Author Topic: A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX (Read 16159 times)

Machabees · « **Reply #105 on:** March 09, 2013, 07:17:18 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Machabees wrote:

Quote
Ambrose,

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

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

Machabees,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archbishop Lefebvre also knew that the Pope question could not be ignored, he said Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church, it is the Pope. He is the centre of the Church and has a great influence on all Catholics by his attitudes, his words and his acts. All men read in the newspapers the Pope's words and on television they see his travels. And so, slowly, slowly, many Catholics are losing the Catholic Faith by the scandal of the Pope's partaking in false religions. This ecuмenism is a scandal in the true sense of the word, an encouragement to sin. Catholics are losing faith in the Catholic Church. They think all religions are good because the Pope in this way befriends men of all religions. (Address to Seminarians, 1986)

Ambrose,

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".

Machabees · « **Reply #106 on:** March 09, 2013, 07:47:10 PM »

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.

Machabees · « **Reply #107 on:** March 09, 2013, 08:36:41 PM »

Ambrose,

Machabees wrote:

Quote

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.

Machabees · « **Reply #108 on:** March 09, 2013, 09:27:59 PM »

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #109 on:** March 10, 2013, 10:43:20 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #110 on:** March 11, 2013, 12:01:07 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #111 on:** March 11, 2013, 12:50:05 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

[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

Ambrose · « **Reply #112 on:** March 11, 2013, 01:02:50 AM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

[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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #113 on:** March 11, 2013, 01:15:35 AM »

Quote

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

Ambrose · « **Reply #114 on:** March 11, 2013, 01:38:11 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

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 · « **Reply #115 on:** March 14, 2013, 05:06:37 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Machabees wrote:

Quote
[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.

Machabees · « **Reply #116 on:** March 14, 2013, 05:23:24 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote
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.]

Machabees · « **Reply #117 on:** March 14, 2013, 05:35:14 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Machabees
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:

Quote

"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."

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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 · « **Reply #118 on:** March 14, 2013, 05:41:27 PM »

Ambrose said,

Quote

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,

Quote

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.]

Machabees · « **Reply #119 on:** March 14, 2013, 05:51:53 PM »

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?