholics.
If a Catholic publicly abandons the Faith and adopts heretical ideas then he is no longer a Catholic. Catholics are bound together by one Faith, and we are not in communion with those who are not part of that Faith. Heresy is different than other crimes that can be censured, as heresy severs one from the body of the Church, as one cannot be a Catholic who does not adhere to the Faith.
This is taught by every theologian. This is not a a novel idea. We as Catholics are strictly bound to believe all that the Church teaches. We cannot refuse to believe even one point of the Faith. Many heretics of the past fell from the Faith over just one point.
It is harsh to stand in judgment over sinners who have fallen, but it is not harsh to denounce a public heretic. Heretics are dangerous to your faith and the Faith of every Catholic. We are not here talking about a Catholic who is innocent and does not grasp his faith very well, but believes whatever the Church teaches. A public heretic is a danger to the Faith of Catholics and the scriptures and the fathers of the Church warn us against heretics in very strong language.
I think the point you have not yet grasped is that the public heretic has cut himself off. His external actions of professing false doctrine, when such a person can be shown to be pertinacious, has cut himself off from the Body of Christ and is outside the Church. This all happens prior to any declaration of the Church. The Pope when declaring one a heretic does not sever the heretic from the Church, it has already taken place, from the moment the heretic began publicly professing heresy. The declaration of the Pope is a public witness to the fact that such a man is a heretic and now must be avoided. It binds all Catholics.
The is why the heretic is ipso facto deprived of his office if he holds an office in the Church. It is for this reason that Canon 188 #4, is located in the section under resignation, rather than censures. One who becomes a public heretic loses his membership in the Church, and by that tacitly resigns from his office. A heretic is deprived of his office by operation of the law, not a declaration. The declaration makes this fact known after the fact and binds all Catholics to adhere to it.
I hope this helps. God bless.
-
Machabees wrotes:
When you say: “Sedevacantism is not necessary for salvation, but it makes a Catholic safer in the crisis.”, is a long stretch again. To have a “private” belief that the Pope is not the Pope, which you have said in your other response, is NOT safer at all. It is a “private” interpretation. In other words, it is NOT secure in the Church’s judgment; for which you did recognize in another post: “He is an undeclared heretic.” “Yes, you are right. Only the Pope can declare one a heretic.” “then we can privately conclude.” “If times were normal, our duty would be to report such a person to the Church authorities, and it would be their duty to investigate and publicly judge the heretic. Once the Church declares a person a heretic, then all are bound to recognize that fact. That is why in our current situation, the status of the post Vatican II "popes" [as a heretic] is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter.”
So you have rightly stated that for sedevacantists, it is on your own “private” discernment that you believe it to be so, and “is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter.” So as it shows in your own words, Ambrose, that the Pope is -OBJECTIVELY- still the Pope and he is -OBJECTIVELY- still in the office of the Pope until the Church judges the matter.
You have made a logical leap here. What we are discussing here is not "what is the truth about Benedict XVI," rather we are discussing, "what is the status of the truth about Benedict XVI."
It is an objective fact that Benedict XVI has taught and professed public heresy. It is also a fact that he is a trained priest, former seminary professor, and expert theologian at Vatican II. It is also a fact that he opposed at the Council those who professed the orthodox doctrine, demonstrating that he knew he was opposing those who upheld the Church's teaching. Due that, pertinacity can be shown. He was not some ignorant, uneducated farmer who could not read and write who made mistakes on theology innocently.
When a heretic professes his heresy, and this can be any heretic, not just the current one we are discussing, Catholics can identify the heretic and denounce him, but what they cannot do is bind other Catholics to their conclusions about the status of the person.
For example, when Martin Luther began professing heresy, a Catholic may have recognized it right away, denounced him and warned every Catholic he came into contact with about him. But, what if another Catholics said, "I am not convinced, I have not read his writings and when I heard him, I did not hear any heresy." Is that Catholic guilty of sin for not believing you? The answer is no. You have no authority to bind him, he does not have to accept what you say. But, he does have to accept what the Pope says, and that is why a declaration binds him to this truth.
Martin Luther for several years was an undeclared public heretic. It was the duty of any Catholic who recognized this truth about him during this time to avoid him and denounce him and report him to the Church. He was a menace and a destroyer of souls. The status of Martin Luther during the time prior to the declaration by the Pope was that he was an undeclared public heretic. He was no longer a Catholic, as he had defected. He was not made outside the Church by the Pope's bull, he was no longer a member of the Church from the very moment he became a public heretic, and the Pope's declaration bound all Catholics to this public fact.
The same principle applies to Benedict. He was taught heresy publicly on many points. A reading of Dominus Iesus will demonstrate his heresy. For those who recognize this, we are bound to this truth by our own consciences, as we have formed certitude about this. For those who have no recognized his public heresy, they are not bound, as the authority of the Church has not bound them. Either way, though, the fact remains the same, Benedict XVI has publicly defected from the Faith.
I hope this helps to clarify. God bless.
-
Machabees,
Thank you for your responses. I will respond to each point, but let me start here in this post.
You wrote:
[All is well up until this next paragraph. It is here where you make an un-connected bridge again. In other words, you have a syllogism that does not actually work. For an understanding, definitions need to be made. ]
A heretic is not a Catholic. [Not correct. Firstly, to be Catholic is a mark on the soul from baptism. Once you have it; you never “lose” it. When an individual “privately” assumes another is a heretic –it does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A perceived “material” heretic -does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A “formal” heretic, when judged by the Church, does NOT make him “un-catholic”, however, it DOES remove the “formal” heretic from the salvation of the Church.] When one knows that another is a heretic by his words and actions, and that pertinacity can be shown, then it must be concluded that such a person is outside the Church. [No. That would be very rash and harsh without a competent “authority” to deem it so. Imagine what would happen in secular society if the same applies for “anyone” to suspect, judge, and cut another off from society without due process? That would be more than chaos; it would be tyranny on the streets. Would it not?] One cannot remain a Catholic and not have the Faith.
A Catholic can lose his membership in the Church. It is true that baptism brings one into the Church, but that membership is contingent on certain factors. First, one must keep the Faith. Second, one must remain in subjection to the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in union with him, and also remain in communion with other Catholics.
If a Catholic publicly abandons the Faith and adopts heretical ideas then he is no longer a Catholic. Catholics are bound together by one Faith, and we are not in communion with those who are not part of that Faith. Heresy is different than other crimes that can be censured, as heresy severs one from the body of the Church, as one cannot be a Catholic who does not adhere to the Faith.
This is taught by every theologian. This is not a a novel idea. We as Catholics are strictly bound to believe all that the Church teaches. We cannot refuse to believe even one point of the Faith. Many heretics of the past fell from the Faith over just one point.
It is harsh to stand in judgment over sinners who have fallen, but it is not harsh to denounce a public heretic. Heretics are dangerous to your faith and the Faith of every Catholic. We are not here talking about a Catholic who is innocent and does not grasp his faith very well, but believes whatever the Church teaches. A public heretic is a danger to the Faith of Catholics and the scriptures and the fathers of the Church warn us against heretics in very strong language.
I think the point you have not yet grasped is that the public heretic has cut himself off. His external actions of professing false doctrine, when such a person can be shown to be pertinacious, has cut himself off from the Body of Christ and is outside the Church. This all happens prior to any declaration of the Church. The Pope when declaring one a heretic does not sever the heretic from the Church, it has already taken place, from the moment the heretic began publicly professing heresy. The declaration of the Pope is a public witness to the fact that such a man is a heretic and now must be avoided. It binds all Catholics.
The is why the heretic is ipso facto deprived of his office if he holds an office in the Church. It is for this reason that Canon 188 #4, is located in the section under resignation, rather than censures. One who becomes a public heretic loses his membership in the Church, and by that tacitly resigns from his office. A heretic is deprived of his office by operation of the law, not a declaration. The declaration makes this fact known after the fact and binds all Catholics to adhere to it.
I hope this helps. God bless.
Ambrose,
Very often you interchange the word catholic and membership that does not make your meanings clear.
A Catholic, as I said in my other post, you can never lose the mark of baptism to call yourself un-catholic. If a catholic heretic was as at their death, and dies in his sin as such, in hell, one is still a catholic and has the mark of a catholic; and the punishment is greater.
A membership, one can lose in apostasy (heresy).
For mortal sin, one who just committed a mortal sin, did not lose the Faith; he lost Charity, and soon the Hope if it is not lapsed, and if lapsed in pernacity, he loses the Faith.
Ambrose, you are not reading my responses to you correctly.
A). I very much understand the theology of what you have written.
B). The problem is, that you yourself, privately, personally cannot judge “ipso facto” that another is a heretic. You do not know all of the elements involved to make that decision. Look at all of the people in the sedevacantist camp who run around saying completely different things that even contradict one another -like Gerry Matatics, and others… It is like the Protestants taking some theology and making a “private” interpretation out of it. Bishop Tissier recently wrote a book all about the thinking of Benedict XVI describing what he believes (…). It is simple but very complex.
C). Yes you can judge a situation to personally protect yourself.
D). You have stated many times that sedevacantism is a “private” matter: “He is an undeclared heretic.” “then we can privately conclude.” “Yes, you are right. Only the Pope can declare one a heretic.” “If times were normal, our duty would be to report such a person to the Church authorities, and it would be their duty to investigate and publicly judge the heretic. Once the Church declares a person a heretic, then all are bound to recognize that fact. That is why in our current situation, the status of the post Vatican II "popes" [as a heretic] is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter.[/u]”
Off the cuff, it also stands to reason that if sedevacantism was the answer, the Holy Ghost would have given the clear movement to the foundation of His messenger, Archbishop Lefebvre, to act accordingly –He didn’t.
NO Saint in all of the history of the Old and New Testaments was ever a sedevacantist!
Food for thought…
God bless.
-
Ambrose wrote:
“When a heretic professes his heresy, and this can be any heretic, not just the current one we are discussing, Catholics can identify the heretic and denounce him, but what they cannot do is bind other Catholics to their conclusions about the status of the person.
For example, when Martin Luther began professing heresy, a Catholic may have recognized it right away, denounced him and warned every Catholic he came into contact with about him. But, what if another Catholics said, "I am not convinced, I have not read his writings and when I heard him, I did not hear any heresy." Is that Catholic guilty of sin for not believing you? The answer is no. You have no authority to bind him, he does not have to accept what you say. But, he does have to accept what the Pope says, and that is why a declaration binds him to this truth.”
Ambrose,
You bring an example of Martin Luther; there are many others, however, as Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest, Augustine Monk, he professed “heresy” while in the “office” of a Catholic Priest, Augustine Monk. While in his “heresy” he still was functioning in his office as a Catholic Priest, Augustine Monk, until a process had taken place, then he was removed. When after he was publicly claimed a heretic, he lost his office, but still was a Catholic Priest, Augustine Monk. When he died in his heresy, though no longer a member of the salvation of the Catholic Church, he still died as a Catholic Priest, Augustine Monk.
You also return to the same theme of being a “private” matter of judging the Pope. That still does not dismiss him from being the Pope and visibly in the office of the Pope.
Think about it. Say you are the only one in the world out of (I do not know) 6-Billion Catholics, and you say the Pope is not the Pope, and he is vacant from the Chair, so to the other 5-billiion (plus), he is not the Pope to visibly guide the rest of the Church until God fixes the problem? You then have a quagmire.
Remember in the other examples of Church history, I mentioned a few in my other post within the Old and New Testaments, who “taught” contrary to the Religion of God: Aaron the High Priest, some of the Prophets who also “taught” contrary, etc, etc… There are many examples all throughout history. Bottom line –God did not remove them from their “office”, and He provided swiftly for each occasion (…).
Jesus Christ kept telling His disciples: “All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not..” (Matthew 23:3). And, “You (scribes and Pharisees) are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.” ( John 8:44). And, “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cuмmin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.” (Matthew 23:23). And yet, “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.” (Matthew 23:1-3).
Avoid the sin, respect the sinner…it is in God’s order until He fixes it.
God bless.
-
Machabees wrote:
A Catholic, as I said in my other post, you can never lose the mark of baptism to call yourself un-catholic. If a catholic heretic was as at their death, and dies in his sin as such, in hell, one is still a catholic and has the mark of a catholic; and the punishment is greater.
A membership, one can lose in apostasy (heresy).
For mortal sin, one who just committed a mortal sin, did not lose the Faith; he lost Charity, and soon the Hope if it is not lapsed, and if lapsed in pernacity, he loses the Faith.
Ambrose, you are not reading my responses to you correctly.
Dear Machabeees,
I will come to your other points later, but first I think it would be good if we could settle this one since it has caused some confusion.
I will post some points clearly and let me know if you agree or disagree, and we will work through it.
1. Baptism makes one a member of the Church.
2. Membership is contingent on certain factors. (1) A Catholic must keep the Faith (2) A Catholic cannot break from the unity of the Church which can be done through refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in union with him or breaking communion with other Catholics. (3) Not to have committed a crime which would incur excommunication from the Pope.
3. Mortal sin, as horrible as it is, does not sever one from the Church.
4. The indelible mark on the soul given at Baptism does not mean that one is always a Catholic. Most Protestants and eastern schismatics possess this mark, but are outside the Church.
5. The indelible mark also does not make one in Hell a Catholic, as you had stated. The Church does not exist in Hell. The Church is made up of three parts, the Church Militant, on earth, the Church Suffering, in Purgatory, and the Church Triumphant, in Heaven. Those in Hell may have once been Catholic, but now they are cut off forever. Their indelible mark or their baptism remains, but their membership in the Church does not remain.
6. One cannot be a "Catholic heretic." They are mutually exclusive. Once one becomes a public heretic, he has lost the Faith, and by losing the Faith and this being public, he loses his membership in the Church. In order to return to the Church he must be accepted and make an abjuration.
I hope this helps to clarify to avoid any confusion on these points. Thank you for the discussion. God bless.
-
Machabees wrote:
Yes, the Archbishop was very careful and cautious, that is why he has always said "that he is just an Archbishop; he cannot do anything himself. It needs to come from another Pope". The Archbishop himself never went beyond that -it would be imprudent. None the less, he knew what he can do, the Church provides the Highest Law of the Church -for the salvation of souls- the universal law of "Supplied Jurisdiction". All Catholics need to know and study what it is; it is the protection and movement of the baptized to receive the Faith without hindrance. (Please see my other posts that explain this in more detail).
I agree with most of what you wrote, with the exception that I am convinced that the Archbishop understood and was moving towards the belief that John Paul II was not a Pope. This was clear in his 1886 Address to Seminarians. I will post the Address and some thoughts I have formed on it on a separate thread so as to not overload one thread with divergent topics.
The SSPX since the Archbishop's death has been frozen in time in my opinion. They seem to think that the Archbishop's position about the status of the Conciliar "popes," was a permanent position which was beyond question. But, as the 1986 Address demonstrates, his position was not set in stone, as he was forming his mind, based on external evidence, that John Paul II may not be a Pope.
-
Ambrose,
I will respond below in blue again.
Machabees wrote,
A Catholic, as I said in my other post, you can never lose the mark of baptism to call yourself un-catholic. If a catholic heretic was as at their death, and dies in his sin as such, in hell, one is still a catholic and has the mark of a catholic; and the punishment is greater.
A membership, one can lose in apostasy (heresy).
For mortal sin, one who just committed a mortal sin, did not lose the Faith; he lost Charity, and soon the Hope if it is not lapsed, and if lapsed in pernacity, he loses the Faith.
Ambrose, you are not reading my responses to you correctly.
Ambrose wrote:
Dear Machabees,
I will come to your other points later, but first I think it would be good if we could settle this one since it has caused some confusion.
I will post some points clearly and let me know if you agree or disagree, and we will work through it.
1. Baptism makes one a member of the Church. [Yes.]
2. Membership is contingent on certain factors. (1) A Catholic must keep the Faith [Yes.] (2) A Catholic cannot break from the unity of the Church which can be done through refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in union with him or breaking communion with other Catholics. [Yes.] (3) Not to have committed a crime which would incur excommunication from the Pope. [Yes.]
3. Mortal sin, as horrible as it is, does not sever one from the Church. [Yes at first, however, mortal sin is the loss of Charity in the soul, and without actual grace, it is a weakness of Hope and Faith; if lapsed through unrepentance in that mortal sin, then Hope and Faith is lost; which then severs one from the salvation of the Church.]
4. The indelible mark on the soul given at Baptism does not mean that one is always a Catholic. [No. This is false. An indelible mark is an indelible mark. It is never removed. Like confirmation and Holy Orders. One can be an apostate Catholic, and be in a different religion, but one always has the “indelible mark” as a Catholic. You cannot “indelible un-mark” in sin, and then “indelible mark” back up again.] Most Protestants and eastern schismatics possess this mark, but are outside the Church. [Yes they are outside of the Church only by apostation and formal heresy. It is important to also understand in the Catechism that if a “Protestant and eastern schismatics, are Baptized in the Gospel form of the Bible, with water (the Bible comes from the Catholic Church), saying the words: “I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit).”, they become truly, and very, Catholic; yet, while “practicing” in another religion, they are a Catholic apostate.
Here is another example I heard in catechism class: A person is in a car accident, and it is fatal. The person who is dying was not yet baptized and is still conscience. With people looking over him (a Protestant, Jєω, Muslim, Pagan, and even an atheist), the dying person wants to be baptized. He says to one of them, take that water, pour it over my head while saying these words: “I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit).”, the Priest in this catechism class has said, that the soul is baptized as a Catholic and is in the Catholic Church.
To understand more of the Church’s intention on this, go to any Catholic Priest and ask him why he would need to do a “conditional” baptism to a convert who just came to him, and is ready through catechism class, for baptism. The answer is: You cannot baptize a soul twice. Once the soul has the “indelible mark of Catholicism” on it, another Catholic baptism has no effect. Thus, the Church gives a “conditional” baptism to make sure the soul was baptized correctly in order to have no doubt in the matter.]
5. The indelible mark also does not make one in Hell a Catholic, as you had stated. [False. The “mark” of baptism is a “mark” of a Catholic –it is an indelible mark on the soul. It cannot be removed through mortal sin, apostation, heresy, or even a “scrub brush”. It is there forever; for all eternity. Please ask a Priest about this. This is an important, and very real answer, that is in the catechism.] The Church does not exist in Hell. [The salvation of the Church does not exist in Hell. In hell, there are simply only two categories of souls in there. Those that are there by the mortal apostation of the Natural Law; i.e. any atheist, naturalist, pagan, or other religion who did not know the truth of Jesus Christ and His salvation of the True Church, and did not follow the Natural Law that is innate in every soul made by God (see St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa on this question). The other category is, those who did know the salvation of Jesus Christ, and still chose to go to hell by the mortal apostation of baptism. Any Catholics who may unfortunately be in there by any mortal sin (apostation and heresy included), are there because of the mortal apostation from God though baptism, the souls of which, do have the “indelible mark” of baptism. Therefore, having the indelible mark of a Catholic baptism, there are Catholics in hell, and the punishment is greater.] The Church is made up of three parts, the Church Militant, on earth, the Church Suffering, in Purgatory, and the Church Triumphant, in Heaven. Those in Hell may have once been Catholic [members], but now they are cut off forever. Their indelible mark or their baptism remains, but their membership in the Church does not remain. [Yes.]
6. One cannot be a "Catholic heretic." They are mutually exclusive. [No. You seem to separate the word Catholic from baptism, while associating as one meaning, a Catholic and member. It is the other way around. A Catholic and baptism is one and the same, and a Catholic and a member can be two different things. When one says they are Catholic, it is because they are baptized. When one says they are baptized (in the Catholic form of the Gospel), they are Catholic; it is one and the same. When one says that they are a member of the Catholic Church, it is because they are a Catholic. However, when one says that they are Catholic (by baptism) it does not mean that they are a practicing member of the Catholic Church i.e. lapse mortal sin, apostation, or formal heresy.
In regards to Faith and Catholic, when one says they have the Faith, it is because they are Catholic; it is one and the same. However, when one says they are Catholic, it does not mean that they are practicing the Faith, or even have it any longer i.e. lapse mortal sin, apostation, or formal heresy; but they are still a Catholic.
Also, you seem to separate the word Catholic from heretic (mutually exclusive). The word Catholic and heretic are only associated by cause and effect. Like truth and error. The definition of “error” is the absence of truth. The definition of “darkness” is the absence of light. In other words, you need first to be a Catholic before you can apostate into a heretic.
You can also say in that meaning, that to combine those two words of “catholic heretic” is really redundant in a Catholic discussion; because when you say heretic, one means apostation from being a Catholic. But to the uneducated world, redundancy is necessary.
Also, when the word heretic is used in the case of “a catholic heretic”, it is used as a noun; and the word Catholic is used as a descriptive to that noun (The catholic heretic. A catholic heretic. As like: A catholic soldier. A catholic man. Etc). A heretic has only one meaning; and other religions (false) cannot use it. It is a word that has a direct relationship to the Truth. One can have the truth. One does not know the truth. One can be a heretic to the truth. Truth is Catholic; as Catholic is Truth. So the word heretic can only be used in relation to apostation from Catholicism –a catholic heretic.]
Once one becomes a public heretic, he has lost the Faith, and by losing the Faith and this being public, he loses his membership in the Church. In order to return to the Church he must be accepted and make an abjuration. [Yes, however, justice requires more stringencies on the accuser to prove the “heretic” with “matter and form”. Matter: of the substance of the heresy, and form: of the conscience of the heresy. In other words, knowing the contents of “material and formal” heresy to pass judgment.]
I hope this helps to clarify to avoid any confusion on these points. Thank you for the discussion. God bless.
Your welcome. I enjoy the discussion also; it raises the mind to think of the beauty and splendor of God in His Faith and in His Church.
God bless.
-
2. Membership is contingent on certain factors. (1) A Catholic must keep the Faith [Yes.] (2)
Machabees,
Here's a few quotes showing that faith is not necessary for membership in the Church.
Bellarmine: "- ccult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… 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 De Ecclesia. …the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external”.
An occult heretic is one who has lost the faith.
Suarez: “[T]he faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction …. The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…) The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said”.
Bouix: “Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that he might exercise true acts which require such jurisdiction. (…) Moreover, the power of orders, which in its way is superior, can remain without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so too (…) To the argument that, not being a member of the Church [the soul], the heretical Pope is not the head of the Church either … one can give the following answer: I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the Church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge”.
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
-
2. Membership is contingent on certain factors. (1) A Catholic must keep the Faith [Yes.] (2)
Machabees,
Here's a few quotes showing that faith is not necessary for membership in the Church.
Bellarmine: "- ccult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… 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 De Ecclesia. …the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external”.
An occult heretic is one who has lost the faith.
Suarez: “[T]he faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction …. The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…) The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said”.
Bouix: “Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that he might exercise true acts which require such jurisdiction. (…) Moreover, the power of orders, which in its way is superior, can remain without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so too (…) To the argument that, not being a member of the Church [the soul], the heretical Pope is not the head of the Church either … one can give the following answer: I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the Church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge”.
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
RJS,
Welcome to Cathinfo.
I very much agree, and thank you for adding to this discussion, within this difficult crisis we all face.
In the context of my answer given to Ambrose, he asked in his #1. "Baptism makes one a member of the Church." I responded: [Yes.] as this is the beginning of the "supernatural life". Ambrose then proceeded to his #2. (refereed to in your selected quote) "Membership is contingent on certain factors. (1) A Catholic must keep the Faith." I responded in the same line of thought: [Yes.] based on the membership of the "supernatural life".
You have included well in your post quotes from the Church's treasure; they are very profound and deep in thought; of the which I do recognize, believe, and hold. Including to what gives to my above context:
Bouix: "...I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the Church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge”.
-
Machabees,
You have brought up many issues here which now elevate the discussion to a new level, and far more complexity. I will answer each point one by one as time permits. Thank you for the discussion. I will work to bring Catholic sources to support each point. God bless.
-
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
Yet Garrigou-Lagrange holds, as it seems with St. Thomas ("The Church is the congregation of the faithful" [IIIa q.8 a.4 ad 2]), the opposite view of St. Bellarmine, which becomes clear in the very work you cited (Christ the Saviour, L.11 C.11):
"Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church."
"Hence the baptized formal heretic is not an actual member of the Church, and yet the Church has the right of punishing him, inasmuch as he does not maintain what he promised to believe, just as a king has the right to punish fugitive soldiers."
In any case, this question is controversial, but it seems that Bellarmine's opinion is more generally accepted.
-
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
Yet Garrigou-Lagrange holds, as it seems with St. Thomas ("The Church is the congregation of the faithful" [IIIa q.8 a.4 ad 2]), the opposite view of St. Bellarmine, which becomes clear in the very work you cited (Christ the Saviour, L.11 C.11):
"Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church."
"Hence the baptized formal heretic is not an actual member of the Church, and yet the Church has the right of punishing him, inasmuch as he does not maintain what he promised to believe, just as a king has the right to punish fugitive soldiers."
In any case, this question is controversial, but it seems that Bellarmine's opinion is more generally accepted.
Sorry to jump in here guys...
Here is Salaverri explaining the mind of St Thomas.
1039. Scholion 2. The mind of the theologians on the Church taken in a wide or stric sense.
St Thomas talks about the Church understood in this twofold meaning.
