Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Cera on February 04, 2025, 05:29:36 PM
-
Archbishop Vigano's tribute to Bishop Williamson.
https://exsurgedomine.it/250131-williamson-eng/ (https://exsurgedomine.it/250131-williamson-eng/)
-
Absolutely beautiful. Thank you so much for posting this.
-
This had been buried in the larger tributes thread but probably deserves one of its own. +Vigano's writing is simply unmatched. He writes like a Pope issuing Encyclicals.
-
Vigano for pope!
-
Bishop Williamson was disobedient for an apostate Rome; disobedient for an enfeebled conservatism that had forgotten the true reasons for its existence; disobedient for a world incapable of bearing the truth spoken to its face. This apparent disobedience – which binds him indissolubly to the figure of Monsignor Lefebvre, the “rebel Bishop” who dared to challenge the modernism of Paul VI and John Paul II – was the reason why in 2012 he was abandoned and expelled from the Society of St Pius X, to which he belonged, due to his refusal to accept an agreement with conciliar Rome and with the pseudo-conservatism of Benedict XVI.
BOOM!
This simple paragraph should be sent to every, current sspx priest. Maybe some of them would wake up.
Trento, are you reading this?
-
Vigano for pope!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PJWGWJmo30
-
BOOM!
This simple paragraph should be sent to every, current sspx priest. Maybe some of them would wake up.
So, that "disobedient" section reminds me of an episode when I was staying at the "Regina Caeli House" in Kansas City, where the district headquarters were at the time, during one Summer before the next year at seminary, helping out.
Father Peter Scott, Father Kevin Novak, and I were eating dinner while listening to some audio tape in which at some point the speaker declared that SSPX were disobedient to Rome. Father Novak protested out loud: "We're not disobedient!" So I spoke up to disagree: "Of course we are." Then we both looked to Father Scott to weigh in and break the tie. He sat for a minute in silence, and then blurted out in typical Father Scott fashion: "Yes we are!" ... and then unleashed his inimitable laugh for 60 seconds straight.
-
If "Pope" Vigano declared BXVI antipope, would you accept?
Many of us would say to +Viganò in good humour: "Hey, Johnny Come Lately, what took ya so long?"
:laugh1:
-
If "Pope" Vigano declared BXVI antipope, would you accept?
If Vigano became a valid pope and he declared BXVI an antipope, I would have no choice but to accept.
-
What if he declared Pius XII an antipope - same answer?
He wouldn't do that.
-
Johannes, why isn't Pius XII a pope? Most sedes don't go this far.
-
What is the difference in your mind between BXVI and Pius XII?
BXVI is suspect of heresy.
-
From before V2 or after?
Before V2 by the Holy Office and after V2 by Traditional Catholics.
-
BXVI is suspect of heresy.
B16 = manifest heretic :laugh1:
-
Many of us would say to +Viganò in good humour: "Hey, Johnny Come Lately, what took ya so long?"
:laugh1:
Indeed, it's taken him a while, but if you look at his last communication on the subject, the premises are all there in the docuмent to make that conclusion about Roncalli - Ratzinger, not just Bergoglio. He just hasn't explicitly done it.
+Vigano has done that with every one of his letters, where he takes a step, but then plants the seeds toward the next step in the docuмent ... if you have eyes to see. I predicted Bergoglio-vacantism about 2-3 letters before he actually went there.
-
Johannes, why isn't Pius XII a pope? Most sedes don't go this far.
Because Johannes is a radical schismatic who deposes popes on his whim.
-
Who are the post-V2 trads who hold him "suspect of heresy" vs. actually "heretical"?
CatholicKnight (slavish follower of Fr. Kramer, so much so that I suspect they're one and the same individual, though he's denied it) desperately tries to avoid the conclusion that B16 is a manifest heretic, holding that when Bergoglio declared the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews (as Fr. Kramer rightly points out, a heresy against the Council of Florence), when Bergoglio denied that dogma, he really meant it, whereas Ratzinger didn't really mean it and was just confused, i.e. in material error. Problem of course is that if EITHER man knew what he was doing, it would be Ratzinger, who, despite his heresies, actually is a brilliant man and knows what Florence teaches, whereas Bergoglio is a dummy by comparison.
