Author Topic: A fair question. (Read 15319 times)

Pete Vere · « **Reply #90 on:** May 19, 2014, 04:56:41 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Machabees,

You seem to think R&R and Resistance are interchangeable, but it seems that increasingly it is not.

:applause:

Exactly.

pbax · « **Reply #91 on:** May 19, 2014, 06:36:53 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”

MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #92 on:** May 19, 2014, 06:37:45 PM »

Quote from: pbax

Quote from: MyrnaM
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”

MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"

Have you read the next chapter? St. Robert is not saying what you think he's saying.

Cantarella · « **Reply #93 on:** May 19, 2014, 07:38:21 PM »

Quote

If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he if then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.[3]

There is simply not concensus of the theologians regarding the case of a heretical Pope. Even if there was, this would still not have the mark of infallibility. St. Bellarmine is not the binding authority of the Church. Best to be in the safe side and not to hold imprudent personal opinions that can really cause the lost of one's immortal soul.

pbax · « **Reply #94 on:** May 19, 2014, 09:22:32 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: pbax
Quote from: MyrnaM
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”

MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"

Have you read the next chapter? St. Robert is not saying what you think he's saying.

Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #95 on:** May 19, 2014, 09:24:32 PM »

Quote from: pbax

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: pbax
Quote from: MyrnaM
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”

MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"

Have you read the next chapter? St. Robert is not saying what you think he's saying.

Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?

Read the next chapter where St. Robert says it is certain that a heretic is not a pope.

pbax · « **Reply #96 on:** May 19, 2014, 10:26:19 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: pbax
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: pbax
Quote from: MyrnaM
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”

MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"

Have you read the next chapter? St. Robert is not saying what you think he's saying.

Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?

Read the next chapter where St. Robert says it is certain that a heretic is not a pope.

Do you mean this part;
The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano Pontifice. II.30. My emphasis)

Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?

Zeitun · « **Reply #97 on:** May 20, 2014, 12:29:28 AM »

How does he get the papacy back?

Ambrose · « **Reply #98 on:** May 20, 2014, 12:34:23 AM »

Quote from: pbax

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: pbax
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: pbax
Quote from: MyrnaM
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”

MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"

Have you read the next chapter? St. Robert is not saying what you think he's saying.

Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?

Read the next chapter where St. Robert says it is certain that a heretic is not a pope.

Do you mean this part;
The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano Pontifice. II.30. My emphasis)

Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?

Yes, many who hold the "sede" position attend mass at both SSPX and resistance masses.

John Lane, of the Bellarmine Forums, one of the best known "sedevacantists" in the world attends SSPX every Sunday.

Ambrose · « **Reply #99 on:** May 20, 2014, 12:37:05 AM »

Quote from: Zeitun

How does he get the papacy back?

I do not believe Francis was ever Pope to begin with, so there is no getting it back for him.

In order to have a Pope again, in the apparent absence of the cardinals, the right of election falls to the remaining members of the hierarchy and Roman clergy who have kept the Faith.

pbax · « **Reply #100 on:** May 20, 2014, 06:10:38 AM »

In the following quote, taken from Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1895), Sabastian B. Smith discusses the two-fold opinion with respect to the hypothetical question of a heretical pope, and then explains how it would be dealt with on the practical level.
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”. (20)

As we can see, while there are two common opinions with respect to the hypothetical question, “both opinions agree” when it comes to the practical aspect. And what both opinions agree on is that, on the practical level, it would require a declaration of heresy from the Church in order for the pope to be removed.

It is all very interesting and it shows what confusing times we are in.

I myself look at it this way there are now two rites the Tridentine rite and the illicit new rite. Two rites but one pope in charge and by the way he acts and speaks I know by my catechism that he prefers to spend his time in the new rite. That does not concern me I will that to the correct hierarchy of the church

I belong to the Tridentine rite only. All this other garbage that is happening is all to do with new rite, they can do what they want it does not concern me. They have done a Luther ditch the Tridentine rite in preference for a protestant rite. They really have not touched my rite it is just harder to find.

Just as Our Lord was conceived in the womb of His Blessed Mother “in the fullness of time”, so in the Fullness of time will Almighty God step in to rectify the current situation

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #101 on:** May 20, 2014, 12:24:19 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: TKGS
Actually, these posters would rather have us all banned. Frankly, I think these are the people who would be more at home at Catholic Answers Forum, now that I've learned how that forum works (from reading another topic). There certainly would be a lot fewer posts if sedevacantists and discussions of sedevacantism were banned!

Um, no.

As the CI poster who probably is most at home with Catholic Answers forum, what I like about CI over every other trad discussion forum online is the fact Matthew permits open discussion with sedes. Though at the opposite end of the trad spectrum in accepting the validity of Vatican II and the post-conciliar papacies, I would definitely leave CI if Matthew banned non-dogmatic sedes.