1) On the Church in the wide sense he teaches mainly this:
a) The body of the Church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of the world until its end (3 q.8 a.3)
b) The ancient Fathers, by observing the legal sacraments, were borne to Christ by the same faith and lovewhereby we also are borne to Him, and hence the ancient Fathers belong to the same Church as we. (3 q.8 a.3 ad 3).
c) Sinners are not members of Christ... except, perhaps, imperfectly, by formless faith, which unites to God, relatively but not simply (3 q.8 a.3 ad 2).
d) Lifeless faith is common to all members of the Church (2.2 q.4 a.5 ad 4)
e) The whole Church is united together by faith (2.2 q.1 a.9 ad 3)
f) The Church is the congregation of the faithful (3 q.8 a.4 ad 2)
2) On the Church in a strict sense St Thomas teaches:
a) Since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith But faith in a thing already present is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was manifested when that thing was yet in the future. But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member. (3 q.68 a.1 c et ad 1).
b) By Baptism men are incorporated in Christ. (3 q.68 a.4, a.5 c et ad 1; q. 69 a.2 et ad 1).
Salaverri coments: ”This is as a principle that St Thomas always uses in order to argue”
c) Baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual regeneration, by which man becomes a member of Christ (3 q.62 a.2; q.69 a. 6).
d) Those who are sanctified in the womb receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. (3 q.68 a.1 ad 3).
e) “Adults who already believe in Christ are incorporated in Him mentally. But afterwards, when they are baptized, they are incorporated in Him, corporally, as it were, i.e. by the visible sacrament; without the desire of which they could not have been incorporated in Him even mentally. (3 q.69 a.5 ad 1; a.4 ad 2)
Salaverri says: “St Thomas clearly teaches that the desire of baptism either explicit or implicit is necessary."
Note that according to Salaverri St Thomas is dealing on 3. q 8 with the Church in a wide sense, therefore it is wrong to take from there arguments related to membership.
-
Sorry to jump in here guys...
Here is Salaverri explaining the mind of St Thomas.
Thanks Cristian, of course you would not miss on a subject discussing Church membership!
All my best wishes to you.
-
Sorry to jump in here guys...
Here is Salaverri explaining the mind of St Thomas.
Thanks Cristian, of course you would not miss on a subject discussing Church membership!
All my best wishes to you.
Hi Pyrrhos! I hope you are doing well :)
Well to tell you the truth I`ve not followed this interesting exchange of posts completely. I just glanced it.
The subject is certainly fascinating!
God bless,
Cristian
-
“As a private person, can the Pope fall into heresy? The theologians dispute about this question. To us it seems more pious and more probable to admit that God will take care, by his Providence, that never will a Pope be a heretic”.
The above is Salaverri's statement of Bellarmine's "first opinion" on the Pope-Heretic question. This clearly shows that “first opinion” isn't intended to address the question of whether a pope might err in his official capacity as the Vicar of Christ, but addresses a pope acting unofficially as a private individual.
If one loses sight of this distinction, any discussion becomes confusing and worthless.
-
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
Point 1: Yet Garrigou-Lagrange holds, as it seems with St. Thomas ("The Church is the congregation of the faithful" [IIIa q.8 a.4 ad 2]), the opposite view of St. Bellarmine, which becomes clear in the very work you cited (Christ the Saviour, L.11 C.11):
"Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church."
Point 2 "Hence the baptized formal heretic is not an actual member of the Church, and yet the Church has the right of punishing him, inasmuch as he does not maintain what he promised to believe, just as a king has the right to punish fugitive soldiers."
In any case, this question is controversial, but it seems that Bellarmine's opinion is more generally accepted.
Pyrrhos,
Regarding the point I labeled"point 1" above, Bellarmine and Garrigou-Lagrange agree that a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith remains head of the Church. He remains head of the Church as far as jurisdiction is concerned, even though he is not united to Christ by faith or charity. That is an important point given the situation we find ourselves in today.
Now, with respect to a pope who became a formal heretic in the external forum (for example, a pope who openly left the Church and joined a heretical sect) that is another story. A pope who loses the faith yet remains in office, all the while claiming to be a Catholic, is a different situation. In that case, he would not be considered a formal heretic in the external forum. As Suares says below, in such a case he would only lose his office when a sentence was passed against him.
Suarez: Suarez: “f 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 by force or by other”. ...
“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,[/u] and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed.
Regarding "point 2" above, this is referring to a formal heretic in the external forum; meaning one who has openly left the Church. Even though such a person no longer claims to be a member of the Church, they can still be punished by the Church.
-
Regarding the point I labeled"point 1" above, Bellarmine and Garrigou-Lagrange agree that a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith remains head of the Church. He remains head of the Church as far as jurisdiction is concerned, even though he is not united to Christ by faith or charity. That is an important point given the situation we find ourselves in today.
Please explain where Bellarmine agrees that a pope-heretic remains pope.
This is precisely why I pointed out the distinction between the pope being a heretic as a private teacher and that of a pope being a heretic in his official capacity as Vicar of Christ. The latter is impossible.
Here is Bellarmine:
"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.'
"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 union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
-
Machabees wrote:
3. Mortal sin, as horrible as it is, does not sever one from the Church. [Yes at first, however, mortal sin is the loss of Charity in the soul, and without actual grace, it is a weakness of Hope and Faith; if lapsed through unrepentance in that mortal sin, then Hope and Faith is lost; which then severs one from the salvation of the Church.]
(Your words in brackets)
We agree on this, but let us be clear on the terms here. Mortal sin, if unrepented at death will lead to damnation. But, as long as a Catholic is alive, mortal sin does not sever one from their membership in the Church. Heresy, schism and excommunication sever one from the Church, but not any mortal sin other than these. We are here talking of membership in the Church, which is what the Catechism is referring to.
As the Roman Catechism states;
Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church
Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
-
Thanks to all who are coming in the discussion.
This topic is very important to understand in this unprecedented crisis we all suffer in, including atheists: "Is the Pope the Pope; a Formal heretic?".
It is certainly true that the present Pope (as with JPVII and JPII) are teaching modernism. I also realize in this "strike the shepherd; the sheep will scatter." situation, that in the consequence of this "scattering", there are now many more thoughts, understandings, groups, factions, and so on that had resulted in this crisis. Although we may not come to fully understand all that God may want in His providence to allow this to happen -except for the mystery of the cross- we do need to trust in Him to provide.
As this "broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX" is developing, like any discussion, the basis of need to understand meaning and terms is essential. I believe we are coming to an understanding on this and ready to go to the core of the question: "Is the Pope the Pope; a Formal heretic?"
As RJS helped first to bring this to its next needed level, as with others who have helped to bring in the thoughts of the Holiness of the Church, there is a basic summation and premise that all of this "new level" is dealing with when we are talking about: "Is the Pope the Pope". Then after we can get to the next question of: is he a “Formal” heretic or not?.
To the first question: "Is the Pope the Pope". Let’s bring in an example:
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 hope this helps to understand the meaning of the body of membership and what Archbishop Lefebvre had also stood up for in principle.
When others are ready, we can go to the next level of understanding the question of: is he a “Formal” heretic or not?
God bless.
-
Regarding the point I labeled"point 1" above, Bellarmine and Garrigou-Lagrange agree that a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith remains head of the Church. He remains head of the Church as far as jurisdiction is concerned, even though he is not united to Christ by faith or charity. That is an important point given the situation we find ourselves in today.
Please explain where Bellarmine agrees that a pope-heretic remains pope.
This is precisely why I pointed out the distinction between the pope being a heretic as a private teacher and that of a pope being a heretic in his official capacity as Vicar of Christ. The latter is impossible.
SJB,
The distinction you are making is limited to the realm of acting (e.g. can a pope teach heresy only in private, or can he teach heresy in his official capacity as pope). The questions we are discussing, however, deals with the realm of being (e.g. if a pope falls into heresy and loses the faith, does he remain head of the Church; or if a pope openly leaves the Church, does he remain head of the Church). The question is not what can a pope do or not do, but at what point would he cease to be pope. Your point is a good one as well, and we can discuss it too, but that is a separate question.
Regarding the realm of being, we need to address two points: Firstly, whether a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith (internally) ceases to be the head of the Church. The second question is whether or not a pope who publicly defects from the Faith - for example, leaving the Church and joining a heretical sect – (thereby becoming a manifest heretic), ceases to be the head of the Church. According to Bellarmine, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic does cease to be pope, but keep in mind that falling into heresy and losing the faith does not equate to being a manifest heretic. A pope who is an occult heretic has also lost the faith, yet he remains externally united to the Church and retains his jurisdiction. Here’s the pertinent section from Bellarmine.
Bellarmine: “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 [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: "He would not be able to retain the episcopate, 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 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 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 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 union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved.” (END)
Regarding this point, Garrigou-Lagrange elaborates. He wrote:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “St. Robert Bellarmine's objection. The pope who becomes a secret heretic is still an actual member of the Church, for he is still the head of the Church, as Cajetan, Cano, Suarez, and others teach.
“Reply. This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics. Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church.”
So, the question is whether or not a pope who loses the faith, and is thereby cut off from the mystical body of Christ, can retain jurisdiction as head of the Church. The answer to that question is yes. A further question we may want to discuss is “what constitutes manifest heresy”.
The question you raised was a different one altogether.
-
Machabees wrote:
4. The indelible mark on the soul given at Baptism does not mean that one is always a Catholic. [No. This is false. An indelible mark is an indelible mark. It is never removed. Like confirmation and Holy Orders. One can be an apostate Catholic, and be in a different religion, but one always has the “indelible mark” as a Catholic. You cannot “indelible un-mark” in sin, and then “indelible mark” back up again.] Most Protestants and eastern schismatics possess this mark, but are outside the Church. [Yes they are outside of the Church only by apostation and formal heresy. It is important to also understand in the Catechism that if a “Protestant and eastern schismatics, are Baptized in the Gospel form of the Bible, with water (the Bible comes from the Catholic Church), saying the words: “I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit).”, they become truly, and very, Catholic; yet, while “practicing” in another religion, they are a Catholic apostate.
Here is another example I heard in catechism class: A person is in a car accident, and it is fatal. The person who is dying was not yet baptized and is still conscience. With people looking over him (a Protestant, Jєω, Muslim, Pagan, and even an atheist), the dying person wants to be baptized. He says to one of them, take that water, pour it over my head while saying these words: “I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit).”, the Priest in this catechism class has said, that the soul is baptized as a Catholic and is in the Catholic Church.
To understand more of the Church’s intention on this, go to any Catholic Priest and ask him why he would need to do a “conditional” baptism to a convert who just came to him, and is ready through catechism class, for baptism. The answer is: You cannot baptize a soul twice. Once the soul has the “indelible mark of Catholicism” on it, another Catholic baptism has no effect. Thus, the Church gives a “conditional” baptism to make sure the soul was baptized correctly in order to have no doubt in the matter.]
(your words in brackets)
I agree with you that the indelible mark cannot be removed. I also believe that the indelible mark is the mark of a Catholic, but that does not mean one is still a member of the Church. Perhaps you mean that and we are not using the same terms.
What I am confused about is when you say what I said is "false." Do you believe that the indelible mark from baptism makes it impossible for one to sever oneself from the Church? That is what it appears you are saying, but as I said this may be a matter of not using the same terms.
I also understand that one cannot baptize twice. You and I both agree, as we must that one of the effects of Baptism is the indelible mark. There is no disagreement on this point.
I stand by my initial statement that the "indelible mark does not mean that one is always a Catholic." Those who are baptized but who are outside of the Church, (the ark of salvation), have the indelible mark, but they outside the Church, they are not members of the Church. Perhaps you took that to mean that I thought that if one fell from the Church, that the mark was removed, but I did not say or imply that.
The indelible mark will remain even in the damned, but the Catholic Church in any of its three parts, Militant, Suffering or Triumphant, does not exist in Hell. The Indelible mark will remain in the damned one which increases their shame.
If you want to learn more about the nature of the indelible mark, I would urge you to read St. Thomas on this point: http://www.catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/summa-part3.php?q=457
I hope this helps to clarify. God bless.
-
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
Point 1: Yet Garrigou-Lagrange holds, as it seems with St. Thomas ("The Church is the congregation of the faithful" [IIIa q.8 a.4 ad 2]), the opposite view of St. Bellarmine, which becomes clear in the very work you cited (Christ the Saviour, L.11 C.11):
"Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church."
Point 2 "Hence the baptized formal heretic is not an actual member of the Church, and yet the Church has the right of punishing him, inasmuch as he does not maintain what he promised to believe, just as a king has the right to punish fugitive soldiers."
In any case, this question is controversial, but it seems that Bellarmine's opinion is more generally accepted.
Pyrrhos,
Regarding the point I labeled"point 1" above, Bellarmine and Garrigou-Lagrange agree that a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith remains head of the Church. He remains head of the Church as far as jurisdiction is concerned, even though he is not united to Christ by faith or charity. That is an important point given the situation we find ourselves in today.
Now, with respect to a pope who became a formal heretic in the external forum (for example, a pope who openly left the Church and joined a heretical sect) that is another story. A pope who loses the faith yet remains in office, all the while claiming to be a Catholic, is a different situation. In that case, he would not be considered a formal heretic in the external forum. As Suares says below, in such a case he would only lose his office when a sentence was passed against him.
Suarez: Suarez: “f 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 by force or by other”. ...
“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,[/u] and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed.
Regarding "point 2" above, this is referring to a formal heretic in the external forum; meaning one who has openly left the Church. Even though such a person no longer claims to be a member of the Church, they can still be punished by the Church.
RJs, you are quite on top of things.
Your addition again is opportune to the beginning of the next needed level: is the Pope a “Formal” heretic or not?
When others are ready in respect of understanding, unfortunately we all may not agree, God will Provide this unity to come, none the less, you brought in a very valuable point.
We could wait for others in this next question, or address it simultaneously.
For myself, I'm ready and open for the two-separate questions.
God bless.
-
Machabees wrote:
3. Mortal sin, as horrible as it is, does not sever one from the Church. [Yes at first, however, mortal sin is the loss of Charity in the soul, and without actual grace, it is a weakness of Hope and Faith; if lapsed through unrepentance in that mortal sin, then Hope and Faith is lost; which then severs one from the salvation of the Church.]
(Your words in brackets)
We agree on this, but let us be clear on the terms here. Mortal sin, if unrepented at death will lead to damnation. But, as long as a Catholic is alive, mortal sin does not sever one from their membership in the Church. Heresy, schism and excommunication sever one from the Church, but not any mortal sin other than these. We are here talking of membership in the Church, which is what the Catechism is referring to.
As the Roman Catechism states;
Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church
Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
Ambrose,
Thanks for the clarifications.
Perhaps in your overall theme you were speaking of a "member", your #3 and #4 question did not address nor speak of membership in your post. So I answered them as they were written:
3. Mortal sin, as horrible as it is, does not sever one from the Church.
4. The indelible mark on the soul given at Baptism does not mean that one is always a Catholic. Most Protestants and eastern schismatics possess this mark, but are outside the Church.
In respect to mortal sin a member:
If one is in mortal sin, one loses charity (habitual/sanctifying grace), however, he still receives "actual" grace to move him to repent; of which he is still a member of the Church. While in that state of unrepented mortal sin, as much as our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is wanting to convert him, there is no salvation God can give to "force" him to convert. Therefore, by the nature of that unrepented mortal sin, it is a severance of "salvation" by itself, and at death will lead to damnation; and becomes a probate.
God bless.
-
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
Point 1: Yet Garrigou-Lagrange holds, as it seems with St. Thomas ("The Church is the congregation of the faithful" [IIIa q.8 a.4 ad 2]), the opposite view of St. Bellarmine, which becomes clear in the very work you cited (Christ the Saviour, L.11 C.11):
"Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church."
Point 2 "Hence the baptized formal heretic is not an actual member of the Church, and yet the Church has the right of punishing him, inasmuch as he does not maintain what he promised to believe, just as a king has the right to punish fugitive soldiers."
In any case, this question is controversial, but it seems that Bellarmine's opinion is more generally accepted.
Pyrrhos,
Regarding the point I labeled"point 1" above, Bellarmine and Garrigou-Lagrange agree that a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith remains head of the Church. He remains head of the Church as far as jurisdiction is concerned, even though he is not united to Christ by faith or charity. That is an important point given the situation we find ourselves in today.
Now, with respect to a pope who became a formal heretic in the external forum (for example, a pope who openly left the Church and joined a heretical sect) that is another story. A pope who loses the faith yet remains in office, all the while claiming to be a Catholic, is a different situation. In that case, he would not be considered a formal heretic in the external forum. As Suares says below, in such a case he would only lose his office when a sentence was passed against him.
Suarez: Suarez: “f 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 by force or by other”. ...
“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,[/u] and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed.
Regarding "point 2" above, this is referring to a formal heretic in the external forum; meaning one who has openly left the Church. Even though such a person no longer claims to be a member of the Church, they can still be punished by the Church.
RJs, you are quite on top of things.
Your addition again is opportune to the beginning of the next needed level: is the Pope a “Formal” heretic or not?
Yes, that is the next logical question. But when answering, we need to make a further distincion: we need to distinguish between formal heresy in the internal forum, and formal heresy in the external forum. Formal heresy in the interrnal forum is the internal sin of heresy, which does not cause a Bishop to lose his jurisdiction. Formal heresy in the external forum does cause a Bishop to lose his jurisdiction, since a formal heretic in the external forum is in no way a member of the Church. The question is, at what point would a pope become a formal heretic in the external forum? I'll let you begin.
-
Machabees wrote:
6. One cannot be a "Catholic heretic." They are mutually exclusive. [No. You seem to separate the word Catholic from baptism, while associating as one meaning, a Catholic and member. It is the other way around. A Catholic and baptism is one and the same, and a Catholic and a member can be two different things. When one says they are Catholic, it is because they are baptized. When one says they are baptized (in the Catholic form of the Gospel), they are Catholic; it is one and the same. When one says that they are a member of the Catholic Church, it is because they are a Catholic. However, when one says that they are Catholic (by baptism) it does not mean that they are a practicing member of the Catholic Church i.e. lapse mortal sin, apostation, or formal heresy.
In regards to Faith and Catholic, when one says they have the Faith, it is because they are Catholic; it is one and the same. However, when one says they are Catholic, it does not mean that they are practicing the Faith, or even have it any longer i.e. lapse mortal sin, apostation, or formal heresy; but they are still a Catholic.
Also, you seem to separate the word Catholic from heretic (mutually exclusive). The word Catholic and heretic are only associated by cause and effect. Like truth and error. The definition of “error” is the absence of truth. The definition of “darkness” is the absence of light. In other words, you need first to be a Catholic before you can apostate into a heretic.
You can also say in that meaning, that to combine those two words of “catholic heretic” is really redundant in a Catholic discussion; because when you say heretic, one means apostation from being a Catholic. But to the uneducated world, redundancy is necessary.
Also, when the word heretic is used in the case of “a catholic heretic”, it is used as a noun; and the word Catholic is used as a descriptive to that noun (The catholic heretic. A catholic heretic. As like: A catholic soldier. A catholic man. Etc). A heretic has only one meaning; and other religions (false) cannot use it. It is a word that has a direct relationship to the Truth. One can have the truth. One does not know the truth. One can be a heretic to the truth. Truth is Catholic; as Catholic is Truth. So the word heretic can only be used in relation to apostation from Catholicism –a catholic heretic.]
Once one becomes a public heretic, he has lost the Faith, and by losing the Faith and this being public, he loses his membership in the Church. In order to return to the Church he must be accepted and make an abjuration. [Yes, however, justice requires more stringencies on the accuser to prove the “heretic” with “matter and form”. Matter: of the substance of the heresy, and form: of the conscience of the heresy. In other words, knowing the contents of “material and formal” heresy to pass judgment.]
Without getting into the dispute about whether an occult heretic is a member of the Church, let us keep this on a public defection from the Faith. It is an indisputable fact of our Faith that when one publicly and pertinaciously denies a teaching of the Church that he by that fact ceases to be a member of the Church.
I am well aware of the dispute about occult heresy, but I did qualify what I wrote when I said "public." I also agree that when making a judgment about another Catholic on whether he is a pertinacious public heretic, one must be very slow and cautious about making such a judgment giving the suspected person every chance to show his innocence.
I also believe that if times were normal, and the hierarchy was properly functioning that these matters would be resolved by those in authority, and our main duty as laypeople would be to report the heretic to our local bishop. He would then take it from there. But, we are not in normal times, which is why we are discussing this in the first place. Most of those who currently reject the heresies of Vatican II are vagus bishops and priests and laypeople. The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis.
I agree with you you wrote about cause and effect, but I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. When one is a (public) heretic, they are not professing the Catholic Faith, therefore one cannot be a Catholic heretic. In order to be a Catholic one must profess the true Faith. A Catholic cannot deviate in even one point.
-
Bellarmine and Garrigou-Lagrange agree that a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith remains head of the Church. He remains head of the Church as far as jurisdiction is concerned, even though he is not united to Christ by faith or charity. That is an important point given the situation we find ourselves in today.
This is incorrect.
"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 ...
-
According to Bellarmine, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic does cease to be pope, but keep in mind that falling into heresy and losing the faith does not equate to being a manifest heretic. A pope who is an occult heretic has also lost the faith, yet he remains externally united to the Church and retains his jurisdiction. Here’s the pertinent section from Bellarmine.
"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 ...
So following RJS's reasoning, we must believe an occult heretic (a heretic not manifest) is not one who can be in any way judged by the Church. He remains in power, still a member of the Church, yet unable to removed (judged by the Church.)
Why would he need to be removed if he was occult or hidden? How could anybody make an accusation of occult heresy?
RJS, I think the problem with your general approach is that you misunderstand and confuse at various times and in different ways, manifest and occult heresy.
Actually becoming a manifest heretic is not due to a judgment of the Church, it is what allows a pope to be judged and punished by the Church, as Bellarmine teaches.
-
Bellarmine and Garrigou-Lagrange agree that a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith remains head of the Church. He remains head of the Church as far as jurisdiction is concerned, even though he is not united to Christ by faith or charity. That is an important point given the situation we find ourselves in today.
This is incorrect.
"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 ...
SJB,
Being guilty of the sin of heresy and losing the faith is not equivalent to being a manifest heretic. If you don't understand that, the citations I provided from Garrigou-Lagrange, Suarez, and Bioux will not make sense. If you do understand that point, the quotes may begin to make sense.
-
According to Bellarmine, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic does cease to be pope, but keep in mind that falling into heresy and losing the faith does not equate to being a manifest heretic. A pope who is an occult heretic has also lost the faith, yet he remains externally united to the Church and retains his jurisdiction. Here’s the pertinent section from Bellarmine.
"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 ...
So following RJS's reasoning, we must believe an occult heretic (a heretic not manifest) is not one who can be in any way judged by the Church. He remains in power, still a member of the Church, yet unable to removed (judged by the Church.)
Why would he need to be removed if he was occult or hidden? How could anybody make an accusation of occult heresy?
The reason for establising the point is to show that the sin of heresy and consequent loss of faith does not, of itself, cause a pope to lose his office. the reason it is necessary to make this point is because most sedevacantists are mistaken on this point, which then leads them to draw false conclusions.
RJS, I think the problem with your general approach is that you misunderstand and confuse at various times and in different ways, manifest and occult heresy.
Actually becoming a manifest heretic is not due to a judgment of the Church, it is what allows a pope to be judged and punished by the Church, as Bellarmine teaches.
If the prelate in question does not openly leave the Church, in your opinion what would constitute a manifest heretic? And who gets to make the judgment that a pope who has not openly left the Church qualifies as a manifest heretic? Is such a judgment left to the opinion of each individual laymen, or is the judgment the responsibility of the proper ecclesiastical authorities? Please provide a source to back up your statement.
-
I'm not sure what happened to the pervioust. I'll try to repost it.
So following RJS's reasoning, we must believe an occult heretic (a heretic not manifest) is not one who can be in any way judged by the Church. He remains in power, still a member of the Church, yet unable to removed (judged by the Church.)
Why would he need to be removed if he was occult or hidden? How could anybody make an accusation of occult heresy?
The reason for establising the point is to show that the sin of heresy and consequent loss of faith does not, of itself, cause a pope to lose his office. the reason it is necessary to make this point is because most sedevacantists are mistaken on this point, which then leads them to draw false conclusions.
RJS, I think the problem with your general approach is that you misunderstand and confuse at various times and in different ways, manifest and occult heresy.
Actually becoming a manifest heretic is not due to a judgment of the Church, it is what allows a pope to be judged and punished by the Church, as Bellarmine teaches.
If the prelate in question does not openly leave the Church, in your opinion what would constitute a manifest heretic? And who gets to make the judgment that a pope who has not openly left the Church qualifies as a manifest heretic? Is such a judgment left to the opinion of each individual laymen, or is the judgment the responsibility of the proper ecclesiastical authorities? Please provide a source to back up your statement.
-
Bellarmine and Garrigou-Lagrange agree that a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith remains head of the Church. He remains head of the Church as far as jurisdiction is concerned, even though he is not united to Christ by faith or charity. That is an important point given the situation we find ourselves in today.
This is incorrect.
"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 ...
SJB,
Being guilty of the sin of heresy and losing the faith is not equivalent to being a manifest heretic. If you don't understand that, the citations I provided from Garrigou-Lagrange, Suarez, and Bioux will not make sense. If you do understand that point, the quotes may begin to make sense.
Of course, a man can be guilty of the sin heresy and lose the Faith and without being a manifest heretic. The man is an occult heretic.
The crime of heresy is always necessarily external. It is the crime of heresy that affects one's membership in the Church. When is heresy a crime? When it is public. Here is Bouscaren:
Canon 2197 defines the various degrees of publicity.