CatholicKnight, you're not actually TradCathKnight, aka GaJEWski, aka Great Monarch, by any chance, are you?
-
I think he was pope, albeit not a very good one.
Well, at least we agree on that. Yes, despite some who rather worship Pius XII, his was the watershed papacy that enabled and set into motion the forces that brought us Vatican II shortly after his demise. I have a list of about a dozen points of failure during his reign. In fact, it was downhill immediately after the death of St. Pius X, as the saint's body was still warm when his successor began at once to dismantle the anti-Modernist apparatuses St. Pius X had put into place as a bulwark against the spread of Modernism, considering St. Pius X to be "not nithe" (to quote Bishop Williamson). In fact the devil's advocate at his canonization hammered on the fact that St. Pius X was mean and not nice to Modernists.
-
I have wondered the same... Doesn't he believe he is the leader of some kind of chivalric "Eagle" order (Knight uses an eagle coat-of-arms)
Well, there are threads where the actual TradCathKnight, Eric Gajewski, was exposed not only for his fake (purchased followers) but where evidence was presented that he fancies himself to be THE Great Monarch of Catholic prophecy.
It just occurred to me now to wonder if CatholicKnight here is Gajewski, since I THINK (though not sure) that Gajewski follows Fr. Kramer also.
-
The Dimond's exposed him over a decade ago.
TradCatKnight Eric Gajewski Deception Cult Exposed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLhNU38iugU)
Right, and some of their links were posted on that CathInfo thread, along with some additional material.
That old thread was actually bumped recently (or, rather, a collection of old threads compiled by Matthew into one place) ...
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/tradcatknight-76053/
-
But, even if BXVI was only a material public heretic - the "more common opinion of the theologians is that material public heretics are NOT members of the Church." (Van Noort).
Is Van Noort wrong in stating that this is the more common opinion?
Do you know the difference b/w material and formal when it comes to heresy? lol
-
CatholicKnight (slavish follower of Fr. Kramer, so much so that I suspect they're one and the same individual, though he's denied it) desperately tries to avoid the conclusion that B16 is a manifest heretic, holding that when Bergoglio declared the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews (as Fr. Kramer rightly points out, a heresy against the Council of Florence), when Bergoglio denied that dogma, he really meant it, whereas Ratzinger didn't really mean it and was just confused, i.e. in material error. Problem of course is that if EITHER man knew what he was doing, it would be Ratzinger, who, despite his heresies, actually is a brilliant man and knows what Florence teaches, whereas Bergoglio is a dummy by comparison.
CatholicKnight, you're not actually TradCathKnight, aka GaJEWski, aka Great Monarch, by any chance, are you?
I am not Eric Gajewski, but I do appreciate some of his work.
-
Material heretic <> material public heretic.
There’s material vs formal. These are related to the person's understanding of the error/guilt as it is related to sin.
Then there’s also public vs occult. Then also manifest. These are canon law terms related to guilt by law.
You added the word “public” to the ‘material’ label, which is not correct. You can’t mix n match labels.
-
That is not the point.
Is Van Noort wrong about material public heretics NOT being members according to the more common opinion?
Yes or No?
(You can actually disagree with the more common opinion of the theologians though I wouldn't advise it).
Define the term "material public heretic".
-
There are thus four kinds of heretics:
- Formal public heretics – who openly and guiltily refuse submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium
- Material public heretics – who openly but innocently refuse submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium.
This does not include Catholics who are in error in good faith. [this stuck out portion is a private opinion. The more common opinion of the theologians disagrees. WM Review added it in because of the unique situation we are in - but no theologian ever taught it]
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D12AQGXmlUPgq3Onw/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1650236845015?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=fQGhhKNFirnkcY2RMe-r6s_kNHVOs88qN3vyMuCoUGU)
Yet another epic fail out of the gate. NO. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "innocence" or lack thereof. :facepalm: How many times do I have to re-explain this to your damaged brain.
-
Material public heretics – One who openly but innocently refuse submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium.
This definition does not include Catholics who err innocently.
-
I am not Eric Gajewski, but I do appreciate some of his work.
OK, I'll take your word for it. :laugh1:
Gajewski does seem to have Father Kramer on all the time, and you practically hold Fr. to be a rule of faith, where you won't dare disagree with him on even the smallest point.
