Author Topic: A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX (Read 12587 times)

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.

Quote from: Machabees

Ambrose wrote:
Quote
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.

Machabees · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2013, 12:50:26 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Machabees
Ambrose wrote:
Quote
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!

Machabees · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2013, 12:51:36 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Machabees
Ambrose wrote:
Quote
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 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2013, 12:52:47 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

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. 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:
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. 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:
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.

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:
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.

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.

Machabees · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2013, 12:58:48 AM »

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.

Jerome · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2013, 08:31:12 AM »

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".

Jerome · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2013, 08:31:45 AM »

drivocek · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2013, 12:26:56 PM »

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2013, 01:10:17 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

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.

Machabees · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2013, 12:57:29 AM »

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.

Machabees · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2013, 01:33:38 AM »

Quote from: drivocek

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.

Machabees · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2013, 02:53:37 AM »

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.

Machabees · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2013, 03:35:50 AM »

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".

Quote

[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.

Quote

[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.

Machabees · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2013, 05:42:22 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Amicus24
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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2013, 01:07:07 AM »

Machabees,

Thank you for your responses. I will respond to each point, but let me start here in this post.

You wrote:

Quote

[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.