"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:
"1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;
"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;
"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;
"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.
-
SJB,
Being guilty of the sin of heresy and losing the faith is not equivalent to being a manifest heretic. If you don't understand that, the citations I provided from Garrigou-Lagrange, Suarez, and Bioux will not make sense. If you do understand that point, the quotes may begin to make sense.
Of course, a man can be guilty of the sin heresy and lose the Faith and without being a manifest heretic. The man is an occult heretic.
The crime of heresy is always necessarily external. It is the crime of heresy that affects one's membership in the Church. When is heresy a crime? When it is public. Here is Bouscaren:
Bouscaren Canon 2197 defines the various degrees of publicity.
"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:
"1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;
"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;
"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;
"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.
But the question is, who gets to determine that the person qualifies as a manifest heretic (who determines criminal guilt)? If the person hasn't openly left the Church, it requires a judgment of guilt. Just because you or I can read canon law, does not mean we have the authority to apply it to individual circuмstances by passing judgment on individuals - especially when such a judgment results in the loss of office for a member of the hierarchy. Such judgments belong to the proper authorities alone. We can certainly have an opinion on whether or not a person is a heretic, but our personal opinion is nothing more than that. If we proclaim our opinion as a fact by a public declaration, we are guilty of what St. Thomas calls "judgment by usurpation" (.T. Pt. II-II, Q 60, A. 2), which is a sin against justice. And one who attempts to compel others to submit to his judgment in such a matter, is guilty of an additional sin (Ibid, article 6). It is usurping an authority that does not belong to us.
Before the Church authorities make a judgment and declaration on these pope, they retain in office. Maybe they will eventually judge that they were heretics and render their papal Acts null? It wouldn't surprise me if that happens in the future, but such actions belong to the proper authorities alone.
In ths crisis, it is our job to keep the faith, do our daily duties, and try to sanctify our soul. Judging whether or not these seemingly heretical popes lost their office is simply not within our scope of our authority.
-
SJB,
Being guilty of the sin of heresy and losing the faith is not equivalent to being a manifest heretic. If you don't understand that, the citations I provided from Garrigou-Lagrange, Suarez, and Bioux will not make sense. If you do understand that point, the quotes may begin to make sense.
Of course, a man can be guilty of the sin heresy and lose the Faith and without being a manifest heretic. The man is an occult heretic.
The crime of heresy is always necessarily external. It is the crime of heresy that affects one's membership in the Church. When is heresy a crime? When it is public. Here is Bouscaren:
Bouscaren Canon 2197 defines the various degrees of publicity.
"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:
"1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;
"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;
"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;
"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.
But the question is, who gets to determine that the person qualifies as a manifest heretic (who determines criminal guilt)? If the person hasn't openly left the Church, it requires a judgment of guilt. Just because you or I can read canon law, does not mean we have the authority to apply it to individual circuмstances by passing judgment on individuals - especially when such a judgment results in the loss of office for a member of the hierarchy. Such judgments belong to the proper authorities alone. We can certainly have an opinion on whether or not a person is a heretic, but our personal opinion is nothing more than that. If we proclaim our opinion as a fact by a public declaration, we are guilty of what St. Thomas calls "judgment by usurpation" (.T. Pt. II-II, Q 60, A. 2), which is a sin against justice. And one who attempts to compel others to submit to his judgment in such a matter, is guilty of an additional sin (Ibid, article 6). It is usurping an authority that does not belong to us.
Before the Church authorities make a judgment and declaration on these pope, they retain in office. Maybe they will eventually judge that they were heretics and render their papal Acts null? It wouldn't surprise me if that happens in the future, but such actions belong to the proper authorities alone.
In ths crisis, it is our job to keep the faith, do our daily duties, and try to sanctify our soul. Judging whether or not these seemingly heretical popes lost their office is simply not within our scope of our authority.
This is a totally separate question. We've discussed this previously with me stating quite often that these judgments are extra-juridicial and obviously bind nobody. You and I have NO authority at all.
That being said, you simply can't square your statement, "Before the Church authorities make a judgment and declaration on these pope, they retain in office" with that of Bellarmine:
"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 ...
This is all very simple to understand and it seems you're blinded in this area for some reason.
-
SJB,
Being guilty of the sin of heresy and losing the faith is not equivalent to being a manifest heretic. If you don't understand that, the citations I provided from Garrigou-Lagrange, Suarez, and Bioux will not make sense. If you do understand that point, the quotes may begin to make sense.
Of course, a man can be guilty of the sin heresy and lose the Faith and without being a manifest heretic. The man is an occult heretic.
The crime of heresy is always necessarily external. It is the crime of heresy that affects one's membership in the Church. When is heresy a crime? When it is public. Here is Bouscaren:
Bouscaren Canon 2197 defines the various degrees of publicity.
"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:
"1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;
"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;
"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;
"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.
But the question is, who gets to determine that the person qualifies as a manifest heretic (who determines criminal guilt)? If the person hasn't openly left the Church, it requires a judgment of guilt. Just because you or I can read canon law, does not mean we have the authority to apply it to individual circuмstances by passing judgment on individuals - especially when such a judgment results in the loss of office for a member of the hierarchy. Such judgments belong to the proper authorities alone. We can certainly have an opinion on whether or not a person is a heretic, but our personal opinion is nothing more than that. If we proclaim our opinion as a fact by a public declaration, we are guilty of what St. Thomas calls "judgment by usurpation" (.T. Pt. II-II, Q 60, A. 2), which is a sin against justice. And one who attempts to compel others to submit to his judgment in such a matter, is guilty of an additional sin (Ibid, article 6). It is usurping an authority that does not belong to us.
Before the Church authorities make a judgment and declaration on these pope, they retain in office. Maybe they will eventually judge that they were heretics and render their papal Acts null? It wouldn't surprise me if that happens in the future, but such actions belong to the proper authorities alone.
In ths crisis, it is our job to keep the faith, do our daily duties, and try to sanctify our soul. Judging whether or not these seemingly heretical popes lost their office is simply not within our scope of our authority.
This is a totally separate question. We've discussed this previously with me stating quite often that these judgments are extra-juridicial and obviously bind nobody. You and I have NO authority at all.
That being said, you simply can't square your statement, "Before the Church authorities make a judgment and declaration on these pope, they retain in office" with that of Bellarmine:
"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 ...
This is all very simple to understand and it seems you're blinded in this area for some reason.
Why did you say I can't square my statement with the quotation from Bellarmine? I certainly can do so.
Bellarmine's statement is a hypothetical statement of the speculative order. There are two opinions on this point. One opinion is that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope. The other opinion is that he does not cease to be pope automatically, but can be deposed. These are both hypothetical questions pertaining to the speculative order.
However, when it comes to the practical order, a judgment of the Church is necessary. The propery authorities must judge whether or not the pope is a manifest heretic who has lost his office, or is a manifest heretic who is deposable. The judgment is not left up to each individual. On the practical level, the only difference is that the Church will declare him to have lost his office, or it would declare him deposed. Canon smith explains:
“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”.
Like I said, the question is hypothetical rather than practical. On the practical level it still requires a judgment by the proper authorities. That is how the seeming difficulty is reconciled.
-
On the practical level it still requires a judgment by the proper authorities.
To be BINDING it requires a practical judgment. If it were impossible to assert a Pope was a heretic no matter what he said or did without recourse to "proper authorities" - then it is a situation that is impossible to rectify.
In any case - once such a situation comes about, the "Pope" ceases to exercise authority.
-
On the practical level it still requires a judgment by the proper authorities.
To be BINDING it requires a practical judgment. If it were impossible to assert a Pope was a heretic no matter what he said or did without recourse to "proper authorities" - then it is a situation that is impossible to rectify.
How does your assertion that the pope is a heretic and therefore not a true pope rectify the situation? It doesn't.
God has allowed this crisis for reasons known to Himself. Once the crisis ends, I have no doubt that the proper authorities will judge the post Vatican II popes - and I expect that Paul VI to Benedict XVI will be declared heretics. And if I live to see that wonderful day, drinks will be on me.
A sedevacantist who detests John Paul II and Benedict XVi, may well end up in hell along side of them if he separates himself from the Church, since outside the Church there is no salvation, and the Church exists today just as it did prior to the council. The difference is the condition, not the being itself.
Just as a man dying of Aids is the same man that existed prior to being infected, so too the Church today is the same Church that existed prior to Vatican II. The difference is that today the Church is in the condition of an Aids victim on his last breath. It is just about dead, but like our Lord, it will rise again.
If you leave the Church, or declare it to have become a false Church, you separate yourself from the mystical body of Christ and will get to spend eternity in hell.
On the other hand, if you realize the sick situation of the Church, avoid the heretics within, and leave it to the proper authorities to sort everything out in God's times, you will not risk eternal damnation for separating yourself from the Church.
Sedevacantism is not only a dead end and no solution to the problem; it is probably one of the main traps of the devil to lead those with the Faith out of the Church. It is one thing to avoid the corrupt elements within the Church during this unprecedented crisis (which is the prudent thing to do), and another to declare that the Church itself has ceased to be the Church and then separate yourself from it. The former is prudent, the latter is true schism. There are many victims in the current crisis, and more dangers to sedevacantism than people realize.
-
If it's forbidden to say the Pope is a heretic before there is a binding judgment against him, how could anyone begin a process to pronounce such a judgment?
To cut off the discussion of whether or not a Pope is a heretic is to prevent any adjudication or resolution of such a situation when it arises. Even in the case of flagrant heresy.
-
If it's forbidden to say the Pope is a heretic before there is a binding judgment against him, how could anyone begin a process to pronounce such a judgment?
You begin the process with the assumption that the pope is at least suspect of heresy, and then investigate the matter.
To cut off the discussion of whether or not a Pope is a heretic is to prevent any adjudication or resolution of such a situation when it arises. Even in the case of flagrant heresy.
I haven't claimed that it cannot be discussed. The problem is when individual laymen or individual priest make themselves judge, jury and executioner by declaring that one who was elected pope is not a real pope. That's the problem.
-
A sedevacantist who detests John Paul II and Benedict XVi, may well end up in hell along side of them if he separates himself from the Church, since outside the Church there is no salvation, and the Church exists today just as it did prior to the council. The difference is the condition, not the being itself.
Just as a man dying of Aids is the same man that existed prior to being infected, so too the Church today is the same Church that existed prior to Vatican II. The difference is that today the Church is in the condition of an Aids victim on his last breath. It is just about dead, but like our Lord, it will rise again.
If you leave the Church, or declare it to have become a false Church, you separate yourself from the mystical body of Christ and will get to spend eternity in hell.
On the other hand, if you realize the sick situation of the Church, avoid the heretics within, and leave it to the proper authorities to sort everything out in God's times, you will not risk eternal damnation for separating yourself from the Church.
Refusing to acknowledge someone who clearly does not hold the Catholic Faith as a Pope should not mean that person has "separated themselves from the Church". On the contrary, the real schismatics, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, are those in the conciliar church.
I do not believe that we will be judged for our position on whether or not Benedict is Pope. Keeping the Faith is what matters.
-
The problem is when individual laymen or individual priest make themselves judge, jury and executioner by declaring that one who was elected pope is not a real pope. That's the problem.
No, that's an evasion. Just talking about it is useless if one is a priori excluded from accepting implications of an invalid Pope. A Pope doesn't actually become a heretic only when the Church pronounces on it. He becomes a heretic when starts being a heretic, and if there are no authorities that can pronounce him one, that doesn't change that one must speak and act in response to it.
Being judge, jury and executioner would be to usurp authority, claim to be in a position to depose. If a murderer runs at large he's still a murderer, convicted or not. One is not being "judge, jury and executioner" to say that person is a murderer, just because they aren't convicted.
The strident antisede position speaks as though Benedict XVI not being Catholic would mean that the Church has failed. It is a position that leads to the loss of Faith.
-
How does your assertion that the pope is a heretic and therefore not a true pope rectify the situation?
That is idiotic. Unless people say a "Pope" has left the Church and should be deposed as a heretic, there is no possibility of ever taking action.
It doesn't.
The TRUTH being acknowledged is what rectifies the situation.
God has allowed this crisis for reasons known to Himself. Once the crisis ends, I have no doubt that the proper authorities will judge the post Vatican II popes - and I expect that Paul VI to Benedict XVI will be declared heretics. And if I live to see that wonderful day, drinks will be on me.
Then you re saying you believe they are heretics but you also believe they are Popes. But you tell others not to say they believe they are heretics and are not Popes. That is a distinction without a difference.
A sedevacantist who detests John Paul II and Benedict XVi, may well end up in hell along side of them if he separates himself from the Church, since outside the Church there is no salvation, and the Church exists today just as it did prior to the council. The difference is the condition, not the being itself.
Just as a man dying of Aids is the same man that existed prior to being infected, so too the Church today is the same Church that existed prior to Vatican II.=
The "official Church" is not the same Church. The True Church cannot be corrupted.
The difference is that today the Church is in the condition of an Aids victim on his last breath. It is just about dead, but like our Lord, it will rise again.
This sickening analogy, used in order to keep people acknowledging Benedict XVI, is probably blasphemous.
If you leave the Church, or declare it to have become a false Church, you separate yourself from the mystical body of Christ and will get to spend eternity in hell.
No one leaves the Church for saying a heretic can't be the head of the Church.
On the other hand, if you realize the sick situation of the Church, avoid the heretics within, and leave it to the proper authorities to sort everything out in God's times, you will not risk eternal damnation for separating yourself from the Church.
That is pharisaic scrupulosity that is imposed by a cult - it's not a Catholic response to this situation.
Sedevacantism is not only a dead end and no solution to the problem;
You yourself just said that the declaration that the conciliar Popes are heretics is something you believe will happen someday. Then you say sedevacantism isn't the solution. That is a contradiction. Those visibly outside the Church cannot be the leaders of it. Those who say they must be or the Church has failed, and in particular a certain cult-like group - some - particularly the leaders - have an agenda - that agenda is to make the Catholic Faith dependent on accepting a non-Catholic as Pope, in order to enable them to lead those who've given up their own minds and wills follow a non-Catholic.
it is probably one of the main traps of the devil to lead those with the Faith out of the Church.
People who say such the things about the Church - that the Church has AIDS or Cancer, - are much further from orthodoxy than sedevacantists.
It is one thing to avoid the corrupt elements within the Church during this unprecedented crisis (which is the prudent thing to do), and another to declare that the Church itself has ceased to be the Church and then separate yourself from it. The former is prudent, the latter is true schism. There are many victims in the current crisis, and more dangers to sedevacantism than people realize.
True schism happens when cult leaders "excommunicate" sedevacantists for telling the truth.
-
The dogmatic antisedes need to ADMIT that they don't hold the same position as the Archbishop.
-
Why did you say I can't square my statement with the quotation from Bellarmine? I certainly can do so.
Bellarmine's statement is a hypothetical statement of the speculative order. There are two opinions on this point. One opinion is that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope. The other opinion is that he does not cease to be pope automatically, but can be deposed. These are both hypothetical questions pertaining to the speculative order.
Actually, there are 5 opinions, and Bellarmine, who was made a Doctor of the Church and is probably the foremost authority on the papacy, has said the following concerning this "fourth opinion":
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
However, when it comes to the practical order, a judgment of the Church is necessary. The propery authorities must judge whether or not the pope is a manifest heretic who has lost his office, or is a manifest heretic who is deposable. The judgment is not left up to each individual. On the practical level, the only difference is that the Church will declare him to have lost his office, or it would declare him deposed. Canon smith explains:
“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”.
Like I said, the question is hypothetical rather than practical. On the practical level it still requires a judgment by the proper authorities. That is how the seeming difficulty is reconciled.
On the practical level, a false pope or pope-heretic must be removed. This is without question and it is a separate issue. The only way a pope can be removed is if he isn't the pope. This is the "fifth opinion" of Bellarmine, the true one.
"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 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 union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
-
"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.
I believe this is critical, understanding the very nature of heresy.
Some are missing an important distinction here; schismatics, heretics, and apostates are outside the Church by their own act. An excommunicated person is censured by the Church.
The very definition of heresy explains this, I believe (one can merely read the Catholic Encyclopedia section on heresy). Just as a person accepts the Faith only by a personal act … he also can reject it only by a personal act.
The censure of excommunication deprives a person of the spiritual goods of the Church, not necessarily membership in Her. This is why a public heretic is not a member of the Church even before any action is taken against him. To claim that he must be censured by ecclesiastical authority before he loses membership is in conflict with the very definition of heresy.
What authority does is declares and binds others to the decision.
-
A sedevacantist who detests John Paul II and Benedict XVi, may well end up in hell along side of them if he separates himself from the Church, since outside the Church there is no salvation, and the Church exists today just as it did prior to the council. The difference is the condition, not the being itself.
Just as a man dying of Aids is the same man that existed prior to being infected, so too the Church today is the same Church that existed prior to Vatican II. The difference is that today the Church is in the condition of an Aids victim on his last breath. It is just about dead, but like our Lord, it will rise again.
If you leave the Church, or declare it to have become a false Church, you separate yourself from the mystical body of Christ and will get to spend eternity in hell.
On the other hand, if you realize the sick situation of the Church, avoid the heretics within, and leave it to the proper authorities to sort everything out in God's times, you will not risk eternal damnation for separating yourself from the Church.
Refusing to acknowledge someone who clearly does not hold the Catholic Faith as a Pope should not mean that person has "separated themselves from the Church". On the contrary, the real schismatics, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, are those in the conciliar church.
I do not believe that we will be judged for our position on whether or not Benedict is Pope. Keeping the Faith is what matters.
"Refusing to acknowledge someone who clearly does not hold the Catholic Faith as a Pope should not mean that person has "separated themselves from the Church"
ServusSpiritusSancti,
Refusing to acknowledge the Minister and Authority of the seat of "Moses" until God himself, the Head of that "Tree of life", cuts the "branch" when His time is right, "I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman." (John 15:1), is against the "Unity" of the Holiness of the Church itself.
In other words, "Unity" is one of the 4-marks of a Catholic. No one, including sedevacants, can make that "cut" and exclaim it, without being "cut" himself. It is God's Authority that becomes the main and final question here; and for us, to be patient for His providence on this matter.
It is His Pope; It is His Church...
-
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
Point 1: Yet Garrigou-Lagrange holds, as it seems with St. Thomas ("The Church is the congregation of the faithful" [IIIa q.8 a.4 ad 2]), the opposite view of St. Bellarmine, which becomes clear in the very work you cited (Christ the Saviour, L.11 C.11):
"Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church."
Point 2 "Hence the baptized formal heretic is not an actual member of the Church, and yet the Church has the right of punishing him, inasmuch as he does not maintain what he promised to believe, just as a king has the right to punish fugitive soldiers."
In any case, this question is controversial, but it seems that Bellarmine's opinion is more generally accepted.
Pyrrhos,
Regarding the point I labeled"point 1" above, Bellarmine and Garrigou-Lagrange agree that a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith remains head of the Church. He remains head of the Church as far as jurisdiction is concerned, even though he is not united to Christ by faith or charity. That is an important point given the situation we find ourselves in today.
Now, with respect to a pope who became a formal heretic in the external forum (for example, a pope who openly left the Church and joined a heretical sect) that is another story. A pope who loses the faith yet remains in office, all the while claiming to be a Catholic, is a different situation. In that case, he would not be considered a formal heretic in the external forum. As Suares says below, in such a case he would only lose his office when a sentence was passed against him.
Suarez: Suarez: “f 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 by force or by other”. ...
“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,[/u] and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed.
Regarding "point 2" above, this is referring to a formal heretic in the external forum; meaning one who has openly left the Church. Even though such a person no longer claims to be a member of the Church, they can still be punished by the Church.
RJs, you are quite on top of things.
Your addition again is opportune to the beginning of the next needed level: is the Pope a “Formal” heretic or not?
Yes, that is the next logical question. But when answering, we need to make a further distincion: we need to distinguish between formal heresy in the internal forum, and formal heresy in the external forum. Formal heresy in the interrnal forum is the internal sin of heresy, which does not cause a Bishop to lose his jurisdiction. Formal heresy in the external forum does cause a Bishop to lose his jurisdiction, since a formal heretic in the external forum is in no way a member of the Church. The question is, at what point would a pope become a formal heretic in the external forum? I'll let you begin.
RJS,
Yes, I have already in my mind been forming a post. However, I have noticed that I am two posts behind in responding to Ambrose. It is busy again in my work.
Ambrose,
I am working on a response for you...and will have it soon.
God bless.
-
"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.
I believe this is critical, understanding the very nature of heresy.
I only have a minute to respond. Regarding your point about the nature of heresy, what you seem unable to grasp is that it still requires a judgment from the proper authorities, especially when the person in question has remained in the Church and claims to be a Catholic. If he openly left the Church and joined another religion or a heretical sect, the situation would be different. But when he remains visibly in the Church, all the while claiming to be a Catholic, yet saying things that on their face seem heretical, it requires a judgment of guilt from the proper authorities. The following quote form John of St. Thomas addresses this point:
John of St. Thomas: "St. Jerome - in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ - does not preclude the Church's judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it - yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church... So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned".
There's really not much to add to that quote. Even if one holds that a manifest heretic automatically loses his office, it still requires a judgment of the Church to declare that he is a manifest heretic, especially when the person in question had remained visibly in the Church and claims to be a Catholic. Like John of St. Thomas said, being a manifest heretic "according to private opinion" does not suffice. A judgment is requried by the Church.
One final point: If you believe John XXIII was not a true pope, please show what dogma he clearly and publicly denied.
-
"It is only then that he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned".
That position cannot be harmonized with St. Robert or with common sense.
The loss of office does occur without deposition and therefore as far as anyone is concerned, objectively speaking, such a person is not Pope. A manifest heretic is not Pope, and lack of judgment by the Church on the matter cannot make it just to treat someone who is not Pope as though he were.
As a matter of common sense, any heretic who claims to be head of the Church could teach anything contrary to Faith and morals and not be deposed, and could never be deposed, if one is not permitted to say that person has ceased to be Catholic.
-
Refusing to acknowledge the Minister and Authority of the seat of "Moses" until God himself, the Head of that "Tree of life", cuts the "branch" when His time is right, "I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman." (John 15:1), is against the "Unity" of the Holiness of the Church itself.
In other words, "Unity" is one of the 4-marks of a Catholic. No one, including sedevacantists, can make that "cut" and exclaim it, without being "cut" himself. It is God's Authority that becomes the main and final question here; and for us, to be patient for His providence on this matter.
It is His Pope; It is His Church...
The conciliar church does not have the Four Marks of the Catholic Church.
The true schismatics, the ones really cut from God and His Church, are the conciliarists, including Bendict.
-
"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.
I believe this is critical, understanding the very nature of heresy.
I only have a minute to respond. Regarding your point about the nature of heresy, what you seem unable to grasp is that it still requires a judgment from the proper authorities, especially when the person in question has remained in the Church and claims to be a Catholic. If he openly left the Church and joined another religion or a heretical sect, the situation would be different. But when he remains visibly in the Church, all the while claiming to be a Catholic, yet saying things that on their face seem heretical, it requires a judgment of guilt from the proper authorities. The following quote form John of St. Thomas addresses this point:
John of St. Thomas: "St. Jerome - in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ - does not preclude the Church's judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it - yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church... So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned".
There's really not much to add to that quote. Even if one holds that a manifest heretic automatically loses his office, it still requires a judgment of the Church to declare that he is a manifest heretic, especially when the person in question had remained visibly in the Church and claims to be a Catholic. Like John of St. Thomas said, being a manifest heretic "according to private opinion" does not suffice. A judgment is requried by the Church.
One final point: If you believe John XXIII was not a true pope, please show what dogma he clearly and publicly denied.
Finally, out comes John of St. Thomas in opposition to Bellarmine.
St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church and foremost authority on the papacy, states the following:
"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 ...
So not only is he opposed to Bellarmine, but he is opposed to all the ancient Fathers of the Church!
-
"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.
I believe this is critical, understanding the very nature of heresy.
I only have a minute to respond. Regarding your point about the nature of heresy, what you seem unable to grasp is that it still requires a judgment from the proper authorities, especially when the person in question has remained in the Church and claims to be a Catholic. If he openly left the Church and joined another religion or a heretical sect, the situation would be different. But when he remains visibly in the Church, all the while claiming to be a Catholic, yet saying things that on their face seem heretical, it requires a judgment of guilt from the proper authorities. The following quote form John of St. Thomas addresses this point:
John of St. Thomas: "St. Jerome - in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ - does not preclude the Church's judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it - yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church... So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned".
There's really not much to add to that quote. Even if one holds that a manifest heretic automatically loses his office, it still requires a judgment of the Church to declare that he is a manifest heretic, especially when the person in question had remained visibly in the Church and claims to be a Catholic. Like John of St. Thomas said, being a manifest heretic "according to private opinion" does not suffice. A judgment is requried by the Church.
One final point: If you believe John XXIII was not a true pope, please show what dogma he clearly and publicly denied.
Finally, out comes John of St. Thomas in opposition to Bellarmine.
St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church and foremost authority on the papacy, states the following:
"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 ...
So not only is he opposed to Bellarmine, but he is opposed to all the ancient Fathers of the Church!