-
Quote from: Johannes on Today at 11:48:23 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/archbishop-vigano's-tribute-to-bishop-williamson-76173/msg971524/#msg971524):facepalm:
The "rule" of faith and a "heresy" against a specific "teaching" of the Church are not the same thing. A Catholic who hold a heresy innocently does not reject the "rule" of faith.
-
The "rule" of faith and a "heresy" against a specific "teaching" of the Church are not the same thing. A Catholic who hold a heresy innocently does not reject the "rule" of faith.
:facepalm:
-
OK, I'll take your word for it. :laugh1:
Gajewski does seem to have Father Kramer on all the time, and you practically hold Fr. to be a rule of faith, where you won't dare disagree with him on even the smallest point.
"Father" Kramer was "ordained" in the new-rite and has yet to be ordained sub conditione.
When it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are under obligation to avoid positive doubt.
Calling him "Father" ignores the positive doubt of his suspect ordination.
-
To reject that the teaching magisterium is the rule of faith is a heresy. :facepalm:
No. What I am saying is that a Catholic who innocently hold a heresy does NOT reject the teaching magisterium as the "rule" of faith. He only errs innocently regarding what the magisterium actually teaches on the matter in question.
Here is a good article on the matter:
https://wmreview.co.uk/2023/01/23/objection-ii/ (https://wmreview.co.uk/2023/01/23/objection-ii/)
-
"Father" Kramer was "ordained" in the new-rite and has yet to be ordained sub conditione.
When it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are under obligation to avoid positive doubt.
Calling him "Father" ignores the positive doubt of his suspect ordination.
No. Cf. Bishop Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, and others who state that it's fine to use the titles by which people are commonly known and that it's not tantamount to an affirmation that there's no doubt about Holy Orders. On top of that, since I don't hold that they're certainly invalid, he deserves the benefit of doubt in terms of respect, even though I would not receive Sacraments from him unless I had no other option in danger of death, per Canon Law.
-
No. Cf. Bishop Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, and others who state that it's fine to use the titles by which people are commonly known and that it's not tantamount to an affirmation that there's no doubt about Holy Orders. On top of that, since I don't hold that they're certainly invalid, he deserves the benefit of doubt in terms of respect, even though I would not receive Sacraments from him unless I had no other option in danger of death, per Canon Law.
God bless you, Lad - I appreciate your opinion and reply. Good to know you would avoid receiving Sacraments from him. That you don't believe they're certainly invalid is another way of saying there exists a positive doubt - which as Catholics we are under obligation to avoid ...and my main point. However, as is the case with other issues, I disagree with + Sanborn's and Fr. Cekada's (R.I.P) opinion. When it comes to the Sacraments, respect doesn't enter into the equation.
-
I met a Sede about twenty years ago, and I asked him about Pius XII's speech to the Italian midwives (Rhythm method.) He said that Pius XII ceased to be pope because of that speech. I asked, "What if Pius goes to confession, does he regain his office?" The guy said 'yes.' You meet all kinds in traditional Catholic churches.
-
And then there is a third type whom were not mentioned: There are those who say, "I do not know if Francis is pope, God knows, and frankly I could care less about the matter. Do not attend the heretical New Mass, go to the traditional sacraments, say your rosary, and carry on soldier." Yes indeed, we do meet all kinds.
-
Sure, his error is innocent - 100% agree. If he stands ready to receive correction he has no guilt in this matter. But once he makes his error public (external) - a "switch is flipped" - God will present him with an opportunity to be corrected - truth drives away error - Light dispels darkness. It may take some time for the correction to come - as such a thing would of course not happen instantly in every circuмstance. Further. there is the possibility that God will NOT give him any correction because He sees the person is bad-willed and no matter how many corrections He sends them - they will remain obstinate in their heresy - so he won't correct their heresy, but allow them to die in their other sins because the punishment for sins against the 1st commandment would be more severe, and it would be a technical mercy of God to leave the bad-willed material public heretic in their heresy so that their punishment will be less than if it was formal heresy (guilty of sin in that matter).
But the reason that it is the more common opinion of the theologians for him (material public heretic) NOT being a member of the Church is very strong reasoning and is exactly what has happened since Vatican II. We are all the living proof of it (it is why we argue on this forum and the trad groups amongst themselves).
