But your Excellency, if the Seat is rightfully occupied, why was it that St. Bernard rallied a Catholic army to march on the Vatican in the year 1138 to oust the schismatic Jєω-pope, Anacletus II? And only afterwards was the Holy See restored and the Jєω declared an anti-pope by the Church.For starters, there were two rival claimants to the Papacy in that instance, certainly no 'universal peaceful acceptance'. And as you rightly point out, Incredulous, it was only a decision of the Church after the death of Anacletus that gave us certainty, supporting Bishop Thomas Aquinas's statement that "the best thing to do is to wait for the sentence that the Church will one day give, defining and resolving this question".
Just curious, but how should charity be applied to those who think differently? And do you consider people who take on a different idea less Catholic?Good question, Gray. As I see it, Charity is always firm on principles but kind and gentle with souls, and I think Bishop Thomas Aquinas exemplifies that very well. We have to follow the Catholic principles as best we can while awaiting the restoration of the Papacy for a definitive judgement on these questions. In the meantime, I will follow the guides Providence gave us in Archbishop Lefebvre and his faithful successors, because I see in their teachings Catholic truth and common sense.
For starters, there were two rival claimants to the Papacy in that instance, certainly no 'universal peaceful acceptance'. And as you rightly point out, Incredulous, it was only a decision of the Church after the death of Anacletus that gave us certainty, supporting Bishop Thomas Aquinas's statement that "the best thing to do is to wait for the sentence that the Church will one day give, defining and resolving this question".
Moral certitude that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope can be achieved right now.
Can you walk me through the steps you used to arrive at this moral certitude, or at least provide the syllogism?
Newbie,
How about this approach?
Can you give us any examples of how the "occupant's" acts (referring to pope Francis) have demonstrated his intention to receive the papal Communication exercised by Christ?
Here's an excerpt and reference if you want more background for the question:
"Obviously, the fealty of the person who agrees to be the elect of a valid Conclave must be presumed a priori. However, Leo XIII expressly declared (“Apostolicae Curae”, September 13, 1896; D.S. 3318): “The Church must judge intention in the way it is exteriorly manifested”. Did the “occupant” (of the Apostolic See), accepting the election of the Conclave, really have the intention to receive the Communication exercised by Christ? To answer this question we must, according to Leo XIII, consider the FACTS. If the “occupant” had, in reality, the intention to receive the above-mentioned Communication, then he should have AFTERWARDS, and HABITUALLY con-formed himself to all the exigencies of said Communication. If, on the contrary, it is ascertained that the “occupant” CONTINUOUSLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY acts against the most fundamental exigencies that are inherent to the Communication exercised by Christ, WE MUST CONCLUDE, (according to Leo XIII) that the “occupant” did not have, in reality, the intention to receive it, and that, in consequence, he never was [or he ceased to be] the Pope FORMALITER."
https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/interview-bishop-guerard/ (https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/interview-bishop-guerard/)
Newbie,
Why is this question a problem?
Can you give us any examples of how the "occupant's" acts (referring to pope Francis) have demonstrated his intention to receive the papal Communication exercised by Christ?
If he received the papal Communication exercised by Christ, you should be able to give us some examples where pope Francis has acted as Popes previous to 1958 have acted.
You need to provide the definition of "the papal Communication exercised by Christ." After all, how we discuss it if we don't know what it means? And please provide an authoritative definition as found in a magisterial docuмent of approved manual (good luck).I am the one who downvoted you twice, because I find it ridiculous how quickly trads and armchair theologians dismiss everything Bp. Guerard des Lauriers (look up his CV) wrote and thought about beyond the Ottaviani Intervention. In particular, people like to sweep under the carpet his sedevacantism/sedeprivationism and strong rejection of attendance at "una cuм" masses.
Regarding Francis acting as Pope, he has published encyclicals and and appointed bishops. Those are two examples of Francis acting as Pope. But more importantly, he is accepted as Pope by every diocese that is in union with the local church of Rome, which provides infallible certitude that he is indeed a legitimate Pope.