The quote from John of St. Thomas is no more in oposition to Bellarmine than is the quote I provided from Canon Smith, which stated that both of the common opinions (I realize Bellarmine listed five opinions, but only two of the five are common opinions today) require a declaration from the Church: One requires a declaration to remove the pope, while the other requires a declaration stating that he has lost his office. Here's the quote one more time:
“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. [b[The question is hypothetical rather than practical”.[/b]
For some reason you are incapable of comprehending that both opinions require a judgment from the proper authorities. The question of whether or not a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto, or is deposable, is only hypothetical. On the practical level, both require a judgment by the Church, since only the proper authorities are competent to make such a judgment (which is also why, during the time of Christendom, the Church would judge the guilt of the heretic, even though heresy was contrary to the civil law). And, by the way, I don't reject Bellarmine's opinion in this matter. I just realize it requires a judgment from the Church, just as Canon Smith and John of St. Thomas teach.
The problem is that your "private interpretation" of what Bellarmine said leads you (and most other Sedevacantists) to a false conlcusion, which is at variance with what the real canonist all accept - namely, that a judgment from the Church is required. This is one more piece of evidence showing why judgments are left to the proper authorities, rather individual laymen who think they know way more than they do (which, by the way, has been my experience with just about all the sedevacantits I have "dialogued" with). They almost always think they know much more than they actually do. After all, they have read sedevacantists website (which all provide the same quotes over and over again) which makes them all experts in canon law. Therefore, based on their deep knowledge gained by reading sedevacantist websites, they feel at liberty to disagree with the teachings of the real canonists when they disagree with them; such as, for example, the real canonist Sabastian B. Smith, who says "both opinions agree" (notice that he is making a general statement, not merely providing his opinion) "that he must at least be decared guilty of heresy by the Church".
I'm sorry you disagree with the real canonists on this point, but it doesn't change the reality that this is what they teach.
If you disagree, please provde a quote from a real canonist (not half bakes sedevacantist laymen) who agrees with you that an individual laymen can decide for himself that a pope qualifies as a manifest heretic, and then proclaim publicly that he is no longer the pope. I'm not looking for a quote explaining how a person can detect heresy. I'm looking for a quote saying that an individual layment can decide for himself that a pope quaifies as a manifest heretic and then proclaim publicly that the pope has lost his office.
And notice that I have provided many quotes to support my position and you have rejected them. You have provided one quote from Bellarmine, and I did not reject it. I only reject your false application of that quote since it is at variance with what the real canonists teach.
I'll say it now: I will be absolutely SHOCKED if you can provide a quote from a real canonist (remember, not a half-baked laymen who thinks he knows way more than he does) saying that an individual laymen can decide for himself that one who was elected pope qualifies as a manifest heretic, and then declare publicly that the man is not a real pope.
I have provided quotes to back up everything I said. We'll see if you can do so as well. I won't be holding my breath.
-
For some reason you are incapable of comprehending that both opinions require a judgment from the proper authorities. The question of whether or not a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto, or is deposable, is only hypothetical. On the practical level, both require a judgment by the Church, since only the proper authorities are competent to make such a judgment (which is also why, during the time of Christendom, the Church would judge the guilt of the heretic, even though heresy was contrary to the civil law). And, by the way, I don't reject Bellarmine's opinion in this matter. I just realize it requires a judgment from the Church, just as Canon Smith and John of St. Thomas teach.
Again, on the practical level, a false pope or pope-heretic must be removed because a true pope must reign. Nobody disagrees with that.
The principle behind removing a pope is very clearly that he simply isnt the pope, he's a false claimant. A true pope is judged by no one.
The "judgment of the Church" does not and cannot remove a true pope. The judgment removes a false pope.
The fact that a Coroner has the sole authority to pronounce a man dead does not mean we cannot know when someone is dead. What you can't seem to understand is that we aren't claiming to officially pronounce a man dead when we see he is dead. That fact doesn't make him any less dead.
-
For some reason you are incapable of comprehending that both opinions require a judgment from the proper authorities. The question of whether or not a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto, or is deposable, is only hypothetical. On the practical level, both require a judgment by the Church, since only the proper authorities are competent to make such a judgment (which is also why, during the time of Christendom, the Church would judge the guilt of the heretic, even though heresy was contrary to the civil law). And, by the way, I don't reject Bellarmine's opinion in this matter. I just realize it requires a judgment from the Church, just as Canon Smith and John of St. Thomas teach.
Again, on the practical level, a false pope or pope-heretic must be removed because a true pope must reign. Nobody disagrees with that.
The principle behind removing a pope is very clearly that he simply isnt the pope, he's a false claimant. A true pope is judged by no one.
The "judgment of the Church" does not and cannot remove a true pope. The judgment removes a false pope.
The fact that a Coroner has the sole authority to pronounce a man dead does not mean we cannot know when someone is dead. What you can't seem to understand is that we aren't claiming to officially pronounce a man dead when we see he is dead. That fact doesn't make him any less dead.
Still waiting for the quote you will never be able to produce from a real canonists stating that an individual laymen can determine for himself that a pope qualifies as a manifest heretic, and then proclaim publicly that the man is not a real pope. Still waiting and still not holding my breath.
Regarding your example, how would you know the person is actually dead unless he was examined? It might be blatantly obvious that he is dead, or it might not. It depends on the circuмstances. Let's apply this to the pope question...
If we were talking about a pope who openly left the Church and formally joined another religion, it would be one thing. If a pope publicy defected from the Church and openly admitted the he was no longer a Catholic, he himself would have made the declaration. But in the current circuмtances, we have a man duly elected by the Cardinals who claims to be a Catholic in good standing (and is recognized as such by almost everyone). Therefore, a judgment and declaration is necessary, and only the Church itself is competent to do so.
I do not deny that Benedeict XVI has said heretical things, but since he has remained in office and claims to be the pope, it would require a judgment from the proper authorities for him to be deposed (or to declared that he has lost his office ipso facto). Again, if you disagree, provide the quote I asked for. And remember, I have provided authoritative quotes to back up my position.
-
For some reason you are incapable of comprehending that both opinions require a judgment from the proper authorities. The question of whether or not a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto, or is deposable, is only hypothetical. On the practical level, both require a judgment by the Church, since only the proper authorities are competent to make such a judgment (which is also why, during the time of Christendom, the Church would judge the guilt of the heretic, even though heresy was contrary to the civil law). And, by the way, I don't reject Bellarmine's opinion in this matter. I just realize it requires a judgment from the Church, just as Canon Smith and John of St. Thomas teach.
Again, on the practical level, a false pope or pope-heretic must be removed because a true pope must reign. Nobody disagrees with that.
The principle behind removing a pope is very clearly that he simply isnt the pope, he's a false claimant. A true pope is judged by no one.
The "judgment of the Church" does not and cannot remove a true pope. The judgment removes a false pope.
The fact that a Coroner has the sole authority to pronounce a man dead does not mean we cannot know when someone is dead. What you can't seem to understand is that we aren't claiming to officially pronounce a man dead when we see he is dead. That fact doesn't make him any less dead.
Still waiting for the quote you will never be able to produce from a real canonists stating that an individual laymen can determine for himself that a pope qualifies as a manifest heretic, and then proclaim publicly that the man is not a real pope. Still waiting and still not holding my breath.
What you are claiming is an error. That would be that the pope can be removed by a general council or college of Cardinals. That simply can't happen. What you are really saying, I think, is that absent a pope, the hierarchy has the power to rectify the situation. Nobody disagrees with this, myself included.
Regarding your example, how would you know the person is actually dead unless he was examined? It might be blatantly obvious that he is dead, or it might not. It depends on the circuмstances.
The methods of examination are distinct from the fact it is possible to know someone is dead without possessing the authority to declare it. Do you deny the latter? If so, explain why.
Let's apply this to the pope question...
If we were talking about a pope who openly left the Church and formally joined another religion, it would be one thing. If a pope publicy defected from the Church and openly admitted the he was no longer a Catholic, he himself would have made the declaration. But in the current circuмtances, we have a man duly elected by the Cardinals who claims to be a Catholic in good standing (and is recognized as such by almost everyone). Therefore, a judgment and declaration is necessary, and only the Church itself is competent to do so.
Again, you are speaking of different ways of knowing and not the fact that it can be known. You seem unwilling to admit this can be known without possessing the authority to declare it.
What you're saying is that only a Coroner can know when a man is dead and we laymen must treat a dead man as alive until we hear from the Coroner. The fact that we can make a mistake and think a man dead who is actually alive does not change the fact that we can know a man is actually dead.
As a aside, all of this makes "ipso facto" meaningless as well as making "public" really meaning only "notorious in law" as all other definitions become subject to the a juridicial sentence or a public confession.
I do not deny that Benedeict XVI has said heretical things, but since he has remained in office and claims to be the pope, it would require a judgment from the proper authorities for him to be deposed (or to declared that he has lost his office ipso facto). Again, if you disagree, provide the quote I asked for. And remember, I have provided authoritative quotes to back up my position.
If he lost his office "ipso facto" then he lost his office prior to any declaration. This doesn't mean the declaration isn't required to rectify the situation (the practical order).
-
For some reason you are incapable of comprehending that both opinions require a judgment from the proper authorities. The question of whether or not a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto, or is deposable, is only hypothetical. On the practical level, both require a judgment by the Church, since only the proper authorities are competent to make such a judgment (which is also why, during the time of Christendom, the Church would judge the guilt of the heretic, even though heresy was contrary to the civil law). And, by the way, I don't reject Bellarmine's opinion in this matter. I just realize it requires a judgment from the Church, just as Canon Smith and John of St. Thomas teach.
Again, on the practical level, a false pope or pope-heretic must be removed because a true pope must reign. Nobody disagrees with that.
The principle behind removing a pope is very clearly that he simply isnt the pope, he's a false claimant. A true pope is judged by no one.
The "judgment of the Church" does not and cannot remove a true pope. The judgment removes a false pope.
The fact that a Coroner has the sole authority to pronounce a man dead does not mean we cannot know when someone is dead. What you can't seem to understand is that we aren't claiming to officially pronounce a man dead when we see he is dead. That fact doesn't make him any less dead.
Still waiting for the quote you will never be able to produce from a real canonists stating that an individual laymen can determine for himself that a pope qualifies as a manifest heretic, and then proclaim publicly that the man is not a real pope. Still waiting and still not holding my breath.
What you are claiming is an error. That would be that the pope can be removed by a general council or college of Cardinals. That simply can't happen. What you are really saying, I think, is that absent a pope, the hierarchy has the power to rectify the situation. Nobody disagrees with this, myself included.
Regarding your example, how would you know the person is actually dead unless he was examined? It might be blatantly obvious that he is dead, or it might not. It depends on the circuмstances.
The methods of examination are distinct from the fact it is possible to know someone is dead without possessing the authority to declare it. Do you deny the latter? If so, explain why.
Let's apply this to the pope question...
If we were talking about a pope who openly left the Church and formally joined another religion, it would be one thing. If a pope publicy defected from the Church and openly admitted the he was no longer a Catholic, he himself would have made the declaration. But in the current circuмtances, we have a man duly elected by the Cardinals who claims to be a Catholic in good standing (and is recognized as such by almost everyone). Therefore, a judgment and declaration is necessary, and only the Church itself is competent to do so.
Again, you are speaking of different ways of knowing and not the fact that it can be known. You seem unwilling to admit this can be known without possessing the authority to declare it.
What you're saying is that only a Coroner can know when a man is dead and we laymen must treat a dead man as alive until we hear from the Coroner. The fact that we can make a mistake and think a man dead who is actually alive does not change the fact that we can know a man is actually dead.
As a aside, all of this makes "ipso facto" meaningless as well as making "public" really meaning only "notorious in law" as all other definitions become subject to the a juridicial sentence or a public confession.
I do not deny that Benedeict XVI has said heretical things, but since he has remained in office and claims to be the pope, it would require a judgment from the proper authorities for him to be deposed (or to declared that he has lost his office ipso facto). Again, if you disagree, provide the quote I asked for. And remember, I have provided authoritative quotes to back up my position.
If he lost his office "ipso facto" then he lost his office prior to any declaration. This doesn't mean the declaration isn't required to rectify the situation (the practical order).
Still waiting for the quote from a real canonist who agrees with your personal opinion, namely, that an individual laymen can judge for himself that a man who elected as pope by the Cardinals (and who is currently recognized as pope by just about everyone in the world) is in fact a manifest heretic, and then can proclaim publicly that the man is not a real pope. I've provided authoritative citations to support my position. All you have done is give me your "reasoning", which is at variance with the teaching of the canonist.
To be clear, I understand exactly what you are saying. The problem is, what you are saying is simply wrong, which is why you will never find a real canonist (as opposed to a half-baked sedevacantist laymen) who agrees with you. The ball is in your court. If you can't provide an authoritative quotes that supports your position and contradicts the quote I provided from Canon Smith, admit it, and then explain why anyone should believe you over the real canonist that I quoted.
-
Canon 2197 defines the various degrees of publicity.
"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:
"1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;
"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;
"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;
"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.
RJS, if "manifest" means "notorious in law" then Bellarmine makes no sense whatsoever and actually contradicts this "truth."
Also, here is the text of the Code on the censures levied against heresy:
All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated; (2) if after due warning they fail to amend, they are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may have in the Church, they are to be declared infamous, and clerics after a repetition of the warning are to be deposed; (3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics, in addition to being considered to have tacitly renounced any office they may hold, according to canon 188, 4º, are, if previous warning proves fruitless, to be degraded. CIC 2314. § 1.
Again, notice the distinction made between those ipso facto excommunicated for heresy and those who actually join heretical sects. The latter are also ipso facto infamous, due to joining a non-Catholic sect.
-
It is patently absurd to argue that someone must publicly accept a false Pope as a true Pope or be cut off from the Church.
-
For some reason you are incapable of comprehending that both opinions require a judgment from the proper authorities. The question of whether or not a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto, or is deposable, is only hypothetical. On the practical level, both require a judgment by the Church, since only the proper authorities are competent to make such a judgment (which is also why, during the time of Christendom, the Church would judge the guilt of the heretic, even though heresy was contrary to the civil law). And, by the way, I don't reject Bellarmine's opinion in this matter. I just realize it requires a judgment from the Church, just as Canon Smith and John of St. Thomas teach.
Again, on the practical level, a false pope or pope-heretic must be removed because a true pope must reign. Nobody disagrees with that.
The principle behind removing a pope is very clearly that he simply isnt the pope, he's a false claimant. A true pope is judged by no one.
The "judgment of the Church" does not and cannot remove a true pope. The judgment removes a false pope.
The fact that a Coroner has the sole authority to pronounce a man dead does not mean we cannot know when someone is dead. What you can't seem to understand is that we aren't claiming to officially pronounce a man dead when we see he is dead. That fact doesn't make him any less dead.
:applause:
Great post SJB. I think the logic is too simple for many people.
-
A sedevacantist who detests John Paul II and Benedict XVi, may well end up in hell along side of them if he separates himself from the Church, since outside the Church there is no salvation, and the Church exists today just as it did prior to the council. The difference is the condition, not the being itself.
Just as a man dying of Aids is the same man that existed prior to being infected, so too the Church today is the same Church that existed prior to Vatican II. The difference is that today the Church is in the condition of an Aids victim on his last breath. It is just about dead, but like our Lord, it will rise again.
If you leave the Church, or declare it to have become a false Church, you separate yourself from the mystical body of Christ and will get to spend eternity in hell.
On the other hand, if you realize the sick situation of the Church, avoid the heretics within, and leave it to the proper authorities to sort everything out in God's times, you will not risk eternal damnation for separating yourself from the Church.
This is what disturbs me the most about those like RJS. In his zeal to "defeat sedevacantism" he makes a leap that is most unjust.
17. "On account of the distinction as explained [between sedes and sedens], in so far as the Apostolic See can never fail in its permanence by divine right and law, but the individual occupants [sedentes], being mortal, fail at intervals, the APOSTOLIC SEE ITSELF, as the necessary foundation and center of unity of the Church can never be called in doubt without heresy; but it can happen sometimes, in great disturbances, and it is evident from history that it has happened, that many men, while holily keeping the Faith and veneration towards the Apostolic See as true Catholics, without their own fault are not able to acknowledge the one seated in the Apostolic See, and therefore while in no way falling into heresy, slip into schism, which however is not formal but only material. Thus in the lamentable disturbance throughout forty years, from Urban VI until Gregory XII [the Great Western Schism], Catholics were split into two and then three obediences, as they were then called, while all acknowledged and revered the divine rights of the Apostolic See; nevertheless, not acknowledging the right of the one seated in the Apostolic See, from invincible ignorance of the lawful succession [i.e. as to which claimant was the lawful successor] and thus adhering either to no one, or to a pseudo-pontiff. Among these, even saints such as St. Vincent Ferrer for a time, and his brother Boniface, a Carthusian Prior, were implicated in material schism." (Ibid. p. 223-4)
-
I suppose we now say, "Was the Pope a heretic"? A strange resignation. Something dark and sinister behind the scenes! :facepalm:
-
Well, in a few days there will be no doubt that the siege is vacant!
:pray:
-
All the ostriches with the heads in the sand come out now... or even will they. With their modernist false pope now gone, will they come to the realization of the crisis today?
Part of me wants to be hopeful and say yes they will, but most likely they will not. For God only shines His grace on those He knows are apt to receive it.
-
I will pray for Benedict. Despite all the damage he has done to the Church, I hope he repents and saves his soul.
I see three possible outcomes to all of this:
1. A liberal becomes "pope." If this happens, perhaps it will finally be the proof that Catholics need to see the public heresy clearly, as they were beginning to do under John Paul II.
2. The status quo continues. We have another Benedict who is good at playing the role of a conservative, and by that continuing the confusion. He masked his public heresy with occasional acts of orthodoxy and throwing bones to the traditionalists at times. All the while he continued to appoint openly heretical bishops, allow heresy to run rampant in the Church and in the seminaries, and openly teach the heretical doctrine that schismatics and Protestants are partial churches, and are means of salvation.
3. The best case scenerio, and something we all can pray for: They elect a Catholic. If this happens, the grace of the office of the Papacy will be given to the man, and as he is already acknowledged by the remaining members of the hierarchy and the clergy of Rome, he will become Pope, whether or not he is a bishop.
He can be consecrated a bishop at a later time, but if he is a Catholic and he is acknowledged universally as Pope, then by that fact he is the Pope. I hope and pray that this will be the case. I know it appears doubtful, as the Conciliar cardinals are all so liberal, but they may inadvertently pick a Catholic. This crisis would end, we would have a Pope, then the real work would begin.
-
Machabees wrote:
4. The indelible mark on the soul given at Baptism does not mean that one is always a Catholic. [No. This is false. An indelible mark is an indelible mark. It is never removed. Like confirmation and Holy Orders. One can be an apostate Catholic, and be in a different religion, but one always has the “indelible mark” as a Catholic. You cannot “indelible un-mark” in sin, and then “indelible mark” back up again.] Most Protestants and eastern schismatics possess this mark, but are outside the Church. [Yes they are outside of the Church only by apostation and formal heresy. It is important to also understand in the Catechism that if a “Protestant and eastern schismatics, are Baptized in the Gospel form of the Bible, with water (the Bible comes from the Catholic Church), saying the words: “I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit).”, they become truly, and very, Catholic; yet, while “practicing” in another religion, they are a Catholic apostate.
Here is another example I heard in catechism class: A person is in a car accident, and it is fatal. The person who is dying was not yet baptized and is still conscience. With people looking over him (a Protestant, Jєω, Muslim, Pagan, and even an atheist), the dying person wants to be baptized. He says to one of them, take that water, pour it over my head while saying these words: “I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit).”, the Priest in this catechism class has said, that the soul is baptized as a Catholic and is in the Catholic Church.
To understand more of the Church’s intention on this, go to any Catholic Priest and ask him why he would need to do a “conditional” baptism to a convert who just came to him, and is ready through catechism class, for baptism. The answer is: You cannot baptize a soul twice. Once the soul has the “indelible mark of Catholicism” on it, another Catholic baptism has no effect. Thus, the Church gives a “conditional” baptism to make sure the soul was baptized correctly in order to have no doubt in the matter.]
Hello Ambrose,
My apologies for being away for a little while in not responding to your latest posts. My work and duties are paramount with responsibilities to me that I need to keep before God.
Let me respond to you where we left off.
Ambrose said:
I agree with you that the indelible mark cannot be removed. I also believe that the indelible mark is the mark of a Catholic, but that does not mean one is still a member of the Church. Perhaps you mean that and we are not using the same terms. [Yes.]
What I am confused about is when you say what I said is "false." Do you believe that the indelible mark from baptism makes it impossible for one to sever oneself from the Church? [No. I responded to the question the way you had it written; in answering that the indelible mark and being Catholic is really one and the same. But your question was different: “The indelible mark on the soul given at Baptism does not mean that one is always a Catholic.”] That is what it appears you are saying, but as I said this may be a matter of not using the same terms.
I also understand that one cannot baptize twice. You and I both agree, as we must that one of the effects of Baptism is the indelible mark. There is no disagreement on this point.
I stand by my initial statement that the "indelible mark does not mean that one is always a Catholic." [Ambrose, this is a matter of terms again. In your sentence, you are interchanging the word Catholic and member again. Like you said above: “I also believe that the indelible mark is the mark of a Catholic”, which means you can never lose it. I believe what you mean to say in your question is, the indelible mark does not mean that one is always a Catholic member. Yes, that is correct.] Those who are baptized but who are outside of the Church, (the ark of salvation), have the indelible mark, but they outside the Church, they are not members of the Church. [The word “member” needs to be clarified. RJS had brought in some good sources for this clarification. http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22784&min=20&num=5
------------------------------------------
Machabees,
Here's a few quotes showing that faith is not necessary for membership in the Church.
Bellarmine: "- ccult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… 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 De Ecclesia. …the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external”.
An occult heretic is one who has lost the faith.
Suarez: “[T]he faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction …. The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…) The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said”.
Bouix: “Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that he might exercise true acts which require such jurisdiction. (…) Moreover, the power of orders, which in its way is superior, can remain without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so too (…) To the argument that, not being a member of the Church [the soul], the heretical Pope is not the head of the Church either … one can give the following answer: I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the Church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge”.
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
----------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you took that to mean that I thought that if one fell from the Church, that the mark was removed, but I did not say or imply that.
The indelible mark will remain even in the damned, but the Catholic Church in any of its three parts, Militant, Suffering or Triumphant, does not exist in Hell. The Indelible mark will remain in the damned one which increases their shame. [Yes.]
If you want to learn more about the nature of the indelible mark, I would urge you to read St. Thomas on this point: http://www.catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/summa-part3.php?q=457
I hope this helps to clarify. God bless.
-
Machabees wrote:
6. One cannot be a "Catholic heretic." They are mutually exclusive. [No. You seem to separate the word Catholic from baptism, while associating as one meaning, a Catholic and member. It is the other way around. A Catholic and baptism is one and the same, and a Catholic and a member can be two different things. When one says they are Catholic, it is because they are baptized. When one says they are baptized (in the Catholic form of the Gospel), they are Catholic; it is one and the same. When one says that they are a member of the Catholic Church, it is because they are a Catholic. However, when one says that they are Catholic (by baptism) it does not mean that they are a practicing member of the Catholic Church i.e. lapse mortal sin, apostation, or formal heresy.
In regards to Faith and Catholic, when one says they have the Faith, it is because they are Catholic; it is one and the same. However, when one says they are Catholic, it does not mean that they are practicing the Faith, or even have it any longer i.e. lapse mortal sin, apostation, or formal heresy; but they are still a Catholic.
Also, you seem to separate the word Catholic from heretic (mutually exclusive). The word Catholic and heretic are only associated by cause and effect. Like truth and error. The definition of “error” is the absence of truth. The definition of “darkness” is the absence of light. In other words, you need first to be a Catholic before you can apostate into a heretic.
You can also say in that meaning, that to combine those two words of “catholic heretic” is really redundant in a Catholic discussion; because when you say heretic, one means apostation from being a Catholic. But to the uneducated world, redundancy is necessary.
Also, when the word heretic is used in the case of “a catholic heretic”, it is used as a noun; and the word Catholic is used as a descriptive to that noun (The catholic heretic. A catholic heretic. As like: A catholic soldier. A catholic man. Etc). A heretic has only one meaning; and other religions (false) cannot use it. It is a word that has a direct relationship to the Truth. One can have the truth. One does not know the truth. One can be a heretic to the truth. Truth is Catholic; as Catholic is Truth. So the word heretic can only be used in relation to apostation from Catholicism –a catholic heretic.]
Once one becomes a public heretic, he has lost the Faith, and by losing the Faith and this being public, he loses his membership in the Church. In order to return to the Church he must be accepted and make an abjuration. [Yes, however, justice requires more stringencies on the accuser to prove the “heretic” with “matter and form”. Matter: of the substance of the heresy, and form: of the conscience of the heresy. In other words, knowing the contents of “material and formal” heresy to pass judgment.]
Ambrose said:
Without getting into the dispute about whether an occult heretic is a member of the Church, let us keep this on a public defection from the Faith. It is an indisputable fact of our Faith that when one publicly and pertinaciously denies a teaching of the Church that he by that fact ceases to be a member of the Church. [Formal heretic, yes.]
I am well aware of the dispute about occult heresy, but I did qualify what I wrote when I said "public." I also agree that when making a judgment about another Catholic on whether he is a pertinacious public heretic, one must be very slow and cautious about making such a judgment giving the suspected person every chance to show his innocence.
I also believe that if times were normal, and the hierarchy was properly functioning that these matters would be resolved by those in authority, and our main duty as laypeople would be to report the heretic to our local bishop. He would then take it from there. But, we are not in normal times, which is why we are discussing this in the first place. Most of those who currently reject the heresies of Vatican II are vagus bishops and priests and laypeople. The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis. [I do not know what you mean by this last sentence: “The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis.” Are you speaking about some novus ordo bishops? Do they still have the faith?]