The term "public" is not really the term in question here. The term "material heretic" is the term in question. You say that Van Noort uses the term "material heretic" to include Catholics. I say that he uses the term "material heretic" to mean non-Catholic "Christians" because he states that a material heretic is one that rejects the magisterium as the "rule of faith". This is clearly a reference to non-Catholic "Christians" because a Catholic who errs innocently does not reject the magisterium as the "rule of faith". Rather, he holds to a heresy only because he is innocently unware that the Church teaches the contradictory.
-
Catholic Knight ... your last post was correct.
Formal / Material has nothing to do with "innocence", "sincerity", etc. where it comes to dogmatic theology, but has a place only in moral theology with regard to the internal forum, where sin or moral fault may be exculpated by an invincible ignorance.
With regard to Catholic faith, the material aspect has to do with WHAT is believed, and the formal with WHY it's believed.
I could sit down, read my Bible, apply my own private interpretation, and come up with a set of beliefs that is 100% consistent with Catholic dogmatic teaching. But I'd still be a formal heretic, since I do not adhere to those beliefs due to an infallble God-given rule of faith. I believe all the WHAT but not due to the correct WHY, i.e. I would lack the formal motive of faith.
I am a Protestant, and with total innocence and sincerity believe my religion to be true. Yet this sincerity matters nothing. While God would not impute moral guilt to such a one, despite his innocence, he lacks the formal motive of faith, submission to the Church's Magisterium as the rule of faith, and therefore despite all the sincerity in the world, he's a formal heretic.
I am a Catholic who adheres to one or another heresy, but it's only because I'm a poor uneducated peasant and a dummy with low IQ (Johannes here can relate). I know about the Church and have every intention to believe everything the Church teaches (as expressed, say, in the Act of Faith). I am a Material heretic only. St. Augustine lays down the litmus test for this type of heretic as being someone who would immediately abandon his former heretical belief once informed of the truth. I recall when I was young that I had a heretical view of the Immaculate Conception. But as soon as someone told me, "Uh, well, that's not what it means. This is what the Church teaches about it.", my response was, "Oh, sorry." and I instantly adhered to this correct belief. That's material heresy, and that alone is material heresy. Now, in this case, there could be SOME culpability that God would imput to me as sin, i.e. if I were too lazy to study my catechism, that might be a mortal sin to adhere to such heresy, but we're back now into the internal forum, whic God alone can discern.
Now, I claim to be a Catholic but I decided that, despite the Church's teaching, I don't believe in papal infallibility. It's total bunk, perhaps even heresy. I'm a formal heretic. That's because, knowing what the Church teaches, I reject it anyway, and basically reject the infallible teaching authority of the Church as my rule of faith, but prefer my own private judgment. This is why they say that if you deny one dogma you deny them all, because in denying the one, you deny the rule that underlies all dogmas, thereby showing I don't have the formal motive of believe, even if I happen to believe ever single dogma besides that one, since I now believe it because I choose to believe it, following my own lights as my rule of faith.
So ... this notion of formal vs. material heresy somehow pertaining to sincerity and the internal forum has been a gradual butchering of the terms with a view toward undermining EENS dogma.
There are in fact many in the Novus Ordo who think the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church because they see this guy calling himself pope and prancing around Rome in a white cassock. They may or may not even know what's in Vatican II, much less believe what's in it. And if they do believe it, if their motive is, "Well, the Church teaches this, so I accept it." ... they have the formal motive of faith and are material heretics only. I know many such. Again, I ask myself, if there were a Traditional pope elected and the Church restored, if the pope then condemned, say, Religious Liberty, would this person accept it. In many cases, I'm sure that he would. And, in either case, I can't judge them to be outside the Church by assuming that they would not.
-
YOU DO ADMIT IT - TWICE! The N.O. Catholics are material heretics - Good for you buddy I knew you had it in ya.
No, moran. Some are, some aren't.
Take Athanasius Schneider. Identity the heresy he professes and adheres to and provide evidence.
-
I would love to hear how they met? Was he conditionally consecrated? What was going though +Vigano’s mind about +Williamson etc…
-
You should. It pertains to dogmatic facts (and all that flows therefrom).
So, to claim you could care less is very dangerous to faith.