Archbishop Vigano behaved like a real hero from the moment he understood or began to understand the moral and doctrinal decomposition of the Conciliar Church. Unfortunately, he seems to be leaning towards the sedevacantist position. Time will better tell what is his true position.Doesn't appear that way to me, so far. Sedes don't give interviews (written or otherwise) with Taylor Marshall/LifeSite.
Can you walk me through the steps you used to arrive at this moral certitude, or at least provide the syllogism?
Doesn't appear that way to me, so far. Sedes don't give interviews (written or otherwise) with Taylor Marshall/LifeSite.
What we know for certain is that Archbishop Vigano rejects Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope. In regards to the conciliar popes, I think he is suspending judgment. In the same interview, Archbishop Vigano wrote "Pope" Benedict XVI a couple of times.Agreed. But that doesn't make him "sede".
Agreed. But that doesn't make him "sede".
I am the one who downvoted you twice, because I find it ridiculous how quickly trads and armchair theologians dismiss everything Bp. Guerard des Lauriers (look up his CV) wrote ...
Anyway, I attached the Cahiers de Cassiciacuм volume 1 where you might find the definition of "papal communication exercised by Christ". IIRC, it is defined in terms of what Bp. GdL likes to call "être avec" ("to be with [Jesus Christ]"), which is derived by symmetry from that which Our Lord said: "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (St. Matthew XXVIII, 20).
Honestly, I'm not interested in this discussion. You either take or leave what Bp. GdL says in the interview posted above and in the material that I attached. I just had to stick my head out after downvoting you, lest you thought that it was Incredulous.
Ave María Purísima
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church. (Divine and Catholic Faith)
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy. (Moral Certitude)
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church. (Moral Certitude)
How can we know what is being discussed if we don't know what that phrase means? And why would we even discuss the opinion if the opinion, since novelty is "the sure sign of heresy"?
Anyway, I attached the Cahiers de Cassiciacuм volume 1 where you might find the definition of "papal communication exercised by Christ".
Thank you for replying Catholic Knight. Since those are the facts you used to arrive at moral certitude, you provide the following"
1) Show where the Church defined that "the sin of manifest formal heresy by its nature separates the heretic from the Church?"
2) Can you provide an authoritative definition of "the sin of manifest formal heresy," since I cannot recal ever reading that phrase in any magisterial docuмent or theology manual.
3) After defining the phrase, can you provide the evidence that Francis met the Church's definition of one who has committed the sin of manifest formal heresy."
4) Lastly, since many theologians (e.g. Garrigou-Lagrange) maintain that if a pope fell into heresy, and ceased to be a member of the Church, he could nevertheless remain a true Pope, can you show where the Church has ever taught the contrary?
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
It is clear that Gerard des Lauriers founded a New Church that teaches a New Religion. The Catholic Church has never taught that a man legally elected pope by a conclave must have the intention to receive the papal communication exerised by Christ," nor has it taught that this alleged intention must be manifested by habitually conforming to it.
I am curious why anyone would accept this novel doctrine of the new religion established by Gerard des Lauriers?
Can you walk me through the steps you used to arrive at this moral certitude, or at least provide the syllogism?Can 188.4: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.
4) Lastly, since many theologians (e.g. Garrigou-Lagrange) maintain that if a pope fell into heresy, and ceased to be a member of the Church, he could nevertheless remain a true Pope, can you show where the Church has ever taught the contrary?Did Lagrange really mantain that, with that words? It is illogical. The Pope is the head of the church, thus is inside the church. The heretical Pope ceases to be a member of the church, thus is outside the church. The principle of no contradiction is violated.
Will one of those who downvoted me explain why they accept the new religion of Gerard des Lauriers, which teaches the two novel doctrines discussed above. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would accept his New Religion or the two novel doctrines he invented as the basis or it.A new Religion just because, arguendo, he taught a new ecclesiology?????? That's really rash.