I agree with you you wrote about cause and effect, but I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. When one is a (public) heretic, they are not professing the Catholic Faith, [Yes.] therefore one cannot be a Catholic heretic. [? Use of terms.] In order to be a [practicing] Catholic one must profess the true Faith. A Catholic cannot deviate in even one point.
God bless.
-
Ambrose,
May I recommend to bring into our conversation of what others have brought into this discussion? Namely, RJS's has some excellent insights that is opportune on this whole question within this thread: "Is the Pope Pope; a Formal heretic?"
Perhaps you have been following the other posts; I do not know. RJS had made some very good points from the Church's teachings and questions that have not been answered.
What are your thoughts on these points and questions that RJS, and others, have brought in?
-
Machabees wrote:
Hello Ambrose,
My apologies for being away for a little while in not responding to your latest posts. My work and duties are paramount with responsibilities to me that I need to keep before God.
Let me respond to you where we left off.
Ambrose said:
I agree with you that the indelible mark cannot be removed. I also believe that the indelible mark is the mark of a Catholic, but that does not mean one is still a member of the Church. Perhaps you mean that and we are not using the same terms. [Yes.]
What I am confused about is when you say what I said is "false." Do you believe that the indelible mark from baptism makes it impossible for one to sever oneself from the Church? [No. I responded to the question the way you had it written; in answering that the indelible mark and being Catholic is really one and the same. But your question was different: “The indelible mark on the soul given at Baptism does not mean that one is always a Catholic.”] That is what it appears you are saying, but as I said this may be a matter of not using the same terms.
I also understand that one cannot baptize twice. You and I both agree, as we must that one of the effects of Baptism is the indelible mark. There is no disagreement on this point.
I stand by my initial statement that the "indelible mark does not mean that one is always a Catholic." [Ambrose, this is a matter of terms again. In your sentence, you are interchanging the word Catholic and member again. Like you said above: “I also believe that the indelible mark is the mark of a Catholic”, which means you can never lose it. I believe what you mean to say in your question is, the indelible mark does not mean that one is always a Catholic member. Yes, that is correct.] Those who are baptized but who are outside of the Church, (the ark of salvation), have the indelible mark, but they outside the Church, they are not members of the Church. [The word “member” needs to be clarified. RJS had brought in some good sources for this clarification. http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22784&min=20&num=5
------------------------------------------
Machabees,
Here's a few quotes showing that faith is not necessary for membership in the Church.
Bellarmine: "- ccult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… 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 De Ecclesia. …the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external”.
An occult heretic is one who has lost the faith.
Suarez: “[T]he faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction …. The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…) The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said”.
Bouix: “Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that he might exercise true acts which require such jurisdiction. (…) Moreover, the power of orders, which in its way is superior, can remain without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so too (…) To the argument that, not being a member of the Church [the soul], the heretical Pope is not the head of the Church either … one can give the following answer: I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the Church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge”.
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
Machabees,
I fully understand time issues, so I don't mind if we discuss this at a very slow pace. Feel free to post as time permits.
It seems to me that we are in agreement about all of the issues regarding the indelible mark and membership in the Church, just that we were not on the same page as far as we were explaining it differently.
I have read everything Msgr. Fenton has ever written, so the issues of membership in the Church and what that means is very clear to me. I find him to be one of the greatest theologians of modern times. The other benefit to learning from Fenton is that his writings use the most recent magisterial pronouncements, something that the older theologians would lack. Things that may have been more obscure for example, prior to the Pius XII's Mystici Corporis, are now clear.
One example of theological development, as taught in the Mystici Corporis, is relevant to the dispute over occult heresy, and it seems to me that it may no longer be permissible to hold that occult heretics are members of the Church, You can read more on that point here: http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/10/10.4/10.4.3.pdf Surprisingly, it appears that although Pope Pius XII adopts almost all of St. Robert's teaching on the Church, it seems that on this point he holds the necessity of Faith, even internal, as necessary to maintain membership in the Church.
-
Machabees wrote:
Here's a few quotes showing that faith is not necessary for membership in the Church.
Bellarmine: "- ccult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… 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 De Ecclesia. …the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external”.
An occult heretic is one who has lost the faith.
Suarez: “[T]he faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction …. The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…) The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said”.
Bouix: “Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that he might exercise true acts which require such jurisdiction. (…) Moreover, the power of orders, which in its way is superior, can remain without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so too (…) To the argument that, not being a member of the Church [the soul], the heretical Pope is not the head of the Church either … one can give the following answer: I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the Church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge”.
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.
“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.
Let's go through this one by one:
1. The quote from Bellarmine. As stated before, it appears that in light of Mystici Corporis, that this thinking on occult heresy may no longer be permitted. But, even besides this point, we are not talking about occult heresy in regarding to the Vatican II "popes." They are public heretics, and this is provable. We are not talking about some secret heresy, the matter in this case is explicit, clear and public.
2. The same can be said of the quote from Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange. Again, we are not talking about secret heresy, but public heresy. This distinction is critical to any discussion on this subject.
3. Regarding the quotes from Suarez and Bouix, I have two points. First, I would argue that at least in the case of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we are not strictly speaking talking about a heretical Pope, as their claims have been in dispute. Significant portions of the Church have explicitly denied their claim to the Papacy and another portion of the Church has accepted their claim in name only, as a figurehead who cannot teach or govern. It is also clear that no Catholic who has kept his Faith in the crisis, even if they accept the title of these men as Pope, does not accept these "Popes" their rule of Faith. They do not learn from them, because if they do they will lose their faith.
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.
Now, I realize that you may say that Bellarmine believed that a Pope would not fall into heresy, but he taught that as his opinion, not as a certain doctrine. I would have most certainly agreed with him on this pious thought if we had not lived through it.
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." You can read his entire teaching on the subject here, where he explains the error Cardinal Cajetan on these points: http://strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm
-
Ambrose said:
Without getting into the dispute about whether an occult heretic is a member of the Church, let us keep this on a public defection from the Faith. It is an indisputable fact of our Faith that when one publicly and pertinaciously denies a teaching of the Church that he by that fact ceases to be a member of the Church. [Formal heretic, yes.]
I am well aware of the dispute about occult heresy, but I did qualify what I wrote when I said "public." I also agree that when making a judgment about another Catholic on whether he is a pertinacious public heretic, one must be very slow and cautious about making such a judgment giving the suspected person every chance to show his innocence.
I also believe that if times were normal, and the hierarchy was properly functioning that these matters would be resolved by those in authority, and our main duty as laypeople would be to report the heretic to our local bishop. He would then take it from there. But, we are not in normal times, which is why we are discussing this in the first place. Most of those who currently reject the heresies of Vatican II are vagus bishops and priests and laypeople. The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis. [I do not know what you mean by this last sentence: “The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis.” Are you speaking about some novus ordo bishops? Do they still have the faith?]
I agree with you you wrote about cause and effect, but I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. When one is a (public) heretic, they are not professing the Catholic Faith, [Yes.] therefore one cannot be a Catholic heretic. [? Use of terms.] In order to be a [practicing] Catholic one must profess the true Faith. A Catholic cannot deviate in even one point.
God bless.
Dear Machabees,
In answer to your question: [I do not know what you mean by this last sentence: “The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis.” Are you speaking about some novus ordo bishops? Do they still have the faith?]
I am speaking about bishops who appear to be adhering the Conciliar church but who in fact remain in the Catholic Church. Let me put forward some points to explain this more clearly:
1. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church can never disappear, it must continue to the end of the world. This is a dogma of our Faith.
2. The hierarchy consists of the bishops lawfully appointed by a Pope. This would most certainly consist of the bishops appointed by Pius XII, some of whom are still alive, and possibly the bishops appointed by John XXIII and Paul VI until the date that he publicly professed heresy to the universal Church, December 7, 1965.
3. Some argue that these bishops have resigned, but resignation to one who is not a lawful superior has no effect.
4. The presumption must be that these bishops have the Faith, until the contrary can be shown by external evidence, not assumptions. Whichever of these bishops have the Faith, they would still possess their offices, and they would constitute the hierarchy.
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.
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.
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.
-
Ambrose,
May I recommend to bring into our conversation of what others have brought into this discussion? Namely, RJS's has some excellent insights that is opportune on this whole question within this thread: "Is the Pope Pope; a Formal heretic?"
Perhaps you have been following the other posts; I do not know. RJS had made some very good points from the Church's teachings and questions that have not been answered.
What are your thoughts on these points and questions that RJS, and others, have brought in?
Dear Machabees,
I was busy at the time, so I did not respond to RJS, but the answers provided by SJB would have been no different than what I would have said.
Which points do you see that RJS put forward, that you believe were not adequately answered by SJB?
-
Ambrose,
Ambrose wrote:
Dear Machabees,
In answer to your question:
[I do not know what you mean by this last sentence: “The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis.” Are you speaking about some novus ordo bishops? Do they still have the faith?]
I am speaking about bishops who appear to be adhering the Conciliar church [appear or support?] but who in fact remain in the Catholic Church. Let me put forward some points to explain this more clearly:
1. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church can never disappear, it must continue to the end of the world. This is a dogma of our Faith. [True.]
2. The hierarchy consists of the bishops lawfully appointed by a Pope. This would most certainly consist of the bishops appointed by Pius XII, some of whom are still alive, and possibly the bishops appointed by John XXIII and Paul VI until the date that he publicly professed heresy to the universal Church, December 7, 1965. [Speaking generally, even though they follow the errors of Vatican II, yes.]
3. Some argue that these bishops have resigned, but resignation to one who is not a lawful superior has no effect. [I do not know about such an “argument”. However, in your scenario, a bishop can formally place their letter of resignation following the proper Canon Law in letter and “spirit” to the proper Ecclesiastical office of the Church.
Simply, here is a secular point. One works at a job as a C.O.O. (Chief Operating Officer). He files the proper papers to the correct office that he is resigning on a certain date. It is in effect. If there is a CEO in place, or not, the next CEO will need to deal with his replacement. It is legal, proper, and formal.
One can say that the Pope just resigned; but he has no “superior”. Not true. He has to formally follow the proper form of the Church’s Law to be in effect. So it is the Church’s Law that is the “superior”. So if a Bishop wants to formally resign, it is the Church’s Law that is his “superior”.]
4. The presumption must be that these bishops have the Faith, until the contrary can be shown by external evidence, not assumptions. Whichever of these bishops have the Faith, they would still possess their offices, and they would constitute the hierarchy. [Always giving a benefit of the doubt; however, wouldn’t that also be an assumption on your part? If they follow and promote the errors of Vatican II to be in “union” with the conciliar Pope in which he also follows and promotes, yet, you condemn the Pope for doing it and not others.]
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?]
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”.]
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.]
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.
-
Hello Machabees,
Thank you for your responses. I will answer the different points we are discussing in separate posts to make it easier.
3. Some argue that these bishops have resigned, but resignation to one who is not a lawful superior has no effect. [I do not know about such an “argument”. However, in your scenario, a bishop can formally place their letter of resignation following the proper Canon Law in letter and “spirit” to the proper Ecclesiastical office of the Church.
Simply, here is a secular point. One works at a job as a C.O.O. (Chief Operating Officer). He files the proper papers to the correct office that he is resigning on a certain date. It is in effect. If there is a CEO in place, or not, the next CEO will need to deal with his replacement. It is legal, proper, and formal.
One can say that the Pope just resigned; but he has no “superior”. Not true. He has to formally follow the proper form of the Church’s Law to be in effect. So it is the Church’s Law that is the “superior”. So if a Bishop wants to formally resign, it is the Church’s Law that is his “superior”.]
(your words in brackets)
You appear to me as one who is well read, so I would urge you to read this point in the Code. The section on resignations begins at Canon 183, but take note especially of Can. 187. There are of course exceptions in the law in situations in which the superior does not have to accept a resignation in order for it to take effect, but the resignation of bishops in the cases we are describing is not one of them.
I understand your point about a corporation, and perhaps in the corporate world, such customs could prevail. But, the Church is a Divine society, and in this society there is a Divine Constitution. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and they cannot just cease being the lawful bishop without resigning and the resignation being accepted. They have what is called the "care of souls," and they are responsible before God for their flocks, and they cannot be freed from this obligation without it being accepted by the Pope. The Code requires that those resigning their offices present the resignation and that it be accepted by the competent superior.
In the case of a Pope, he would not need to resign to a superior, as he has no superior on earth, He would simply need to publicly declare this fact, and I would argue the date and time for it to take place, and that would be sufficient. (can. 187)
You may have a commentary on the Code, but if you need one I recommend this one, and it is in English which should make this discussion easier: http://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary#page/n373/mode/2up
-
Machabees wrote:
4. The presumption must be that these bishops have the Faith, until the contrary can be shown by external evidence, not assumptions. Whichever of these bishops have the Faith, they would still possess their offices, and they would constitute the hierarchy. [Always giving a benefit of the doubt; however, wouldn’t that also be an assumption on your part? If they follow and promote the errors of Vatican II to be in “union” with the conciliar Pope in which he also follows and promotes, yet, you condemn the Pope for doing it and not others.]
(your words in brackets)
Yes, it is a presumption. Our duty as Catholics by both virtues of justice and charity is to see the best in our neighbor until the contrary is shown. All have the right to their good name and their reputations. To accuse one of heresy is a terrible accusation, and it must be supported by evidence.
In the cases of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the evidence is overwhelming. They have professed heresy publicly in words, writings and through their actions. The case is enough to give a Catholic certainty that they have defected from the Faith and have fallen into heresy, and by that they have ceased being a member of the Church, and due to that have lost their offices. (if they had them to begin with)
We do not know for a fact that these bishops in question adhere to the errors of Vatican II. One may assume that, but I have never seen any evidence to support it. You may argue that they signed the decrees, but that is not definitive proof, as Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer signed, and we know they were not heretics. There must be more than the signature to have certainty.
Another point to consider, if one adheres to an error of Vatican II, but not a heresy, then one would not lose membership in the Church by operation of the law. He would incur censure, but that would be given to him by authority. In the context of the discussion we are having it is strictly about heresy.
Lastly, the Conciliar "popes" are undeclared heretics. The Church has not judged them, so adherence to them does not prove anything against anyone. If a bishop, believes Benedict XVI is pope, but still believes the Faith completely, then he is still Catholic and is still a bishop of the Church.
You may argue that they could have lost their office through schism, and that is possible, as the Conciliar church is a schismatic church, (as Archbishop Lefebvre rightly observed), but in order to prove that, evidence would have to be presented which could give a Catholic certainty that the bishop in question is knowingly adhering to a new church, which has separated itself from the Catholic Church. The principle above in regard to heresy, also applies here, that there is not declaration from the Pope about the Conciliar church, and until there is, there is always the possibility that Catholics could be caught up in it in good faith.
-
There's a huge problem with "the Pope must be the Pope or the Church has failed" argument.
Where is the limit? What would it take to say the Pope is not the Pope?
(other than resignation!)
The sort of things the conciliarists have said in their writings are totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith. They ARE NOT BELIEVERS. How could they be? You can only claim they are believers by destroying the meaning of the term.
So where is the limit?
It is absurd to say - past some arbitrary line in the sand - then he's not Pope.
"He must be Pope or the Church has failed" - that is madness. It can't be the Catholic Faith.
-
Dear Tele,
Yes, that is it.
We are not saying that "the Pope is not the Pope".
Our criticisms are of the heretic Benedict. Not of any Pope.
Clearly what Sedes say is that Benedict is not Pope. He is an Antipope.
There have been antipopes in history before, and no one made this insincere claim that the Church had "failed".
Benedict is not pope. Therefore his actions do not prove anything about the nature of the church or the papacy.
-
Machabees,
I will continue discussing the other points later. God bless.
-
Machabees wrote:
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.
-
Machabees wrote:
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.
-
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.]
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
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.
-
Hello Ambrose,
Machabees wrotes:
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:
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
-
Machabees wrote:
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."
-
Machabees wrote:
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. )
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.
-
Hello Ambrose,
Machabees wrotes:
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:
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:
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.”
-
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.
-
Hello Machabees,
I hope that you are having a fruitful and blessed Lent!
To your questions:
You wrote:
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:
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.
-
Machabees wrote:
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.
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 Jєωelry 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.
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)
-
Machabees wrote:
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.
-
Machabees wrote:
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.
-
Machabees wrote:
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.
-
"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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tbp1WC_QQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tbp1WC_QQ)
-
"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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tbp1WC_QQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tbp1WC_QQ)
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.
-
Machabees wrote:
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.
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 Jєωelry 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.
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,
The important point here is, in your example, you may have seen the burglar, and you may tell others of the robbery, however, you cannot say that he is not a "member" of society without the proper order of that society and governance of a trial.
In other words, you may have seen that these Popes you mentioned have committed a "crime", and you may tell the proper authorities, however, you cannot say he is not a "member" of the church, whereby he does not "function" in governance anymore, until the proper order of the Church and it's own governance had Judged the "crime".
-
Ambrose,
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? [I do agree with this Ambrose. The context of what I had written is in the larger conversation we are having over these multiple postings; along with what I had written in the rest of that particular post.
Namely, that you and many other sedevacantists, are declaring "privately" in a conclusion of your "own" judgement that the Pope is a "undeclared" heretic and is an "anti-Pope", then spreading that "private" judgment around without the "conclusion" of the Church's authority judging the matter.]
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 would be true if you believe that the Pope is "infallible". However, the Holy Ghost was not promised to the man of the Pope personally. The Pope himself is fallible; unless he speaks with "ex cathedra". That is, with the conformity of what the Church has always taught in matters of Faith and Morals.] 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. [Ambrose, like St. Peter who had fallen, you have to remember that the Pope is a human with original sin; he goes to the sacrament of confession also. Therefore, not everything he does is Holy...]
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.
God bless.
-
Ambrose,
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.[/b]
[Ambrose, I do believe you are sincere in your reaction and in your search. However, in your above comment (my edit: bold and underlined) is precisely where the error of sedevacantism begins. That is, it is a wrong understanding of the Church herself. Simply, it is to understand the difference between the Divine constitution of the Church with it's Divine attributes and the human constitution of the Church with it's weaknesses and selfishness of sin. What is Holy of the Church belongs to God; what is sinful in the Church belongs to man's original sin.
The reason why Bishop Williamson parallels Protestantism and Sedevacantism as "two sides of the same coin" (though I am not speaking for him), is in reason of the "likeness" in expression of independence from the Church's guidance on matters of Governance.
Protestants do not believe in the Church's "Divine constitution"; so they believe is something else and eventually fall away.
Sedevacantists, in likeness though a different application, do not believe in the correct understanding of the Church's "Divine constitution" (like you had written above); so they believe in something else and eventually fall away. Like in many cases into different kinds and tenets of sedevacantism -like Gerry Mattitics...and others. The road is difficult and requires a strong Faith in God's Divine attributes of His Church -which cannot err- only men can.]
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.
[This is a very general and vague statement. It is necessary to give specific names of these Bishops so we can "recognize" them as such; not in a presumption. The consequence of this sedevacant scenario is huge. As you said, it needs to be "visible", not hidden.]
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.
Indeed, please be assured of my prayers also.
God bless.
-
What is also very important to understand in this crisis, is that Vatican II was a "Pastoral" council.
Which means:
- Everything "pastoral" that is in it, you are not bound to follow.
- Anything that is ambiguous, gets through out the window. The Church is Holy and clear. She does not speak with "two tongues"; only sinful man does. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that if a "law is unjust, it is not a law at all, and needs not be followed.
- Anything that comes out later as a "dogmatic" interpretation of a "pastoral" nature is false and also not to be followed (Lumen Gentium, Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, etc...).
Likewise, anything that a conciliar Bishop, Priest, or Pope wants to "promote" in this "false pastoral doctrine", is not obliged to follow, like Aaron in the Old Testament when he erred; however, it does not mean that they have no authority from God in the position that they were ordained in.
Vatican II by itself -is self condemned- and is waiting for God's Providence to manifest the "mysterious good" that will come out of that evil.
Until then, we need to have Faith in God, do our duties of state faithfully, and be patient for God's plan to work the way He is allowing it to happen.
-
Machabees wrote:
Ambrose,
The important point here is, in your example, you may have seen the burglar, and you may tell others of the robbery, however, you cannot say that he is not a "member" of society without the proper order of that society and governance of a trial.
In other words, you may have seen that these Popes you mentioned have committed a "crime", and you may tell the proper authorities, however, you cannot say he is not a "member" of the church, whereby he does not "function" in governance anymore, until the proper order of the Church and it's own governance had Judged the "crime".
Yes, in this example you are right in what you say in your first paragraph, but that was not my point. You are right in a civil society, this person would not lose his membership in that Society, but in the Church, for the public act of heresy, if pertinacity can be shown, then the heretic immediately loses his jurisdiction. In this analogy, I was trying to show that you are bound to your judgments when you are certain of the truth. You saw the burglar, you clearly recognized him, and you are bound that truth. You have made a moral judgment that this man is a thief, the evidence stands against him.
The same applies to Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. They are public doctrinal criminals, and they have professed heresy and it can be proven. The Code along with St. Robert Bellarmine and the great majority of theologians state that pertinacious public heretics lose their offices immediately as they have lost their membership in the Church.
Let me ask you something, if the Pope dies, and the doctor says he is dead, do you need a future pope to declare the former pope's death? Death can be determined as a public fact, by certain criteria that all would agree on. Once death occurs, the office becomes vacant. The intervention of the Church is not necessary to certify this fact.
The same with heresy when it is public. Once a person embraces heresy and it is public, they have by their own will left the Church, they are now cut off. If you look through the Code carefully, you will notice that the Canon dealing with public heresy is in the section on resignations, not in the section dealing with censures, as it is a tacit resignation from office to become a public heretic. You lose it immediately without declaration, from the moment you profess public heresy.
If Catholics could not recognize the fact of public heresy in a man claiming to be Pope, they would be defenseless against the wolf. The Pope is the center of unity of the Church, his teachings are the rule of faith, and we are bound to believe him, even in his non-infallible teaching. We are bound to adhere to the laws he gives to the universal Church, also called Sacred laws, or Sacred Canons. The reason for this is that the laws promulgated for the universal Church are holy and lead us to Heaven. The Church cannot give a law, which if you follow it, that could lead you to impiety or evil, or in any way cause you to sin.
The 1983 Code of John Paul II, Canon 844, if it were truly the Code of Canon Law, would have bound the Church to evil and sin, and to heretical idea against the unity of the Church.
-
Machabees wrote:
Namely, that you and many other sedevacantists, are declaring "privately" in a conclusion of your "own" judgement that the Pope is a "undeclared" heretic and is an "anti-Pope", then spreading that "private" judgment around without the "conclusion" of the Church's authority judging the matter.]
Machabees,
Our judgments about the status of the anti-pope, are non-authoritative judgments, so in a sense they are private, as they are non-binding, but when we espouse them to others, they are actually public judgments which hold no force.
In the absence of authority in the Church, no one can usurp that authority. Only those bishops who are sent by the Church are the successors of the Apostles and it is to them who hold the power to bind you to what they teach. They are the authoritative witnesses of Christ. The Pope being the Supreme Teacher of all. When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith and morals, all must believe what he says, even when he is teaching in a non-infallible manner.
When we witness to the status of the current anti-popes, we are on safe ground, as the words, writings and actions of the anti-popes are public acts. They have condemned themselves for all to see, and we are witnesses to that fact.
Whether you realize it or not, you are also using your "private" judgment to take actions which would normally be forbidden. I am presuming that you are in some way affiliated with the SSPX or the resistance. If so, you have also made non-authoritative judgments about the teachings, sacramental rites, and laws given by these "popes." You have on your own authority, decided that you can operate chapels outside the of the jurisdiction of the "hierarchy." You have made the judgment that the schools approved by the "church" are not safe for the children, and that the Society can operate schools on their own without approval of the local ordinary as required by the Code. I could go on and on, but you must see the point. You are also making judgments and are acting on these judgments.
When the bishops were consecrated in 1988, all of those present made the judgment that they must go against the express will of the "pope," for the common good of the Church. As sedevacantists, we are not the only ones making judgments on our own, without the benefit of authority. In every case, the Society has acted to preserve the Faith by resisting the anti-popes, but they have done this in the absence of authority relying on their own judgment of what to do and when to resist.
Both you and I and all on this forum are not bishops with a mission from the Church. We are not the shepherds sent by the Church, we cannot bind the sheep. The most we can do is non-authoritatively witness to the truth, keep our Faith and do our duties of our state in life, and wait for those who are sent by God to lead us, govern us, and teach us.
-
Machabees wrote:
[This would be true if you believe that the Pope is "infallible". However, the Holy Ghost was not promised to the man of the Pope personally. The Pope himself is fallible; unless he speaks with "ex cathedra". That is, with the conformity of what the Church has always taught in matters of Faith and Morals.]
Whenever the Pope teaches the universal Church all must believe what he teaches. They are bound the teaching, but the level of assent may differ. The Pope's non-infallible teaching to the universal Church binds Catholics under pain of sin to believe him and is always safe although it is not infallible.
If you have time, this article explains this point very well: http://www.sedevacantist.com/believe.html
-
Machabees wrote:
[Ambrose, like St. Peter who had fallen, you have to remember that the Pope is a human with original sin; he goes to the sacrament of confession also. Therefore, not everything he does is Holy...]