It wouldn't really matter if he was just any ol'antipope - who was keeping the faith and people were innocently following him believing him to be the true pope - but once you introduce the matter of heresy - the whole game changes - and we are all "playing" for keeps. :laugh1:
It is why Vigano (to tie this back into the OP a bit) said this:
Expanding on his position via a June 28 statement (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-i-accuse-bergoglio-of-heresy-and-schism/), Viganò stated that “in order to separate myself from ecclesial communion with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I would have to have first been in communion with him, which is not possible since Bergoglio himself cannot be considered a member of the Church, due to his multiple heresies and his manifest alienness and incompatibility with the role he invalidly and illicitly holds.”
"As I stated in my communiqué of June 20, I do not recognize the authority of the tribunal that claims to judge me, nor of its prefect, nor of the one who appointed him. This decision of mine, which is certainly painful, is not the result of haste or a spirit of rebellion; but rather is dictated by the moral necessity which, as bishop and successor of the apostles, obliges me in conscience to bear witness to the truth, that is, to God Himself, to Our Lord Jesus Christ."
Taken from: Archbishop Viganò: I accuse Bergoglio of heresy and schism - LifeSite (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-i-accuse-bergoglio-of-heresy-and-schism/)
The same "moral necessity" he is talking about above - is a necessity for us all - he just has more of a responsibility to proclaim it then the laity, but we are no less obligated to hold the same.
Johannes, I have been a traditional Catholic for thirty-five years, and I do not wake up in the morning and tell myself, "Gosh, if I do not figure out this pope situation then how am going to be able to live my Catholic life? In fact, if Francis is or is not pope, then how am I going to go to the traditional Mass every day and say my rosary?" The simple fact of the matter is, that if Bellarmine, or Suarez, or any number of theologians were alive today, they would be equally as confused as Bryan Shepherd is, and they, at the end of the day, would argue themselves silly on the matter."
The situation with pope Francis is no different than the son who says to his father, "Dad, I am moving out of the house because you do immoral things and command immoral things. I will pray for your conversion." It would be absolutely ridiculous to maintain that because I go down the street and tell some person that X is my dad, then I am somehow committing a sin. This is truly absurd.
-
Take Athanasius Schneider. Identity the heresy he professes and adheres to and provide evidence.
+(?)Schneider may be a heretic on EENS.
It is manifest, but I am unsure of this being formal or how culpable he may be.
-
If Vigano became a valid pope and he declared BXVI an antipope, I would have no choice but to accept.
I believe in the 2024 Taylor Marshall interview of Vigano, he took the position of recognizing Ratzinger (B16) as a valid Pope, but not Bergy.
And from this point, the organized sede groups quietly stopped discussing Vigano as a viable Catholic leader. 😉
Bp. Sanborn is noteworthy of this.
-
No, moran. Some are, some aren't.
Take Athanasius Schneider. Identity the heresy he professes and adheres to and provide evidence.
(https://i.imgur.com/9opxxDr.jpeg)
Ecuмenism. He’s been quoted in his interviews as stating Vatican II is dogmatic.
Not to mention, he’s an obvious false right agent of the Bergolian schism.
-
Bishop Athanasius Schneider is a neat guy. He issued me a religious exemption for the Covid trojan horse injection.
-
+(?)Schneider may be a heretic on EENS.
It is manifest, but I am unsure of this being formal or how culpable he may be.
What's the trad position on EENS?
-
So, that "disobedient" section reminds me of an episode when I was staying at the "Regina Caeli House" in Kansas City, where the district headquarters were at the time, during one Summer before the next year at seminary, helping out.
Father Peter Scott, Father Kevin Novak, and I were eating dinner while listening to some audio tape in which at some point the speaker declared that SSPX were disobedient to Rome. Father Novak protested out loud: "We're not disobedient!" So I spoke up to disagree: "Of course we are." Then we both looked to Father Scott to weigh in and break the tie. He sat for a minute in silence, and then blurted out in typical Father Scott fashion: "Yes we are!" ... and then unleashed his inimitable laugh for 60 seconds straight.
This gave me a hearty chuckle😂 "YOU'VE GOT TO BE JOKING!!!" (As you, no doubt, must remember he always liked to say just before his laugh.) I loved Fr. Scott. Incredible Thomistic clarity in his apologetics.