TKGS is not referring to you, Peter. You are a conciliar kinda guy but you seem to really appreciate a different point of view when expressed in a respectful manner. I think TKGS was referring to really thin-skinned "resistance" types.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #102 on:** May 20, 2014, 10:01:50 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: TKGS
Actually, these posters would rather have us all banned. Frankly, I think these are the people who would be more at home at Catholic Answers Forum, now that I've learned how that forum works (from reading another topic). There certainly would be a lot fewer posts if sedevacantists and discussions of sedevacantism were banned!
Um, no. As the CI poster who probably is most at home with Catholic Answers forum, what I like about CI over every other trad discussion forum online is the fact Matthew permits open discussion with sedes. Though at the opposite end of the trad spectrum in accepting the validity of Vatican II and the post-conciliar papacies, I would definitely leave CI if Matthew banned non-dogmatic sedes.

TKGS is not referring to you, Peter. You are a conciliar kinda guy but you seem to really appreciate a different point of view when expressed in a respectful manner.

I think TKGS was referring to really thin-skinned "resistance" types.

Gosh. And just who might that be?

.

pbax · « **Reply #103 on:** May 21, 2014, 08:22:57 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: TKGS
Actually, these posters would rather have us all banned. Frankly, I think these are the people who would be more at home at Catholic Answers Forum, now that I've learned how that forum works (from reading another topic). There certainly would be a lot fewer posts if sedevacantists and discussions of sedevacantism were banned!

Um, no.

As the CI poster who probably is most at home with Catholic Answers forum, what I like about CI over every other trad discussion forum online is the fact Matthew permits open discussion with sedes. Though at the opposite end of the trad spectrum in accepting the validity of Vatican II and the post-conciliar papacies, I would definitely leave CI if Matthew banned non-dogmatic sedes.

TKGS is not referring to you, Peter. You are a conciliar kinda guy but you seem to really appreciate a different point of view when expressed in a respectful manner. I think TKGS was referring to really thin-skinned "resistance" types.

Let me get a little bit personal here to start with. I got interested in this site firstly because of its stance which was in support of the SSPX and what it stood for. There was a time when people following Ab. Lefebvre were called Lefebvrists, in an attempt to accuse them of following a man who had started up a parallel church to the Church of Our Lord. However, those who used right judgement knew very well that here was a very unique man in our modern times who truly belonged to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. So rather than feeling put down, I was rather “proud” to be associated with such a holy man.
With this background I joined this blog to be with like-minded Catholics who were not just Traditional in name but Traditional in practice. That is, denouncing modern novelties but still holding to the One True Church with the Pope as successor of St. Peter being its head. To me a Church without a Supreme Pontiff is a Church which lacks that continuity which the Catholic Church holds to be necessary, and therefore is in Schism.

So… Actually these posters are not trying to have you banned from here, but are struggling to figure out why sedevacantist would want to even bother to come on a SSPX/Resistance site, and also attend SSPX/Resistance Masses in the first place.

All Masses said by the SSPX/Resistance mention i.e pray for the Pope in the canon. You may say that a sedevacantist does not pray for the pope that is not a pope, but in reality you do pray for the pope through the altar server. The Altar server represents the congregation at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Even if you think you are not praying for the pope by participating in the Mass you are actually praying for the pope that you think is not a pope. If you are not participating but merely attending as you would at a Protestant funeral rite in respect for a deceased person, you have not heard Mass and therefore are wasting your time there.

Surely based on the principles you stand for is not this just a little contradictory on your part. After all your stance in defending your sedevacantist position is crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s. I would have also thought that sedevacantists would have a problem with the ’62 missal.
A sedevacantist poster once mockingly accused non-sedes of fearing molestation of their women and children. The dictionary meaning of ‘molest’ is to “meddle with and injure; interfere with and trouble; disturb”. So yes, I do fear a spiritual molestation here, and not just to women and children, as I cannot any longer trust that the postings are from like-minded persons with the aim of aiding each other to their eternal salvation. There appears to be a push to convert others to sedevacantism, a push which I view to be a danger to the salvation of souls for the reasons enunciated by various theologians (and of course denounced by sedevacantists who seem to speak like self-elected ‘popes’) who rely on the goodness and majesty of God. As the train of thought goes…. As Our Lord suffered on Calvary, so too is the Holy Catholic Church getting a taste, and mind you only a taste and not the full extent, of these sufferings in her body today.
In short I cannot understand why a sedevacantist would post on this site. It is a bit bewildering. After all isn’t it the SSPX that says ‘we tolerate sedevacantists but it is not the position of the SSPX’. Well anyway that is what I have always thought, may be that has changed too. Even though he too sometimes questioned the actions of the Pope and understood with sympathy how the sedes could be led into this error, Archbishop Lefebvre stood firmly against it. The SSPX priests and the Resistance priests too both recognise the Pope as the head of the one true Church.

Now for those who think I am a sede hater etc, NO I am not. I do not agree with it, is that such a crime? In these confusing times we question everything and I cannot seem to understand the link between sedevacantists and SSPX/Resistance.

pbax · « **Reply #104 on:** May 22, 2014, 08:34:57 PM »

What does R&R stand for?