The fall of St. Peter was in him denying that he knew Our Lord, in order to protect himself, but it was not a denial of any truth about Our Lord or his doctrine. What he did was cowardly, but not heretical. I say this always with respect to St. Peter. I am not his judge, and none of us can know how strong we are until we are tested.
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
-
Protestants do not believe in the Church's "Divine constitution"; so they believe is something else and eventually fall away.
A Protestant denies the authority of the Church, the right to privately interpret scripture and a denial of Sacred Tradition.
The Sedevacantist, at least the ones I know accept all of these things. The sedevacantist actually loves the authority of the Church, and is sickened by these heretics.
I just do not follow the comparison. The sedevacantist accepts completely the Catholic Faith, the power of the Church to teach them, govern them and sanctify them. They accept all doctrine as it comes from the Church.
The Protestant denies all of this, if they accept the Faith, it is only accidentally and because their own personal magisterium has led them to it. They deny the teaching authority of the Church.
The sedevacantist is making a judgment of fact based on the public evidence he is witnessing before him. Archbishop Lefebvre also taught this principle, that the judgment could be made about the status of the men based on public evidence. This is not something novel I am making up. The same principles I am describing here were taught by the Archbishop in his Address to Seminarians in 1986. I link it here if you wish to re-read it: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Archbishop-Lefebvre-1986-Address-to-Seminarians
-
What is also very important to understand in this crisis, is that Vatican II was a "Pastoral" council.
Which means:
- Everything "pastoral" that is in it, you are not bound to follow.
- Anything that is ambiguous, gets through out the window. The Church is Holy and clear. She does not speak with "two tongues"; only sinful man does. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that if a "law is unjust, it is not a law at all, and needs not be followed.
- Anything that comes out later as a "dogmatic" interpretation of a "pastoral" nature is false and also not to be followed (Lumen Gentium, Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, etc...).
Likewise, anything that a conciliar Bishop, Priest, or Pope wants to "promote" in this "false pastoral doctrine", is not obliged to follow, like Aaron in the Old Testament when he erred; however, it does not mean that they have no authority from God in the position that they were ordained in.
Vatican II by itself -is self condemned- and is waiting for God's Providence to manifest the "mysterious good" that will come out of that evil.
Until then, we need to have Faith in God, do our duties of state faithfully, and be patient for God's plan to work the way He is allowing it to happen.
There was an excellent article published by John Daly several years ago which studied the question about whether Vatican II taught in the manner in which the Church teaches infallibly. I would urge you to read the article, and then if you still believe that Vatican II did not teach in the manner in which the Church teaches, we could discuss it further. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
Now, I am not arguing that Vatican II is the infallible teaching of the Church, but I am arguing that the man who approved it teaching could not have been a Pope.
I agree that Vatican II is self condemned. It is not part of the teaching of the Church. It could not be. The theology of Vatican II is divorced from the deposit of Faith. From the moment it was promulgated, December 7th 1965, new doctrine was taught not found and in conflict with the Sacred Deposit.
It is impossible that Vatican II came from the Church, and from that it is impossible that the "pope" who imposed it on the Church was truly a pope.
-
Machabees wrote:
[Ambrose, like St. Peter who had fallen, you have to remember that the Pope is a human with original sin; he goes to the sacrament of confession also. Therefore, not everything he does is Holy...]
The fall of St. Peter was in him denying that he knew Our Lord, in order to protect himself, but it was not a denial of any truth about Our Lord or his doctrine. What he did was cowardly, but not heretical. I say this always with respect to St. Peter. I am not his judge, and none of us can know how strong we are until we are tested.
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. [No. Look at Church history; of Pope Honduras, other Popes, Bishops, Priests in the Catholic Church who had erred. In the Old Testament with the Pharisees, they told the people not to follow the Divine Lord, the Truth, and His Teachings.] The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
-
Protestants do not believe in the Church's "Divine constitution"; so they believe is something else and eventually fall away.
A Protestant denies the [Divine] authority of the Church [they do believe in the Human Authority], the right to privately interpret scripture and a denial of Sacred Tradition. [This is an "effect" for not believing in the Divine Constitution and attributes of the Catholic Church.]
The Sedevacantist, at least the ones I know accept all of these things. [Yes, I agree.] The sedevacantist actually loves the authority of the Church, and is sickened by these heretics.
I just do not follow the comparison. [See my comment above, as with what I had written in my original post:
"The reason why Bishop Williamson parallels Protestantism and Sedevacantism as "two sides of the same coin" (though I am not speaking for him), is in reason of the "likeness" in expression of independence from the Church's guidance on matters of Governance.
Protestants do not believe in the Church's "Divine constitution"; so they believe is something else and eventually fall away.
Sedevacantists, in likeness though a different application, do not believe in the correct understanding of the Church's "Divine constitution" (like you had written above); so they believe in something else and eventually fall away. Like in many cases into different kinds and tenets of sedevacantism -like Gerry Mattitics...and others. The road is difficult and requires a strong Faith in God's Divine attributes of His Church -which cannot err- only men can."]
The sedevacantist accepts completely the Catholic Faith, the power of the Church to teach them, govern them and sanctify them. They accept all doctrine as it comes from the Church.
The Protestant denies all of this, if they accept the Faith, it is only accidentally and because their own personal magisterium has led them to it. They deny the teaching authority of the Church.
The sedevacantist is making a judgment of fact based on the public evidence he is witnessing before him. Archbishop Lefebvre also taught this principle, that the judgment could be made about the status of the men based on public evidence. This is not something novel I am making up. The same principles I am describing here were taught by the Archbishop in his Address to Seminarians in 1986. I link it here if you wish to re-read it: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Archbishop-Lefebvre-1986-Address-to-Seminarians [I understand. What you have not admitted to is that Archbishop Lefebvre has NOT taken that position to the end; sedevacantist, on their own, have.]
-
What is also very important to understand in this crisis, is that Vatican II was a "Pastoral" council.
Which means:
- Everything "pastoral" that is in it, you are not bound to follow.
- Anything that is ambiguous, gets through out the window. The Church is Holy and clear. She does not speak with "two tongues"; only sinful man does. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that if a "law is unjust, it is not a law at all, and needs not be followed.
- Anything that comes out later as a "dogmatic" interpretation of a "pastoral" nature is false and also not to be followed (Lumen Gentium, Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, etc...).
Likewise, anything that a conciliar Bishop, Priest, or Pope wants to "promote" in this "false pastoral doctrine", is not obliged to follow, like Aaron in the Old Testament when he erred; however, it does not mean that they have no authority from God in the position that they were ordained in.
Vatican II by itself -is self condemned- and is waiting for God's Providence to manifest the "mysterious good" that will come out of that evil.
Until then, we need to have Faith in God, do our duties of state faithfully, and be patient for God's plan to work the way He is allowing it to happen.
There was an excellent article published by John Daly several years ago which studied the question about whether Vatican II taught in the manner in which the Church teaches infallibly. I would urge you to read the article, and then if you still believe that Vatican II did not teach in the manner in which the Church teaches, we could discuss it further. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
Now, I am not arguing that Vatican II is the infallible teaching of the Church, but I am arguing that the man who approved it teaching could not have been a Pope.
I agree that Vatican II is self condemned. It is not part of the teaching of the Church. It could not be. The theology of Vatican II is divorced from the deposit of Faith. From the moment it was promulgated, December 7th 1965, new doctrine was taught not found and in conflict with the Sacred Deposit.
It is impossible that Vatican II came from the Church, and from that it is impossible that the "pope" who imposed it on the Church was truly a pope.
Ambrose?
Though I agree, however, you did say in two other posts:
"The Pope is the center of unity of the Church, his teachings are the rule of faith, and we are bound to believe him, even in his non-infallible teaching. We are bound to adhere to the laws he gives to the universal Church, also called Sacred laws, or Sacred Canons."
The Pope being the Supreme Teacher of all. When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith and morals, all must believe what he says, even when he is teaching in a non-infallible manner.
Whenever the Pope teaches the universal Church all must believe what he teaches. They are bound the teaching, but the level of assent may differ. The Pope's non-infallible teaching to the universal Church binds Catholics under pain of sin to believe him and is always safe although it is not infallible.
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
-
Ambrose said,
If Catholics could not recognize the fact of public heresy in a man claiming to be Pope, they would be defenseless against the wolf. The Pope is the center of unity of the Church, his teachings are the rule of faith, and we are bound to believe him, even in his non-infallible teaching. [This is not true. “Non-infallible” teaching, outside of what the Church has always taught, is pastoral. Pastoral teaching is not bound to follow, just like Vatican II, it was a pastoral council, you are not bound to follow it.] We are bound to adhere to the laws he gives to the universal Church, also called Sacred laws, or Sacred Canons. The reason for this is that the laws promulgated for the universal Church are holy and lead us to Heaven. The Church cannot give a law, which if you follow it, that could lead you to impiety or evil, or in any way cause you to sin. [The Church cannot; but a prelate can, who is a man, like other rulers and Pharisees had done, as men they do err.]
Ambrose said,
Whether you realize it or not, you are also using your "private" judgment to take actions which would normally be forbidden. I am presuming that you are in some way affiliated with the SSPX or the resistance. If so, you have also made non-authoritative judgments about the teachings, sacramental rites, and laws given by these "popes." You have on your own authority, decided that you can operate chapels outside the of the jurisdiction of the "hierarchy." You have made the judgment that the schools approved by the "church" are not safe for the children, and that the Society can operate schools on their own without approval of the local ordinary as required by the Code. I could go on and on, but you must see the point. You are also making judgments and are acting on these judgments.
[Yes, like the sedevacantist, I (we) are using the “infallible” teaching of the Church to do so. The difference and departure is sedevacantists continue on to an eclipse of the Chair of Peter in his authority of governance. We do agree that the Pope has erred and lost his Spiritual Membership; however, until there is a competent authority, he still has the Membership of Governance –which sedevacantists deny.]
When the bishops were consecrated in 1988, all of those present made the judgment that they must go against the express will of the "pope," for the common good of the Church. As sedevacantists, we are not the only ones making judgments on our own, without the benefit of authority. In every case, the Society has acted to preserve the Faith by resisting the anti-popes, but they have done this in the absence of authority relying on their own judgment of what to do and when to resist. [No. It is on the Authority of the Church in what the Church has always done. Archbishop Lefebvre had explained very well in his sermon of the 1988 consecrations.]
-
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.
With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?
-
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.
With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?
He doesn't qualify for the papacy nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ, so no. The chair is still vacant, sadly.
-
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.
With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?
He doesn't qualify for the papacy nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ, so no. The chair is still vacant, sadly.
What do you mean by: He doesn't "qualify" for the Papacy...?
What do you mean by: nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ?
Did he not make the final decision with accepting the election and then put on white to manifest that to the whole world?
-
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.
With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?
Maccabes, I think you know the answer to this. No need to ask.
-
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.
With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?
Maccabes, I think you know the answer to this. No need to ask.
No, actually do not know what you think of this new Pope; that is why I am asking. I know what many sedevacantist think of the other (past) popes, but this is a new one is he not?
Unless you are saying that sedevacantism is a dogma and applies perpetually to all Popes -the Chair is Vacant- until Christ comes in His second coming? At some point, do you not believe that there needs to be a Pope that you will recognition?
Simply, since Pope Francis is brand new (2-days), do you recognize him as Pope, or not?
-
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.
With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?
He doesn't qualify for the papacy nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ, so no. The chair is still vacant, sadly.
What do you mean by: He doesn't "qualify" for the Papacy...?
What do you mean by: nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ?
Did he not make the final decision with accepting the election and then put on white to manifest that to the whole world?
I don't believe he professes the Catholic faith nor believes in the same papal office as the past. He may sit in the chair, but his beliefs and his god are not those of the Catholic Church. Since one must be a Catholic in order to be pope, I don't believe he could be elected, even if we currently had a real cardinals.
Catholics do not take part in the ceremonies of false religions, I don't see how Mr. Bergoglio has intended be united to the Church of all ages. Though it is not the basis of my rejection of his claim to be bishop of Rome (as he has not yet called himself Vicar of Christ, to my knowledge), I believe that a real pope would take back the tiara and recite the Oath against Modernism.
I'm not a dogmatic sedevacantist, but I know that if I believe the Catholic Faith to be true, this man cannot be pope and I cannot follow him.
-
Sorry to say the chair is as empty as ever of a valid Pope, NUMBER ONE: Freemasons can't nor do they have any authority to elect a Pope. NUMBER TWO: Do you really believe the Holy Ghost was among all those Modernists, Freemasons, and enemies of God?
THREE: The reason this so called pretender does not believe he is valid, is he even told the Cardinals, "I hope God forgives you for what you just did"...
Also when a valid pope enters, the first thing he will say is, begone Vatican II, meaning begone Satan.
-
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.
With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?
He doesn't qualify for the papacy nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ, so no. The chair is still vacant, sadly.
What do you mean by: He doesn't "qualify" for the Papacy...?
What do you mean by: nor does he believe he is the Vicar of Christ?
Did he not make the final decision with accepting the election and then put on white to manifest that to the whole world?
I don't believe he professes the Catholic faith nor believes in the same papal office as the past. He may sit in the chair, but his beliefs and his god are not those of the Catholic Church. Since one must be a Catholic in order to be pope, I don't believe he could be elected, even if we currently had a real cardinals.
Catholics do not take part in the ceremonies of false religions, I don't see how Mr. Bergoglio has intended be united to the Church of all ages. Though it is not the basis of my rejection of his claim to be bishop of Rome (as he has not yet called himself Vicar of Christ, to my knowledge), I believe that a real pope would take back the tiara and recite the Oath against Modernism.
I'm not a dogmatic sedevacantist, but I know that if I believe the Catholic Faith to be true, this man cannot be pope and I cannot follow him.
**I meant Papal Coronation Oath (distracted typing)
-
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.
With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?
Based on the public evidence available, I withhold any acceptance of his claim to the papacy as I do not have any certainty that the man is a Catholic. There is evidence which casts serious doubt on whether he believes the Catholic Faith.
The onus is on him to assure of this fact as it has been with all of the Vatican II claimants. A Catholic does not have to accept the claim to the Petrine office of one who lacks a legitimate claim.
With all of the Cardinals now appointed by public heretics, who have claimed the office, the lawful electors are the remaining hierarchy who have a lawful claim to their offices and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy.
It is unclear if they accept him or not, but even if they do, as stated above, he also must be a Catholic, and that point is currently in dispute. A doubtful pope is no pope.
I hope that answers you question. God bless.
-
Machabees wrote:
(Your words in brackets)
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. [No. Look at Church history; of Pope Honduras, other Popes, Bishops, Priests in the Catholic Church who had erred. In the Old Testament with the Pharisees, they told the people not to follow the Divine Lord, the Truth, and His Teachings.] The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
I still stand by my assertion that a pope never gave the universal Church an evil law. This is impossible for a pope to do. If I am wrong on this, then please cite the law. It is impossible for the Church to give evil universal laws, a holy Church cannot give evil.
Regarding Pope Honorius, have you ever read this, it may be an eye opener for you, as it dispels common calumnies against him:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oJoNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Supposed+Fall+Honorius+Condemnation&source=bl&ots=9wDXALs6Yt&sig=p_MPCVnrMKh_MIGhcIq37OXRDMI&hl=en&ei=lbd-Ttz0D6fY0QGw2r3dDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Supposed%20Fall%20Honorius%20Condemnation&f=false
-
Machabees wrote:
Sedevacantists, in likeness though a different application, do not believe in the correct understanding of the Church's "Divine constitution" (like you had written above); so they believe in something else and eventually fall away. Like in many cases into different kinds and tenets of sedevacantism -like Gerry Mattitics...and others. The road is difficult and requires a strong Faith in God's Divine attributes of His Church -which cannot err- only men can."]
Machabess,
I disagree with this conclusion. The reason why sedevacantism is not united is due to the lack of unity that comes through the Pope and the bishops in union with him. When this breaks down, unity suffers. This is why Our Lord established the Church with the office of St. Peter, to unite the Church in Faith and charity. The Pope is the center of the unity of the Church, hence the axiom, "where Peter is, there is the Church."
It is inevitable that during a period of long term sedevacante, with a heretical anti-pope deceiving the flock of Christ, and no members of the hierarchy leading the remaining Catholics, that all order has broken down and will keep breaking down. It is a fact that heresy, error, and schisms are everywhere.
But, with respect, it is a fantasy to only look at the sedevacantists regarding the breakdown. There is a constant breakdown in unity among those who adhere to the anti-pope. Some adhere to the anti-pope more than others, and that leads to constant divisions. The Society of St. Pius X has suffered divisions and still does to this day.
This is natural and it is a living proof that the Papacy is essential to the Church. We are witnessing the necessity of this doctrine before our very eyes.
When you say, "only men can (err)," that is true, but, the Church cannot err on matters of Faith and moral. She cannot teach heresy to the universal Church as happened at Vatican II. She cannot give evil laws to the universal Church. She is spotless and Holy. Evil cannot come from the Catholic Church.
Regarding Gerry Matatics, does he actually disagree on any matter of Faith and morals? From what I see he only disagrees on the judgment of whether epikeia can be used in our present circuмstance regarding the justification of the traditional clergy, i.e. bishops without a mission from the Pope, and priests not sent by bishops with a mission.
While I disagree with him on this, he is not bound to the judgment on epikeia that we have formed. He should at least be consistent though, and explain how he can publicly teach and write on matters of Faith relying on the principle of epikeia himself. To my knowledge, he has never done this.
-
What is also very important to understand in this crisis, is that Vatican II was a "Pastoral" council.
Which means:
- Everything "pastoral" that is in it, you are not bound to follow.
- Anything that is ambiguous, gets through out the window. The Church is Holy and clear. She does not speak with "two tongues"; only sinful man does. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that if a "law is unjust, it is not a law at all, and needs not be followed.
- Anything that comes out later as a "dogmatic" interpretation of a "pastoral" nature is false and also not to be followed (Lumen Gentium, Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, etc...).
Likewise, anything that a conciliar Bishop, Priest, or Pope wants to "promote" in this "false pastoral doctrine", is not obliged to follow, like Aaron in the Old Testament when he erred; however, it does not mean that they have no authority from God in the position that they were ordained in.
Vatican II by itself -is self condemned- and is waiting for God's Providence to manifest the "mysterious good" that will come out of that evil.
Until then, we need to have Faith in God, do our duties of state faithfully, and be patient for God's plan to work the way He is allowing it to happen.
There was an excellent article published by John Daly several years ago which studied the question about whether Vatican II taught in the manner in which the Church teaches infallibly. I would urge you to read the article, and then if you still believe that Vatican II did not teach in the manner in which the Church teaches, we could discuss it further. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
Now, I am not arguing that Vatican II is the infallible teaching of the Church, but I am arguing that the man who approved it teaching could not have been a Pope.
I agree that Vatican II is self condemned. It is not part of the teaching of the Church. It could not be. The theology of Vatican II is divorced from the deposit of Faith. From the moment it was promulgated, December 7th 1965, new doctrine was taught not found and in conflict with the Sacred Deposit.
It is impossible that Vatican II came from the Church, and from that it is impossible that the "pope" who imposed it on the Church was truly a pope.
Ambrose?
Though I agree, however, you did say in two other posts:
"The Pope is the center of unity of the Church, his teachings are the rule of faith, and we are bound to believe him, even in his non-infallible teaching. We are bound to adhere to the laws he gives to the universal Church, also called Sacred laws, or Sacred Canons."
The Pope being the Supreme Teacher of all. When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith and morals, all must believe what he says, even when he is teaching in a non-infallible manner.
Whenever the Pope teaches the universal Church all must believe what he teaches. They are bound the teaching, but the level of assent may differ. The Pope's non-infallible teaching to the universal Church binds Catholics under pain of sin to believe him and is always safe although it is not infallible.
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
Machabees,
There is no such thing as "pastoral doctrine." When the Pope teaches on matters of the Faith and morals we are bound to what he teaches. I would ask you to explain "pastoral doctrine" using pre-Vatican II theology. It didn't exist and is a novelty used to explain away Vatican II.
Vatican II taught in the manner that the Church teaches. John Daly explains the point in great and accurate detail. If you have a chance to read this article, it would greatly advance discussion on this point. If you disagree with what he says, at least we could see the nature of our disagreement. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
-
Machabees wrote:
[I understand. What you have not admitted to is that Archbishop Lefebvre has NOT taken that position to the end; sedevacantist, on their own, have.]
I agree with you, and I do not dispute that. But, what I am saying is this: Archbishop Lefebvre taught the same principles that I am stating here.
-
Machabees wrote:
(your words in brackets)
When the bishops were consecrated in 1988, all of those present made the judgment that they must go against the express will of the "pope," for the common good of the Church. As sedevacantists, we are not the only ones making judgments on our own, without the benefit of authority. In every case, the Society has acted to preserve the Faith by resisting the anti-popes, but they have done this in the absence of authority relying on their own judgment of what to do and when to resist. [No. It is on the Authority of the Church in what the Church has always done. Archbishop Lefebvre had explained very well in his sermon of the 1988 consecrations.]
But, a judgment was still made that they were doing "what the Church has always done." At no time in the history of the Church has a bishop had to consecrate bishops to preserve the Faith and the apostolic succession from the Pope.
When a Catholic during the crisis resists the man they call pope, they are relying on their judgment that they must resist, how far the must resist, and exactly what they must resist. This is a fact. They are not relying on any living authority to tell them anything, they are relying on themselves.
Now, I know you are going to say, they are relying on the previous Popes, Councils, Canon Law, Doctors and theologians. If you say that then we agree, we as Catholics must preserve the same Faith and reject abominations and evil and impious laws and sacramental rites. But, that is all the sedevacantists are doing, we are rejecting this evil, and we are applying pre-Vatican II theology and law to a publicly heretical "pope."
We both agree that we must reject the heresies of Vatican II, the area that we are not agreeing on is that you do not seem willing to concede that we can reject a papal claim of a public heretic. Archbishop Lefebvre taught that we could, the Code teaches it, pre-Vatican II theology teaches it, but I cannot convince you of it.
-
Machabees wrote:
[This is not true. “Non-infallible” teaching, outside of what the Church has always taught, is pastoral. Pastoral teaching is not bound to follow, just like Vatican II, it was a pastoral council, you are not bound to follow it.]
When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith, it is safe, that is why you must believe it.
But, in the case of Vatican II, the teaching was given in the manner the Church uses to teach. I will wait until you have time to read John Daly's article and docuмentation on this to see exactly where you differ on this.
I wish you well and God bless. I hope for both of our sakes that we will once again have a pope soon, so that we will not ever have to think about these things again. :)
-
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.
With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?
Based on the public evidence available, I withhold any acceptance of his claim to the papacy as I do not have any certainty that the man is a Catholic. There is evidence which casts serious doubt on whether he believes the Catholic Faith.
The onus is on him to assure of this fact as it has been with all of the Vatican II claimants. A Catholic does not have to accept the claim to the Petrine office of one who lacks a legitimate claim.
With all of the Cardinals now appointed by public heretics, who have claimed the office, the lawful electors are the remaining hierarchy who have a lawful claim to their offices and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy.
It is unclear if they accept him or not, but even if they do, as stated above, he also must be a Catholic, and that point is currently in dispute. A doubtful pope is no pope.
I hope that answers you question. God bless.
If you "vote no" to the new Pope because you have a doubt whether he is a Catholic, based of the public evidence available, then why do you "vote yes" without any doubt to say that the conciliar neo-modern Cardinals are "lawful electors [that] are the remaining hierarchy who have a lawful claim to their offices and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy'?
If all of these groups profess "public heresy", why do you only separate the Pope not to have a lawful office and not the rest?
-
Machabees wrote:
(Your words in brackets)
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. [No. Look at Church history; of Pope Honduras, other Popes, Bishops, Priests in the Catholic Church who had erred. In the Old Testament with the Pharisees, they told the people not to follow the Divine Lord, the Truth, and His Teachings.] The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
I still stand by my assertion that a pope never gave the universal Church an evil law. This is impossible for a pope to do. If I am wrong on this, then please cite the law. It is impossible for the Church to give evil universal laws, a holy Church cannot give evil.
Regarding Pope Honorius, have you ever read this, it may be an eye opener for you, as it dispels common calumnies against him:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oJoNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Supposed+Fall+Honorius+Condemnation&source=bl&ots=9wDXALs6Yt&sig=p_MPCVnrMKh_MIGhcIq37OXRDMI&hl=en&ei=lbd-Ttz0D6fY0QGw2r3dDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Supposed%20Fall%20Honorius%20Condemnation&f=false
I have not said that the "Church" gives evil universal laws. I said that evil men, prelates, and churchmen, of themselves, can give bad laws, council, advice, morals, error, sin, etc. That was the context of my reply to you.
-
Machabees wrote:
Sedevacantists, in likeness though a different application, do not believe in the correct understanding of the Church's "Divine constitution" (like you had written above); so they believe in something else and eventually fall away. Like in many cases into different kinds and tenets of sedevacantism -like Gerry Mattitics...and others. The road is difficult and requires a strong Faith in God's Divine attributes of His Church -which cannot err- only men can."]
Machabess,
I disagree with this conclusion. The reason why sedevacantism is not united is due to the lack of unity that comes through the Pope and the bishops in union with him. When this breaks down, unity suffers. This is why Our Lord established the Church with the office of St. Peter, to unite the Church in Faith and charity. The Pope is the center of the unity of the Church, hence the axiom, "where Peter is, there is the Church."