I am entirely familiar with that quote. But what I asked for is the quote that defines, as a dogma (which requires the assent of divine and Catholic Faith, per Catholic Knight) that "the sin of manifest formal heresy" by its nature severs a person from the Church. No where does that quote mention the words formal, manifest or even sin (in the Latin); nor is the quote a dogmatic definition that requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith.You will not likely find a dogmatic definition when it comes to the nature of a particular object or subject. Do we need a dogma to define what the nature of man is, what is plant, what the nature of liquid is, the nature of hearing, the angelic nature, etc. In other words, does the Catholic Church have the need of dogma for every aspect of the natural law or to define the nature of every act and being?
Thank you for replying Catholic Knight. Since those are the facts you used to arrive at moral certitude, you provide the following"
1) Show where the Church defined that "the sin of manifest formal heresy by its nature separates the heretic from the Church?"
2) Can you provide an authoritative definition of "the sin of manifest formal heresy," since I cannot recal ever reading that phrase in any magisterial docuмent or theology manual.
3) After defining the phrase, can you provide the evidence that Francis met the Church's definition of one who has committed the sin of manifest formal heresy."
4) Lastly, since many theologians (e.g. Garrigou-Lagrange) maintain that if a pope fell into heresy, and ceased to be a member of the Church, he could nevertheless remain a true Pope, can you show where the Church has ever taught the contrary?
Can 188.4: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.
The Spanish edition says "publicly apostatizes" instead of "publicly defects"
Cabreros comments the following: The action for which the resignation occurs must be done voluntarily, following the conditions of canon 185, but with this condition meet, the office loss is necessarily produced.
1) It is the teaching of the Church through her Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, and the unanimous teaching of the theologians that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
COMMENT: That is an easy statement to make, but an impossible statement to prove. But I will accept quotes from only 2 popes and 5 theologians who taugh that "the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church." I bet you can even quote one who uses the phrase "public sin of manifest formal heresy." That phrase in itself is a post Vatican II novelty that was invented by Fr. Paul Kramer in the last decade.
2) The public sin of manifest formal heresy occurs when one advertently and willingly denies or doubts a teaching of the Church that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith.
Comment: I didn't ask for your definition of the novel phrase that Fr. Kramer invented. I asked for an authoritative definition. Still waiting.
3) It should be obvious that Jorge Bergoglio doesn't have a Catholic bone in his body. Even semi-trads and those of the Novus Ordo acknowledge such.
Comment: He wakes up in 4:30am and does a holy hour for 2 hours. He says Mass every day, AND HE DEFENDS CATHOLIC DOCTRINE CONSTANTLY. If you deny that bolded part, it only proves that you are basing your judgment on him based on what other people are saying or short excepts you are reading, and not by reading what he writes and says on a weekly basis. The reality is that Bergoglio is no worse than any of the other post-Vatican II popes.
4) Garrigou-Lagrange was speaking about occult heresy. Yes. He did admit that occult heresy causes one to separate from the Church, but the more common opinion is that occult heresy does not cause one to separate from the Church. Even so, we do not know his view of public heresy. It could be that in regards to public heresy, because the separation would be visible, then the putative pope would fall from office. Think about it this way: since no one (or a few) would know that a occult heretic pope ceased to be a member, Our Lord would retain him as pope until his heresy became public. I am not saying that this is true. I am just giving a potential explanation assuming that Garrigou-Lagrange was correct. Nevertheless, the matter at hand is about public heresy and not occult heresy.
Comment: To be precise, the distinction is not between occult heresy and public heresy; it is between occult heresy and notorious heresy. Perhaps Francis is in occult herey, but he does not come close to be a notorious heretic; and no one who has taken the time to study the meaning of notorious heresy would deny it. BTW, how much time have you spent studying the meaning of notorious heresy?
How does the same code of canon law describe "public defection from the faith"?In a way that can be translated to apostasy in Spanish.
In fact, the "new" form used in the New Rite of Paul VI, is not only what Pope Clement (either the second or third Pope) said Christ himself gave as the form of episcopal consecrationThis is the first time I have heard that. Source?And I hope that the only words pronounced by Pope Clement in his rite of consecrating a bishop are the ones in Montini's form. Otherwise, who cares if the words of Montini's form are part of a bigger form used in the past?