It is inevitable that during a period of long term sedevacante, with a heretical anti-pope deceiving the flock of Christ, and no members of the hierarchy leading the remaining Catholics, that all order has broken down and will keep breaking down. It is a fact that heresy, error, and schisms are everywhere.
But, with respect, it is a fantasy to only look at the sedevacantists regarding the breakdown. [I did not say nor imply that.] There is a constant breakdown in unity among those who adhere to the anti-pope. Some adhere to the anti-pope more than others, and that leads to constant divisions. The Society of St. Pius X has suffered divisions and still does to this day.
This is natural and it is a living proof that the Papacy is essential to the Church. We are witnessing the necessity of this doctrine before our very eyes.
When you say, "only men can (err)," that is true, but, the Church cannot err on matters of Faith and moral. She cannot teach heresy to the universal Church as happened at Vatican II. She cannot give evil laws to the universal Church. She is spotless and Holy. Evil cannot come from the Catholic Church. [Yes, I agree. In this discussion Ambrose, you seem to think that what these Popes teach, is apart of the Church. No. That is why there is the Church's teaching on Fallibility and Infallibility. Popes, as men, can err all by themselves. It is very important to understand the difference that separates them.]
Regarding Gerry Matatics, does he actually disagree on any matter of Faith and morals? From what I see he only disagrees on the judgment of whether epikeia can be used in our present circuмstance regarding the justification of the traditional clergy, i.e. bishops without a mission from the Pope, and priests not sent by bishops with a mission.
While I disagree with him on this, he is not bound to the judgment on epikeia that we have formed. He should at least be consistent though, and explain how he can publicly teach and write on matters of Faith relying on the principle of epikeia himself. To my knowledge, he has never done this.
-
What is also very important to understand in this crisis, is that Vatican II was a "Pastoral" council.
Which means:
- Everything "pastoral" that is in it, you are not bound to follow.
- Anything that is ambiguous, gets through out the window. The Church is Holy and clear. She does not speak with "two tongues"; only sinful man does. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that if a "law is unjust, it is not a law at all, and needs not be followed.
- Anything that comes out later as a "dogmatic" interpretation of a "pastoral" nature is false and also not to be followed (Lumen Gentium, Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, etc...).
Likewise, anything that a conciliar Bishop, Priest, or Pope wants to "promote" in this "false pastoral doctrine", is not obliged to follow, like Aaron in the Old Testament when he erred; however, it does not mean that they have no authority from God in the position that they were ordained in.
Vatican II by itself -is self condemned- and is waiting for God's Providence to manifest the "mysterious good" that will come out of that evil.
Until then, we need to have Faith in God, do our duties of state faithfully, and be patient for God's plan to work the way He is allowing it to happen.
There was an excellent article published by John Daly several years ago which studied the question about whether Vatican II taught in the manner in which the Church teaches infallibly. I would urge you to read the article, and then if you still believe that Vatican II did not teach in the manner in which the Church teaches, we could discuss it further. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
Now, I am not arguing that Vatican II is the infallible teaching of the Church, but I am arguing that the man who approved it teaching could not have been a Pope.
I agree that Vatican II is self condemned. It is not part of the teaching of the Church. It could not be. The theology of Vatican II is divorced from the deposit of Faith. From the moment it was promulgated, December 7th 1965, new doctrine was taught not found and in conflict with the Sacred Deposit.
It is impossible that Vatican II came from the Church, and from that it is impossible that the "pope" who imposed it on the Church was truly a pope.
Ambrose?
Though I agree, however, you did say in two other posts:
"The Pope is the center of unity of the Church, his teachings are the rule of faith, and we are bound to believe him, even in his non-infallible teaching. We are bound to adhere to the laws he gives to the universal Church, also called Sacred laws, or Sacred Canons."
The Pope being the Supreme Teacher of all. When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith and morals, all must believe what he says, even when he is teaching in a non-infallible manner.
Whenever the Pope teaches the universal Church all must believe what he teaches. They are bound the teaching, but the level of assent may differ. The Pope's non-infallible teaching to the universal Church binds Catholics under pain of sin to believe him and is always safe although it is not infallible.
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
Machabees,
There is no such thing as "pastoral doctrine." When the Pope teaches on matters of the Faith and morals we are bound to what he teaches. I would ask you to explain "pastoral doctrine" using pre-Vatican II theology. It didn't exist and is a novelty used to explain away Vatican II.
Vatican II taught in the manner that the Church teaches. John Daly explains the point in great and accurate detail. If you have a chance to read this article, it would greatly advance discussion on this point. If you disagree with what he says, at least we could see the nature of our disagreement. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
In my above post, I spoke of the Pastoral council -Vatican II's own words. Vatican II was in nature a Pastoral council, NOT a Doctrinal council, like Vatican I.
"Pastoral Doctrine". Those words are a well used phrase in reference to the ambiguity of Vatican II from their "pastoral" teachings. In this crisis of the Church, Post-Vatican II ever so tries to take their own declared Pastoral council and "spin" it into a "Doctrinal" dogma, as they see fit. For which they call it themselves -a "Pastoral doctrine".
Other than the usage of the modern day phrase of "Pastoral doctrine", to be more clear on the Pope, and his own pastoral advice, that when you go to confession to a priest, he gives you pastoral advise, you are not "bound" to follow it (catechism). Also, if you go to confession to a Bishop, or the Pope, they give you pastoral advice, you are not "bound" to follow it.
When the Pope speaks, of himself, such examples as his Angelus addresses, or writing a book, or an article in the Vatican newspaper, or an interview, they are pastoral, you are not "bound" to follow it.
If the Pope writes something on Morals, or Church teaching, it would be doctrinal. If it is in line with what the Church has always taught, we are bound to follow it. If it is NOT in line with what the Church has always taught, like Vatican II, we are NOT bound to follow it -Hence, the crisis.
God bless.
-
Ambrose said,
Vatican II taught in the manner that the Church teaches.
Can you explain this please?
In Vatican II's Pastoral council, they taught a lot of heresies, i.e. Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, and Collegiality to name a few.
-
Machabees wrote:
[I understand. What you have not admitted to is that Archbishop Lefebvre has NOT taken that position to the end; sedevacantist, on their own, have.]
I agree with you, and I do not dispute that. But, what I am saying is this: Archbishop Lefebvre taught the same principles that I am stating here.
Yes, I know, and you do well.
What I am saying is that Archbishop Lefebvre did teach the "principles", but he did not take it to the conclusion. Sedevacantist took the principles, then on their own, have taken it to in its own conclusion.
-
Machabees wrote:
(your words in brackets)
When the bishops were consecrated in 1988, all of those present made the judgment that they must go against the express will of the "pope," for the common good of the Church. As sedevacantists, we are not the only ones making judgments on our own, without the benefit of authority. In every case, the Society has acted to preserve the Faith by resisting the anti-popes, but they have done this in the absence of authority relying on their own judgment of what to do and when to resist. [No. It is on the Authority of the Church in what the Church has always done. Archbishop Lefebvre had explained very well in his sermon of the 1988 consecrations.]
But, a judgment was still made that they were doing "what the Church has always done." At no time in the history of the Church has a bishop had to consecrate bishops to preserve the Faith and the apostolic succession from the Pope. [I do not remember, but didn't St. Athanasius do this?]
When a Catholic during the crisis resists the man they call pope, they are relying on their judgment that they must resist, how far the must resist, and exactly what they must resist. This is a fact. They are not relying on any living authority to tell them anything, they are relying on themselves.
Now, I know you are going to say, they are relying on the previous Popes, Councils, Canon Law, Doctors and theologians. If you say that then we agree, we as Catholics must preserve the same Faith and reject abominations and evil and impious laws and sacramental rites. But, that is all the sedevacantists are doing, we are rejecting this evil, and we are applying pre-Vatican II theology and law to a publicly heretical "pope."
We both agree that we must reject the heresies of Vatican II, the area that we are not agreeing on is that you do not seem willing to concede that we can reject a papal claim of a public heretic. Archbishop Lefebvre taught that we could, the Code teaches it, pre-Vatican II theology teaches it, but I cannot convince you of it.
Ambrose, as I have mentioned before, I do appreciate this overall discussion. As this helps us grow, and is good for our own reflection, study, and love of God, it is hoped that as we learn, others will also come to learn from these diverse topics that we have touched on. In my experience, not too many people will discuss these great, albeit profound and deep, areas of our Faith.
I actually do recognize that the past 3-Popes spoke with open heresy; however, the difference is the Type of Heresy in a conclusion of Material or Formal, and his membership in the Church in conclusion of Spiritual or Governance).
This new Pope, Pope Francis, I do not know anything of him; and I believe it is prudent, in God's providence for His Church, He is the Head, and for the common good, that this new Pope be accepted as the Vicar of Christ in his Authority, and is a Catholic with full membership, until it is manifested by God that he is not the Pope.
In reflection over our conversation, I think there are two main areas that still need to be brought out:
- Where does the teachings of a Pope(s) have it's place: Fallible or Infallible.
I'm sorry I do not have a link for this important topic. I will try and look for one over the next week.
- Spiritual Membership and Membership of Governance.
This is also an important topic; and I think is really the center of our overall discussion. RJS has also brought this out in a very good Ecclesiastical and Canonical way. I cannot re-post it here, it will make this post too long. However, his contents are still valid.
For myself, I have tried to bring this Membership of Governance out in many of my other posts in both of a practical way and in a historical way with Sacred Scripture. What is important in all of this interpretation of Canon Law, Ecclesiastical Law, or the Church Fathers, is the real question -how does God applies this- not us. For us, these are tools to discern. Sacred Scripture and Tradition is the true source of God showing us how He applies His Church teachings.
The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, is full of examples on how the leaders, the Authority of those different times, have sinned and erred seriously in the Truth and the Faith of God's teachings; yes, they have lost the Spiritual membership but not the Membership of Governance; yet, God still did not remove the majority of them...at all. When He did remove some of them, when the time was right in the situation He had prepared for, God manifested the removal in a very clear, public, unmistakeable manner that all of the people and world could see; with marvel, fear, and love of God. God's people then went away from their idolatries, and the people were restored back to the Faith of God...such is His ways.
So how does it apply for today? We know God does not change, nor does His ways change. So we have to have the Faith that He is fully in charge, under control, as He is the Head of His Church.
When time is "ripe", He will again manifest His will for all to see. Scripture shows many times over that the people turned away from their sins, and was restored back to God's Faith. That is what is mentioned in Fatima in our times, the many other apparitions, the Church Fathers, and biblical apocalypse.
Which ever age of the Church suffering we are in now, in likeness of Her Crucified Lord, is God's plan. Utopia? No. That is the Faith, which is above our reason, and we are to have Trust and confidence in.
God bless.
-
Ambrose,
I recently discovered this article on Sedevacantism showing some of its arguments with it's inherent dangers and consequences. Certainly relevant to our discussions: "Is the Pope Pope; a Formal heretic?"
Here is the article:
http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What should we think of sedevacantists?
NB: Some of the examples are in reference to the late Pope John Paul II
In the face of the scandal of a pope who can sign Dignitatis Humanae, radically change the liturgy of the Mass, codify a new ecclesiology, or make himself the protagonist for an aberrant ecuмenism, etc., some have concluded that the last popes cannot have been true popes, or else that they have lost the pontificate because of such scandals. They refer to the discussions of the great counter-Reformation theologians on the loss of the pontificate (through abdication, insanity, heresy, etc.) and argue thus:
a. he who is not a member of the Church can’t be its head.
b. but a heretic is not a member of the Church,
c. now, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are heretics,
d. therefore, they are neither members nor head of the Church,
e. and so all their acts are to be completely ignored.
But then again, the argument continues, the same scandals are true of all the world’s diocesan bishops, who are also consequently non-members without authority; and the Catholic Church must be identified only with those who have not compromised the Faith and who refuse communion with these “popes” or “bishops.” A minority of these will elect their own “pope” (e.g. the communities at Palmar de Troya, Spain, or Saint Jovite, Canada).
The argument’s strength is in the real scandal of the Conciliar authorities’ impetus given to the Church’s “new direction”; its weakness is in not being able to prove that any of these authorities are formal heretics.
• You are a “material” heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own;
• you are a “formal” heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you’re denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway.
Now, the ordinary way for the Church to ascertain pertinacity and enforce the consequences of one’s heresy by either excommunication and/or loss of office, is through authoritative monitions* to the delinquent which he spurns (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 2314, §1). But nobody can authoritatively admonish the pope (canon 1556), and the bishops can only be admonished by their superior, the pope (canon 1557), who has not done so.
________________________________________
*To have canonical force, they must come from one's superior (cf., canon 2233). The point is not only the crime but also its imputability must be notorious (canon 2195; 2197).
________________________________________
Therefore, pertinacity, and so formal heresy, cannot be proven.
But could pertinacity not be presumed from the insistence of these popes on the new ways, and this in the face of all tradition and its present-day witnesses? Perhaps; but not socially i.e., as regards loss of office, etc., which must not be presumed but proven, otherwise societies would collapse.
The argument does not prove its point, and becomes less probable when you consider that there are other explanations for the “material heretic” pope [see section a below], and it becomes quite improbable when you consider its dangers or consequences [c].
a. The liberal mind-set of a Pope Paul VI or a Pope John Paul II can be an explanation of their wanting to be Catholics and their simultaneous betrayal in practice of Catholicism. They accept contradictions; with a subjective and evolutive mentality, this is to be expected.* But such a frame of mind can be convinced of heresy only by way of authority....
________________________________________
*A little example: "At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecuмenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the 'signs of the times'" (Ut Unum Sint, §3). If it is because of the "signs of the times" that the Conciliar Church has launched herself into ecuмenism, how are we to know that the venture will be irrevocable? What does a Pope John Paul II mean by such absolute terms?
________________________________________
b. The Church is indefectible (principle 3) not only in her faith and means of sanctification, but also in her monarchical constitution (principle 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors.
Now, we can understand a break in the line of popes from the death of one to the election of the next, and that it may drag on.
But is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such?
The Church is visible (principle 3) and not just a society composed of those who are joined by interior bonds (state of grace, same faith,...). A society is recognized and maintained as such by its authority (its efficient cause).
c. If the Church has not had a pope since the days of Vatican II, then there are no more cardinals legitimately created. But then how is the Church to get a pope again, as the current discipline grants only to cardinals the power to elect a pope?
The Church could have ordained that non-Cardinal “electors of the pope” be capable of doing it, but we cannot go by any other way than the current discipline which ordains that cardinals elect him.
A few sedevacantists hold that he has been or will be directly designated by private revelation from heaven
There are spiritual consequences of sedevacantism:
• sedevacantism is a theological opinion, and not a certitude. To treat it as a certitude leads to condemning with temerity traditional Catholics who disagree;
• and invariably it leads to one’s recognizing no spiritual superiors on earth. Each becomes, in practice, his own little “pope,” the rule of faith and orthodoxy, the judge of the validity of sacraments.*
________________________________________
*Consider the arguments from "Bishop" Vezelis, the Schuckardt movement, etc.: It is said that Cardinal Lienart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest and consecrated him a bishop, was Freemason, and so all his ordinations were invalid; and so we must consider invalid all the sacraments of those he ordained, and of those they ordained...
In fact, whereas that Lienart was a Freemason is only an unproven allegation of one writer; and Church teaching is that we must accept as valid his sacraments anyway, if he used the correct external rite (unless he revealed a contrary internal intention, which he did not).
Moreover, Archbishop Lefebvre was consecrated by three bishops in 1947, which sacrament was surely therefore valid. Cf. On rumors and their source for more information on this matter.
________________________________________
This being so, we ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from them, most especially if they set up sedevacantism as a certitude which all have to accept.
________________________________________
More on this topic:
A Little Catechism on Sedevacantism
Is Sedevacantism Catholic?
Concerning a Sedevancantist Thesis
Pray much for the Holy Father
Why we should pray for the pope and his intentions Validity is not enough
The vocation and suitability of candidates for holy orders. Explains why the issue of validity is not the only concern with "independent ordinations" 7-30-2010
The Validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecrations
The English-language article from Angelus Press originally printed in the Avrille Dominicans French quarterly, Sel de la Ter
-
Ambrose,
Here is another answer to your responses: "A Little Catechism On Sedevacantism".
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/little_catechism_on_sedevacantism.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Little Catechism On Sedevacantism
What is sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is the theory of those who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied. This is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante.
Where does this theory come from?
This theory has been conceived in reaction to the very grave crisis which the Church has been undergoing since the Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called "the third world war." The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or allow to be propagated serious errors on the subjects of ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc.
The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and consequently they consider them not to be "real" popes.
Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?
No, far from it. There are many different positions. Some think that, since the Chair of Peter is vacant, someone should occupy it, and so they have elected a "pope." Such is the case of the sect of Palmar in Spain, for example. Among those who do not go so far, there are different schools. Some think that the current pope is an anti-pope, others that he is only partly pope, a pope materialiter but not formaliter.
Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,[1] make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.
What is meant by being pope materialiter?
The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner (for she has received from the Lord the promise that she will endure until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head. The partisans of the so-called "Cassiciacuм Thesis"[2] have come up with a very subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the papal authority because there was an interior obstacle (heresy). So, according to the theory, he is able to act in some ways for the good of the Church, such as, for instance, appointing cardinals (who are cardinals materialiter), but he is not really pope.
What do you think of this solution?
For one thing, this solution is not based on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) who have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the Council every devised such a theory. Also, it does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism, namely, how the Church can continue to be visible, for, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their "form," then no visible Church hierarchy is left. Moreover, this theory has some serious philosophical defects because it supposes that a head can be head materialiter, that is, without authority.
What arguments do the sedevacantists adduce to prove their theories?
They use a theological argument and a canonical one. The theological argument consists of positing that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore...
The legal argument consists of pointing out that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore...
But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?
St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest. But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.
If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.[3]
Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.
But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?
The Dominican Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.
The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.
In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.
How does their canonical argument fare?
The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution cuм ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated. See, for example, the article of Fr. Albert, O.P., in Sel de la terre, Summer 2000, pp.67-78. What remains in effect from this constitution is its dogmatic teaching. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.
Don’t the sedevacantists claim to find a confirmation of their theory in the errors of Vatican Council II and the harmful liturgical and canonical laws of the Conciliar Church?
Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and consequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on religious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.
Really, if one accepted this argument, then it would be necessary to say that the whole Catholic Church disappeared then, too, and that "the gates of hell had prevailed" against her. For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of the bishops, of the whole Church teaching.
It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons explained in the article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., on the authority of the Council that appeared in Sel de la terre, "L’autorite du Concile," pp.32-63.
One of the arguments set forth there consists in showing that the Council does not present its teaching as "necessary for salvation" (which is logical, since those who profess this believe that it is possible to be saved without the Catholic Faith). Since this teaching is not authoritatively imposed, it is not covered by the guarantee of infallibility. The same thing can be said about the liturgical laws (the New Mass) and the canonical laws (the 1983 Code of Canon Law) promulgated by the most recent popes: they are not covered by infallibility, although normally they would be.
Aren’t the sedevacantists right, though, in refusing to name the pope at Mass in order to show that they are not in communion with ("una cuм") a heretic (at least materially) and his heresies?
The expression "una cuм" in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is "in communion" with the erroneous ideas of the pope, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church "and for" the pope, her visible head.
In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the occasion of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church "una cuм ...me indigno famulo tuo," which does not mean that he prays "in communion with...myself, your unworthy servant" (which does not make sense!), but that he prays "and for ...myself, your unworthy servant."
But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for heretics?
St. Thomas Aquinas does not say that one should not pray for heretics (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2), but merely observes that, in the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are known to the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio). For, he says, so that this sacrifice obtain its effect (effectum habet) those for whom one prays must be "united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity." He does not say that praying for heretics is forbidden. He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon.
All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a heretic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen effect, "non habet effectum."
In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is a theory that has not been proven speculatively, and that it is imprudent to hold practically (an imprudence that can have very serious consequences). That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never adopted this position, and even forbade the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to profess it. We should have confidence in his prudence and theological sense.
Fr. Munoz[4] points out that no saint in the Church’s history was ever a sedevacantist, while several openly and forcefully resisted a pope’s errors. Let us do likewise. (Translated from Sel de la terre, Spring 2001.)
________________________________________
Footnotes:
1 Fr. Coache (1920-1994), Doctor of Canon Law, was the pastor of the parish of Montjavoult until 1973. He was one of the pioneers of the Catholic resistance against the Conciliar revolution. His parish bulletin evolved into The Combat for the Faith, which was widely distributed, and which he edited until his death. He organized with Msgr. Ducaud-Bourget the epic taking of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris, France, in February 1977.
2 "Cassiciacuм" is the name of the place to which St. Augustine withdrew with some friends after his baptism, and where he studied and deepened his faith. In the late 1970’s, Fr. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., together with a group of like-minded priests, founded a review called Les Cahiers de Cassiciacuм to defend the sedevacantist position. The "Cassiciacuм Thesis" is the name given to the theory that the pope is pope materialiter but not formaliter.
3 Billuart, De Fide, Diss. V, A. III, No. 3, obj. 2.
4 Of the diocese of Barcelona, Spain. He was ordained in 1952, and was vicar of a parish in Barcelona. With women active in the Catholic Action movement, he founded a contemplative religious community called the Oasis, near Barcelona. The special mission of this community is to pray for priests. Becoming acquainted with Archbishop Lefebvre in the early 1970’s, he chose to remain faithful to the traditional Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre had a deep affection for the community of the Oasis, whose apostolate he judged to be very necessary for the Church today, and would go there to visit. In October 2000, Fr. Munoz founded a second Oasis in the south of France.
-
Following these last two posts in describing different thoughts of Sedevacantism with some of there dangers and consequences, here also is an article from Stephen Heiner, entitled: "The serenity of sedevacantism: reflections on the 2013 "conclave"".
I think Mr. Heiner is a very polite and pleasant person to listen to in some of his interviews, he none the less in his recent article, brings up these same problems discussed in the above articles, and also the inherent contradiction of the Sedevacantist position. Namely, the aspect of the independent spirit of "Protestantism".
While all through out his article, he labels many different thoughts of "SSPX people", some even strange ones, he does say that the "Recognize-and-Resist SSPX camp" do act like Protestants in their conclusions, at the same time, the Sedevacantist are not Protestants; yet, he has in his own article the articulation of the very same Protestant spirit of acting really like a Protestant: Independence from Authority; Judging for himself who is Pope, who is not; what is held as teaching, what is not, etc. -That is Protestantism!
It's another example, as Bishop Williamson says, "Protestants and Sedevacantist are two sides of the same coin"
Here is the article:
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com.es/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 18, 2013
The serenity of sedevacantism: reflections on the 2013 "conclave"
During the 2005 "conclave" I was still solidly in the "Recognize-and-Resist" SSPX camp. I was glued to the screen watching ballot after ballot and excitedly calling friends about Ratzinger and his solid chances to be "elected." I had not really done my homework on him at the time; I just remembered glossy pictures in Latin Mass and excerpts from The Ratzinger Report I had read in my salad days of Traditional Catholicism. I thought that he would definitely be more "traditional" than JPII, but would that be enough?
As the white smoke billowed my heart jumped, like the heart of any true Catholic who thinks he/she is witnessing the election of a true pope. True Catholics have a tremendous attachment to the office and person of the Pope - an office given to us by Christ to hold His scepter over His Church. To bind and loose - in His place - in our short time in this life.
I called two friends and we chatted excitedly about what this would mean. The one friend, always (and still today) an Indult type, the other SSPX though "sedevacantist friendly." While I was in the SSPX I was in the minority of people who considered sedevacantism a valid "alternative explanation" so I didn't have the time or inclination to demonize it as "non-Catholic" or label it with all the other insane labels R&R types have to put on an idea in order to emotionally pollute themselves from calmly looking at it.
But even in 2005 I felt disconnected from the Novus Ordo sect - the organization that appears to the outside world to be the visible Catholic Church but metaphysically is an impostor. In 2005 I still saw with my eyes of flesh instead of my eyes of faith, and I had not confronted the one issue that to this day dominates every fiber of Joseph Ratzinger's being: Vatican II.
All the problems and issues we see and experience today go back to Vatican II and the question of the Pope. Is Vatican II an ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church or is it not? Is it to be accepted as coming from Christ through His Church or is it not?
Standard R&R answers (keep in mind that typically these answers will come from the mouths of people - and sometimes clergy! - who have not even read one single docuмent of Vatican II):
• Pastoral council
• Non-binding, and besides, there's no heresy anyway!
Sedevacantist responses (to the above points):
• Please show us where in previous Catholic teaching a "pastoral council" is defined and what its authority is. Church history shows us there are valid councils and invalid councils. We don't have any "in-betweeners."
• Nope. Every single docuмent ends with the same formulary as in Trent, with "I, Paul, Bishop of Rome, etc." One can make the outrageous claim that it is non-binding, except for the fact that it has guided the Novus Ordo sect in every aspect for the last half-century. You can claim all you want that it's not binding - but the Novus Ordo sect de-Catholicized every country which still recognized Jesus Christ as King (thanks Dignitatis Humanae - which by the way contains heresy directly contrary to the teachings of the pre-Vatican II popes). The Novus Ordo sect destroyed the faith of millions by introducing the even-less-than-banal Novus Ordo Missae (thanks Sacrosanctum Concilium - which contains statements and propositions and attitudes condemned by Mediator Dei). Saying it's "not binding" reminds me of Neville Chamberlain coming back to England waving a piece of paper he had signed with Hitler. The facts weren't important...we had a piece of paper!
For the sedevacantist, life is fairly simple: Vatican II is an invalid council (we have precedent in Church history) implemented by anti-popes (we have precedent in Church history). Given that "he who is not of the body cannot be the head" (St. Robert Bellarmine) we serenely await an intervention of Our Lord (we have precedent in the Great Western Schism, where Our Lord used human instruments to end the crisis) and in the meantime we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, attending Mass where we can and when we can't, saying the Rosary and trying to sanctify our lives.
We don't set up parallel churches or our own wedding tribunals (SSPX) or attempt to judge each and every action of the body we call "The Holy See" as orthodox or not by referencing our own judgment in reference to "Tradition"(that judgment being not guaranteed by anything).
For the conservative or the recognize-and-resister, life is pretty complicated. Vatican II was a "bad, but certainly valid council" (an undefined idea in the Church with no precedent), implemented by valid popes (actions don't mean anything - a new period has been entered into in which we must know the hearts and minds of possible heretics before judging them as such - and that's a get-out-of-jail free card that only Martin Luther could have invented).
Given that you must have a valid Pope to consecrate Russia (because you live your life according to private revelation, while ignoring immediate doctrinal problems) you anxiously await the miracle of "the triumph of the Immaculate Heart" (while ignoring that Our Lady did not specify that the triumph would happen before the Final Judgement - oh, and you worship as a great "traditionalist" [Benedict XVI] a man who was complicit in the suppression of the Third Secret).
In the meantime, you resist whatever parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the latest version (2002) of the "Ordinary Form" (darkly humorous term) of the Mass, encyclicals, allocutions, and pretty much anything you want that would normally fall under the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and therefore would normally fall under the charism of the Church's INDEFECTIBILITY not under the charism of the Pope's INFALLIBILITY. You resist, with your free will, these legal measures and docuмents from a man you call "Holy Father," who rules the juridical body you call "The Holy See," and is the man you view as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth. Yet, you fail to see how this is not protestant behavior.
2013 was very different for me. I was able to watch the white smoke with the same sadness (yet serenity) that anyone who was alive during the Great Western Schism might have felt (if they had streaming internet back then, of course!). I knew that something was not right but I knew that God, not I, would fix it. I would not recognize a man as "Holy Father" who was blatantly not Catholic (Francis has celebrated Hanukkah with the Jєωs and has been prayed over by protestants - actions which would have earned him an excommunication and the title of apostate under any pre-Vatican II papacy). I know the Church has had many anti-popes in her history and unlike all Catholics before my era in the Church I have access to over 2000 years of Church history so I know there is nothing new under the sun. I'm not so arrogant as to believe the times of anti-popes have "passed."
To paraphrase St. Jerome, I live in an era in which the world has groaned, awoken, and marveled to find itself Modernist. The Arian crisis afflicted 95% of the Church of its time. The Modernist crisis has afflicted 99% of the Church of our time. To those in the 99% who are looking at this joker who has balloons at his "Masses," and is not even certainly a priest (he was ordained in the 1969 ordinal), consider joining the 1%. We don't have any crises of faith nor do we have to worry about all the anxiety and battles waged in the forums and websites of the neo-conservative and neo-trad Catholics. We know the truth: we understand the metaphysical realities of the situation though everything conspires to make us believe otherwise.
We know that Our Lord promised to be with us always. And we hold Him to that promise. We wait on Him to fix the mess that men have made. And we don't force our reality (habemus papam!) to fit our pre-made conclusions (sedevacantism can't be right!). Like St. Thomas, we use reality to draw our conclusions. And when all other options are inadequate to explain the situation, the remaining possibility, however uncertain to our eyes of flesh, must be the correct explanation, and will be seen by our eyes of faith.
Posted by Stephen Heiner
-
I will remind those who follow Sedevacantism.
Those who go against the Authority of God, go against God Himself…
God is the Head of His Church.
He does know what He is doing.
-
Machabees,
Sorry I have not had time to respond, things have been very busy. I will have much more time soon to respond to your posts.
In the meantime, I would urge you to read some of the material and analysis on sedevacantism on the Bellarmine Forums: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/index.php
If you give the position a fair hearing in your mind, I think you will find our position is much stronger than you think. There is a lot of misinformation out there.
-
Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,[1] make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.
This position sounds exactly like the one which Fr Pfeiffer is now taking. He urges the resistence not to attend the neo SSPX masses where the priests are using "Una cuм"
Arent we really mixed up? The confusion seems like it grows and grows.
-
Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,[1] make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.
This position sounds exactly like the one which Fr Pfeiffer is now taking. He urges the resistence not to attend the neo SSPX masses where the priests are using "Una cuм"
Arent we really mixed up? The confusion seems like it grows and grows.
Wait, are you saying that Fr. Pfeiffer is now a sedevacantist? Is this true?
-
NO, Im not saying that at all. Im just saying that he is telling the resistence people not to attend the SSPX masses because the UNA cuм is used in their masses. Dont have time to research it now. Do your own research.
. If you read his comments you will see.
-
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.
With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?
Based on the public evidence available, I withhold any acceptance of his claim to the papacy as I do not have any certainty that the man is a Catholic. There is evidence which casts serious doubt on whether he believes the Catholic Faith.
The onus is on him to assure of this fact as it has been with all of the Vatican II claimants. A Catholic does not have to accept the claim to the Petrine office of one who lacks a legitimate claim.
With all of the Cardinals now appointed by public heretics, who have claimed the office, the lawful electors are the remaining hierarchy who have a lawful claim to their offices and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy.
It is unclear if they accept him or not, but even if they do, as stated above, he also must be a Catholic, and that point is currently in dispute. A doubtful pope is no pope.
I hope that answers you question. God bless.
If you "vote no" to the new Pope because you have a doubt whether he is a Catholic, based of the public evidence available, then why do you "vote yes" without any doubt to say that the conciliar neo-modern Cardinals are "lawful electors [that] are the remaining hierarchy who have a lawful claim to their offices and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy'?
If all of these groups profess "public heresy", why do you only separate the Pope not to have a lawful office and not the rest?
Hello Machabees,
I think you are operating under an assumption that if there is a heretical anti-pope, then automatically those who in error adhere to him are by that fact heretics.
If a bishop is a member of the hierarchy, he does not lose jurisdiction over his diocese except for very specific reasons as described in the Code.
We can never assume that any of these bishops are heretics, we must rely on evidence of public heresy. Since we are in a situation with an undeclared heretic, then there cannot be any group blame, each bishop, priest and layperson must be dealt with separately.
It is possible due to the undeclared status of the anti-pope and the Conciliar sect, that Catholics can keep the Faith while falsely believing that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church. This principle applies to all members, bishops, priests and laity.
-
Machabees wrote:
(Your words in brackets)
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. [No. Look at Church history; of Pope Honduras, other Popes, Bishops, Priests in the Catholic Church who had erred. In the Old Testament with the Pharisees, they told the people not to follow the Divine Lord, the Truth, and His Teachings.] The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
I still stand by my assertion that a pope never gave the universal Church an evil law. This is impossible for a pope to do. If I am wrong on this, then please cite the law. It is impossible for the Church to give evil universal laws, a holy Church cannot give evil.
Regarding Pope Honorius, have you ever read this, it may be an eye opener for you, as it dispels common calumnies against him:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oJoNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Supposed+Fall+Honorius+Condemnation&source=bl&ots=9wDXALs6Yt&sig=p_MPCVnrMKh_MIGhcIq37OXRDMI&hl=en&ei=lbd-Ttz0D6fY0QGw2r3dDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Supposed%20Fall%20Honorius%20Condemnation&f=false
I have not said that the "Church" gives evil universal laws. I said that evil men, prelates, and churchmen, of themselves, can give bad laws, council, advice, morals, error, sin, etc. That was the context of my reply to you.
The Pope is not any ordinary man. He is the successor of St. Peter, and holds the keys. When the Pope makes a law, it binds all in the Church. The Church cannot give evil laws, it is impossible, and when the Pope promulgates a universal law, it is from the Church. The Pope is the supreme lawgiver in the Church.
We can remove from the discussion all other classes that you mention above, I am only focusing on universal laws of the Church as promulgated by the Pope. This would include the Code of Canon Law and all other laws such as the laws on the sacraments, rites, etc.
If a Pope binds the universal Church to evil, then the Church has defected and such is impossible. The Church would then be unholy and evil, and such is blasphemy.
You will never find an evil universal law in the entire history of the Church. You are welcome to scour through Church history, but I can assure you that it doesn't exist. The reason is that it cannot happen. The Pope cannot bind the flock to an evil universal law. If a "pope" did this, it would be proof that he is not the Pope.
-
Machabees wrote:
[Yes, I agree. In this discussion Ambrose, you seem to think that what these Popes teach, is apart of the Church. No. That is why there is the Church's teaching on Fallibility and Infallibility. Popes, as men, can err all by themselves. It is very important to understand the difference that separates them.]
When the Pope speaks infallibly all are bound to believe him and give the assent to the doctrine as a matter of Faith. For example, if one denies that Our Lady was assumed into heaven, then he is a heretic.
But, when the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith, but does not teach infallibly, all must still believe what he teaches, as the teaching is safe. If you refuse to believe the Pope's teaching in his non-infallible teaching on matters of doctrine, then you are guilty of grave sin, but you are not a heretic. It is also not sufficient to give a respectful outward appearance of acceptance, you must assent to what he teaches, or you are guilty of grave sin.
The Pope's universal non-infallible teaching cannot be ignored, Catholics are bound to assent to his teaching under pain of mortal sin.
You can find an excellent explanation of what I have stated here, from some that are authorized to explain it:
http://www.sedevacantist.com/believe.html
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/allocution.htm
http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=764
-
What is also very important to understand in this crisis, is that Vatican II was a "Pastoral" council.
Which means:
- Everything "pastoral" that is in it, you are not bound to follow.
- Anything that is ambiguous, gets through out the window. The Church is Holy and clear. She does not speak with "two tongues"; only sinful man does. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that if a "law is unjust, it is not a law at all, and needs not be followed.
- Anything that comes out later as a "dogmatic" interpretation of a "pastoral" nature is false and also not to be followed (Lumen Gentium, Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, etc...).
Likewise, anything that a conciliar Bishop, Priest, or Pope wants to "promote" in this "false pastoral doctrine", is not obliged to follow, like Aaron in the Old Testament when he erred; however, it does not mean that they have no authority from God in the position that they were ordained in.
Vatican II by itself -is self condemned- and is waiting for God's Providence to manifest the "mysterious good" that will come out of that evil.
Until then, we need to have Faith in God, do our duties of state faithfully, and be patient for God's plan to work the way He is allowing it to happen.
There was an excellent article published by John Daly several years ago which studied the question about whether Vatican II taught in the manner in which the Church teaches infallibly. I would urge you to read the article, and then if you still believe that Vatican II did not teach in the manner in which the Church teaches, we could discuss it further. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
Now, I am not arguing that Vatican II is the infallible teaching of the Church, but I am arguing that the man who approved it teaching could not have been a Pope.
I agree that Vatican II is self condemned. It is not part of the teaching of the Church. It could not be. The theology of Vatican II is divorced from the deposit of Faith. From the moment it was promulgated, December 7th 1965, new doctrine was taught not found and in conflict with the Sacred Deposit.
It is impossible that Vatican II came from the Church, and from that it is impossible that the "pope" who imposed it on the Church was truly a pope.
Ambrose?
Though I agree, however, you did say in two other posts:
"The Pope is the center of unity of the Church, his teachings are the rule of faith, and we are bound to believe him, even in his non-infallible teaching. We are bound to adhere to the laws he gives to the universal Church, also called Sacred laws, or Sacred Canons."
The Pope being the Supreme Teacher of all. When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith and morals, all must believe what he says, even when he is teaching in a non-infallible manner.
Whenever the Pope teaches the universal Church all must believe what he teaches. They are bound the teaching, but the level of assent may differ. The Pope's non-infallible teaching to the universal Church binds Catholics under pain of sin to believe him and is always safe although it is not infallible.
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
Machabees,
There is no such thing as "pastoral doctrine." When the Pope teaches on matters of the Faith and morals we are bound to what he teaches. I would ask you to explain "pastoral doctrine" using pre-Vatican II theology. It didn't exist and is a novelty used to explain away Vatican II.
Vatican II taught in the manner that the Church teaches. John Daly explains the point in great and accurate detail. If you have a chance to read this article, it would greatly advance discussion on this point. If you disagree with what he says, at least we could see the nature of our disagreement. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
In my above post, I spoke of the Pastoral council -Vatican II's own words. Vatican II was in nature a Pastoral council, NOT a Doctrinal council, like Vatican I.
"Pastoral Doctrine". Those words are a well used phrase in reference to the ambiguity of Vatican II from their "pastoral" teachings. In this crisis of the Church, Post-Vatican II ever so tries to take their own declared Pastoral council and "spin" it into a "Doctrinal" dogma, as they see fit. For which they call it themselves -a "Pastoral doctrine".
Other than the usage of the modern day phrase of "Pastoral doctrine", to be more clear on the Pope, and his own pastoral advice, that when you go to confession to a priest, he gives you pastoral advise, you are not "bound" to follow it (catechism). Also, if you go to confession to a Bishop, or the Pope, they give you pastoral advice, you are not "bound" to follow it.
When the Pope speaks, of himself, such examples as his Angelus addresses, or writing a book, or an article in the Vatican newspaper, or an interview, they are pastoral, you are not "bound" to follow it.
If the Pope writes something on Morals, or Church teaching, it would be doctrinal. If it is in line with what the Church has always taught, we are bound to follow it. If it is NOT in line with what the Church has always taught, like Vatican II, we are NOT bound to follow it -Hence, the crisis.
God bless.
Machabees,
I ask you though, what is a Pastoral Council, as explained by the theologians of the Church? I have never come across such a distinction theology book I have ever read. The question here, is did Vatican II teach in the manner that would make it infallible. I think if you read John Daly's article on this that I posted that there is no other way to explain it.
When the Pope and the bishops all teach the same thing universally throughout the Church, it is passively infallible. It is impossible for the Teaching Church to universally profess heresy or error while teaching in union with the Pope.
Even if you want to argue that the actual docuмents of Vatican II was "pastoral," the teaching was imposed on the universal Church in every manner possible, catechisms, sermons, by the theologians, in official teachings of the bishops, etc. The teaching of Vatican II was imposed throughout the Church by the moral consensus of the bishops in union with Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis.
If these anti-popes were Popes, then the teachings of Vatican II are the teachings of the Church. If this is the case, then the Church has defected and failed.
The only way to throw Vatican II in the trash bin of history, is to also throw out the "pontificates" of the anti-popes.
-
Ambrose said,
Vatican II taught in the manner that the Church teaches.
Can you explain this please?
In Vatican II's Pastoral council, they taught a lot of heresies, i.e. Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, and Collegiality to name a few.
Machabees,
As I explained above, if you are going to use this novel term "pastoral" council to explain away the doctrinal teachings of Vatican II, then you still have to address the infallibility of the Ecclesia Docens.
I cannot see anyway around this. The moral consensus of the bishops, have all adhered to the teachings of Vatican II in full union with the "pope." This would make it infallible regardless of the docuмents themselves or the council itself. The Vatican II bishops have the express, (not just the tacit) approval of the Pope in everything they are teaching throughout the world, always and everywhere. These bishops are in full union with the "pope," therefore as they are teaching the same doctrine of Vatican II everywhere, then it would be infallible on those grounds alone.
I can give you sources for the above, but you can find this teaching in any dogmatic theology manual, under the section dealing with the infallibility of the bishops.
-
Machabees wrote:
But, a judgment was still made that they were doing "what the Church has always done." At no time in the history of the Church has a bishop had to consecrate bishops to preserve the Faith and the apostolic succession from the Pope. [I do not remember, but didn't St. Athanasius do this?]
St. Athanasius was not resisting a heretical Pope. The Pope kept the Faith, it was the bishops who defected, and he was resisting the heretical bishops.
The calumny spread by the Gallicans and Protestants against the saintly Pope Liberius is debunked here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=o-gRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=alleged+fall+of+pope+liberius&source=bl&ots=cqyyZLTNp9&sig=ilQqoqow1vHCBGkv52qV6hSQ0Ns&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2zlKUc2GGfO24AO61YAQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=alleged%20fall%20of%20pope%20liberius&f=false
-
Machabees wrote:
Ambrose, as I have mentioned before, I do appreciate this overall discussion. As this helps us grow, and is good for our own reflection, study, and love of God, it is hoped that as we learn, others will also come to learn from these diverse topics that we have touched on. In my experience, not too many people will discuss these great, albeit profound and deep, areas of our Faith.
I actually do recognize that the past 3-Popes spoke with open heresy; however, the difference is the Type of Heresy in a conclusion of Material or Formal, and his membership in the Church in conclusion of Spiritual or Governance).
This new Pope, Pope Francis, I do not know anything of him; and I believe it is prudent, in God's providence for His Church, He is the Head, and for the common good, that this new Pope be accepted as the Vicar of Christ in his Authority, and is a Catholic with full membership, until it is manifested by God that he is not the Pope.
In reflection over our conversation, I think there are two main areas that still need to be brought out:
- Where does the teachings of a Pope(s) have it's place: Fallible or Infallible.
I'm sorry I do not have a link for this important topic. I will try and look for one over the next week.
- Spiritual Membership and Membership of Governance.
This is also an important topic; and I think is really the center of our overall discussion. RJS has also brought this out in a very good Ecclesiastical and Canonical way. I cannot re-post it here, it will make this post too long. However, his contents are still valid.
For myself, I have tried to bring this Membership of Governance out in many of my other posts in both of a practical way and in a historical way with Sacred Scripture. What is important in all of this interpretation of Canon Law, Ecclesiastical Law, or the Church Fathers, is the real question -how does God applies this- not us. For us, these are tools to discern. Sacred Scripture and Tradition is the true source of God showing us how He applies His Church teachings.
The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, is full of examples on how the leaders, the Authority of those different times, have sinned and erred seriously in the Truth and the Faith of God's teachings; yes, they have lost the Spiritual membership but not the Membership of Governance; yet, God still did not remove the majority of them...at all. When He did remove some of them, when the time was right in the situation He had prepared for, God manifested the removal in a very clear, public, unmistakeable manner that all of the people and world could see; with marvel, fear, and love of God. God's people then went away from their idolatries, and the people were restored back to the Faith of God...such is His ways.
So how does it apply for today? We know God does not change, nor does His ways change. So we have to have the Faith that He is fully in charge, under control, as He is the Head of His Church.
When time is "ripe", He will again manifest His will for all to see. Scripture shows many times over that the people turned away from their sins, and was restored back to God's Faith. That is what is mentioned in Fatima in our times, the many other apparitions, the Church Fathers, and biblical apocalypse.
Which ever age of the Church suffering we are in now, in likeness of Her Crucified Lord, is God's plan. Utopia? No. That is the Faith, which is above our reason, and we are to have Trust and confidence in.
God bless.
Machabees,
I also appreciate this discussion. It is a pleasure in our time to be able to discuss these matters civilly with charity.
In your view of the necessity of accepting the claim of Francis, I think it worth remembering that a Catholic does not have to accept the claim of a man whose election is in doubt. In this case, the cardinals of the Conciliar church have all been appointed by the anti-popes, and all of them appear to have lost the faith.
The majority of the cardinals elected a known "progressive" which demonstrates that they have most likely lost the Faith themselves.
In addition to this, this man has said and done things that are forbidden by the Church, sins against the first commandment, such as being blessed by a Protestant minister, praying with people in false religions, and participating in a service at a ѕуηαgσgυє. These acts according to the Code give us grounds at the very least to suspect him of heresy. When these acts of his are compounded by the fact that he appears to adhere to the heresies of Vatican II, then we are further confirmed in rejecting his claim.
-
What is also very important to understand in this crisis, is that Vatican II was a "Pastoral" council.
Which means:
- Everything "pastoral" that is in it, you are not bound to follow.
- Anything that is ambiguous, gets through out the window. The Church is Holy and clear. She does not speak with "two tongues"; only sinful man does. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that if a "law is unjust, it is not a law at all, and needs not be followed.
- Anything that comes out later as a "dogmatic" interpretation of a "pastoral" nature is false and also not to be followed (Lumen Gentium, Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, etc...).
Likewise, anything that a conciliar Bishop, Priest, or Pope wants to "promote" in this "false pastoral doctrine", is not obliged to follow, like Aaron in the Old Testament when he erred; however, it does not mean that they have no authority from God in the position that they were ordained in.
Vatican II by itself -is self condemned- and is waiting for God's Providence to manifest the "mysterious good" that will come out of that evil.
Until then, we need to have Faith in God, do our duties of state faithfully, and be patient for God's plan to work the way He is allowing it to happen.
There was an excellent article published by John Daly several years ago which studied the question about whether Vatican II taught in the manner in which the Church teaches infallibly. I would urge you to read the article, and then if you still believe that Vatican II did not teach in the manner in which the Church teaches, we could discuss it further. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
Now, I am not arguing that Vatican II is the infallible teaching of the Church, but I am arguing that the man who approved it teaching could not have been a Pope.
I agree that Vatican II is self condemned. It is not part of the teaching of the Church. It could not be. The theology of Vatican II is divorced from the deposit of Faith. From the moment it was promulgated, December 7th 1965, new doctrine was taught not found and in conflict with the Sacred Deposit.
It is impossible that Vatican II came from the Church, and from that it is impossible that the "pope" who imposed it on the Church was truly a pope.
Ambrose?
Though I agree, however, you did say in two other posts:
"The Pope is the center of unity of the Church, his teachings are the rule of faith, and we are bound to believe him, even in his non-infallible teaching. We are bound to adhere to the laws he gives to the universal Church, also called Sacred laws, or Sacred Canons."
The Pope being the Supreme Teacher of all. When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith and morals, all must believe what he says, even when he is teaching in a non-infallible manner.
Whenever the Pope teaches the universal Church all must believe what he teaches. They are bound the teaching, but the level of assent may differ. The Pope's non-infallible teaching to the universal Church binds Catholics under pain of sin to believe him and is always safe although it is not infallible.
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
Machabees,
There is no such thing as "pastoral doctrine." When the Pope teaches on matters of the Faith and morals we are bound to what he teaches. I would ask you to explain "pastoral doctrine" using pre-Vatican II theology. It didn't exist and is a novelty used to explain away Vatican II.
Vatican II taught in the manner that the Church teaches. John Daly explains the point in great and accurate detail. If you have a chance to read this article, it would greatly advance discussion on this point. If you disagree with what he says, at least we could see the nature of our disagreement. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
In my above post, I spoke of the Pastoral council -Vatican II's own words. Vatican II was in nature a Pastoral council, NOT a Doctrinal council, like Vatican I.
"Pastoral Doctrine". Those words are a well used phrase in reference to the ambiguity of Vatican II from their "pastoral" teachings. In this crisis of the Church, Post-Vatican II ever so tries to take their own declared Pastoral council and "spin" it into a "Doctrinal" dogma, as they see fit. For which they call it themselves -a "Pastoral doctrine".
Other than the usage of the modern day phrase of "Pastoral doctrine", to be more clear on the Pope, and his own pastoral advice, that when you go to confession to a priest, he gives you pastoral advise, you are not "bound" to follow it (catechism). Also, if you go to confession to a Bishop, or the Pope, they give you pastoral advice, you are not "bound" to follow it.
When the Pope speaks, of himself, such examples as his Angelus addresses, or writing a book, or an article in the Vatican newspaper, or an interview, they are pastoral, you are not "bound" to follow it.
If the Pope writes something on Morals, or Church teaching, it would be doctrinal. If it is in line with what the Church has always taught, we are bound to follow it. If it is NOT in line with what the Church has always taught, like Vatican II, we are NOT bound to follow it -Hence, the crisis.
God bless.
Machabees,
I ask you though, what is a Pastoral Council, as explained by the theologians of the Church? I have never come across such a distinction theology book I have ever read. The question here, is did Vatican II teach in the manner that would make it infallible. I think if you read John Daly's article on this that I posted that there is no other way to explain it.
When the Pope and the bishops all teach the same thing universally throughout the Church, it is passively infallible. It is impossible for the Teaching Church to universally profess heresy or error while teaching in union with the Pope.
Even if you want to argue that the actual docuмents of Vatican II was "pastoral," the teaching was imposed on the universal Church in every manner possible, catechisms, sermons, by the theologians, in official teachings of the bishops, etc. The teaching of Vatican II was imposed throughout the Church by the moral consensus of the bishops in union with Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis.
If these anti-popes were Popes, then the teachings of Vatican II are the teachings of the Church. If this is the case, then the Church has defected and failed.
The only way to throw Vatican II in the trash bin of history, is to also throw out the "pontificates" of the anti-popes.
A "Pastoral Council" is as I had mentioned in my post. Vatican II was in nature a Pastoral Council. It was NOT convoked as a Doctrinal Council; It did NOT define new Dogma; It was NOT an "infallible" Council.
StartPage.com it (or Google it). Type in: "pastoral council, vatican II" and you will find about 565,492 results. Type in: "pastoral council, Archbishop Lefebvre" and you will find about 6,150 results.
Vatican II being in nature a Pastoral council is well know through out all of these 50-years.
Here is some links from those search terms:
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/docuмents/ju_mag_01051997_p-21_en.html
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-14.htm
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/02/vatican-ii-was-just-pastoral-according.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_II
And thousands of other links that have proof of this...
If you have the feature "find" on your computer software, type in the word pastoral; and highlight it. You can go a lot faster in finding the places where it speaks about it within the articles.
God bless.