And if you ever take the time to apply the conditions for a valid form (given by Fr. Cekada)I'm affraid they were not given by Fr. Cekada (R.I.P.) but by Pius, by Divine Providence, Pope XII.
since the form found in the Traditional Rite does not even come close to meeting them. For example, if the phrase "dew of heavenly anointing" does not clearly refer to the Holy Ghost, and in fact cannot have any other possible meaning than "the Holy Ghost," then the Traditional Rite of episcopal consecration is absolutely null and utterly void, according to Fr. Cekada.Oh, really? Pray tell, what authors have you read that used "dew of heavenly anointing" with another meaning?
https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/dom-vigan%C3%B2-dom-lefebvre-e-o-sedevacantismo;):popcorn:
Archbishop Vigano, Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism
Archbishop Vigano behaved like a real hero from the moment he understood or began to understand the moral and doctrinal decomposition of the Conciliar Church. Unfortunately, he seems to be leaning towards the sedevacantist position. Time will better tell what is his true position.
As for Archbishop Lefebvre, he initiated this fight against the Conciliar Church in more decisive circuмstances than the present ones. He won the confidence of the faithful from all over the world, by the solidity of his formation and the superiority of his prudence. His prudence made him avoid both the ralliement of the Ecclesia Dei communities and the error of Sedevacantism. With precision, he showed how Dom Gérard and others committed ѕυιcιdє by placing themselves under the authority of the Modernists, and how the Sedevacantists, in turn, placed themselves in a position as uncertain as it was dangerous, affirming more than the teachings of the Church allow us to affirm.
Some think that Archbishop Lefebvre would be a Sedevacantist today. I do not think that this is the case. In fact, I believe the opposite. I believe that the arguments he made during his lifetime retain their force and relevance today. His arguments are simple. How would the Church be left if the Popes, from John XXIII to Francis, are not Popes? If the Cardinals they nominated are not Cardinals? Who will then elect the Pope? How can we have a Pope again? This seems to endanger the very existence of the Church. The best thing to do is to wait for the sentence that the Church will one day give, defining and resolving this question.
Faced with the divergence of ideas and practical attitudes within Tradition, I see only one sensible line of conduct to follow: to preserve and transmit what we have received from Archbishop Lefebvre, both from the doctrinal and prudential point of view. But many will say: prudence takes into account the change in the situation between the state of the crisis in the time of Archbishop Lefebvre and the present time. Yes, there are some changes, but they are not essential. The essence of the crisis remains the same.
Like in the Arian crisis, which lasted about 60 years, this crisis continues without changing in essential points. That is why the example of Archbishop Lefebvre is still valid.
May Our Lady, who has overcome all heresies, obtain for us the grace to overcome the attacks of the Devil and the Modernists.
Tomas Aquinas, OSB
https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/dom-vigan%C3%B2-dom-lefebvre-e-o-sedevacantismo
Archbishop Vigano, Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism
Archbishop Vigano behaved like a real hero from the moment he understood or began to understand the moral and doctrinal decomposition of the Conciliar Church. Unfortunately, he seems to be leaning towards the sedevacantist position. Time will better tell what is his true position.
As for Archbishop Lefebvre, he initiated this fight against the Conciliar Church in more decisive circuмstances than the present ones. He won the confidence of the faithful from all over the world, by the solidity of his formation and the superiority of his prudence. His prudence made him avoid both the ralliement of the Ecclesia Dei communities and the error of Sedevacantism. With precision, he showed how Dom Gérard and others committed ѕυιcιdє by placing themselves under the authority of the Modernists, and how the Sedevacantists, in turn, placed themselves in a position as uncertain as it was dangerous, affirming more than the teachings of the Church allow us to affirm.
Some think that Archbishop Lefebvre would be a Sedevacantist today. I do not think that this is the case. In fact, I believe the opposite. I believe that the arguments he made during his lifetime retain their force and relevance today. His arguments are simple. How would the Church be left if the Popes, from John XXIII to Francis, are not Popes? If the Cardinals they nominated are not Cardinals? Who will then elect the Pope? How can we have a Pope again? This seems to endanger the very existence of the Church. The best thing to do is to wait for the sentence that the Church will one day give, defining and resolving this question.
Faced with the divergence of ideas and practical attitudes within Tradition, I see only one sensible line of conduct to follow: to preserve and transmit what we have received from Archbishop Lefebvre, both from the doctrinal and prudential point of view. But many will say: prudence takes into account the change in the situation between the state of the crisis in the time of Archbishop Lefebvre and the present time. Yes, there are some changes, but they are not essential. The essence of the crisis remains the same.
Like in the Arian crisis, which lasted about 60 years, this crisis continues without changing in essential points. That is why the example of Archbishop Lefebvre is still valid.
May Our Lady, who has overcome all heresies, obtain for us the grace to overcome the attacks of the Devil and the Modernists.
Tomas Aquinas, OSB
It doesn't look like Mr. Wright is a Trad of any stripe. He appears to be a conciliarist. I wonder how long he will last here.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/is-francis-the-pope-the-argument-from-public-heresy-suggests-not/ (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/is-francis-the-pope-the-argument-from-public-heresy-suggests-not/)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/is-francis-the-pope-the-argument-from-public-heresy-suggests-not/ (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/is-francis-the-pope-the-argument-from-public-heresy-suggests-not/)
I am a Traditional Catholic, through and through, and have been for many moons. I am no newbie to Tradition. The difference between myself, and someone like you who calls yourself a Traditional Catholic, is that I actually adhere to Tradition. That's why, for example, I reject the New Religion founded by Gerard des Lauriers, which is based on two novel doctrines that he invented out of thin air. Anyone who accepts his new Religion is a Traditional Catholic in name only.Actually, I don't agree with the Cassiciacuм Thesis, but anyone who can say this about Bergoglio:
I also judge things as they actually are, not worse than they are and not better than they are, but as they are; and I don't rely on snippets I read online, or on what other people say, or on opinion polls, to form my judgments. See the difference between us?
Actually, I don't agree with the Cassiciacuм Thesis, but anyone who can say this about Bergoglio:
He wakes up in 4:30am and does a holy hour for 2 hours. He says Mass every day, AND HE DEFENDS CATHOLIC DOCTRINE CONSTANTLY.
is not a Traditional Catholic. And I'm judging things as they actually are. ;)
at least give a few examples of the alleged heresies that you believe Francis has taught. Not what an Atheist journalist said Francis alledgely told him, but an explicit and direct denial of a dogma that requires the assent of Divine and Catholic Faith by Francis. If you can't do so, then you are guilty of the public mortal sin of calumny.
I would have agreed with you three years ago, since, at the time, like you, I had never bothered to read his sermons and writings. They aren't nearly as bad
Setting the bar rather low there...Agree. The "aren't nearly as bad" statement fits into one of the examples of what a liberal catholic would say, by Salvani in his book "Liberalism is a sin".
The game played by Francis and his minions, quite effectively if we look at what passes for Catholicism in some quarters, is plausible deniability.
There will be no explicit and direct denial of dogma. Instead...
Setting the bar rather low there...
Thank you. [...] Therefore "clever evasion" is more than merely possible, and "legal opinion" can indeed excuse.
It doesn't matter how certain a person is that Francis has fallen into interna heresy; if his heresy is not notorious with a notoriety of fact or law, his heresy has not severed the external juridical bond that is require to be a member of the Church.
Thank me? What I wrote was hardly an endorsement.
And modernist legalists can spin/slice & dice all they want, but the traditional sensus fidei will still tell you that it leads to perdition.
Once again, we are in agreement.
I would have agreed with you three years ago, since, at the time, like you, I had never bothered to read his sermons and writings. They aren't nearly as bad as the spinsters portray them to be. Catholic Knight said Francis doesn't have a Catholic bone in his body. That is refuted from the fact that he does indeed defend Catholic doctrines; maybe not the one's I would like him to defend, but he defends some of the very ones he is accused of denying. In today's crisis in the Church, only a complete fool would believe anything negative about Pope Francis without verifying it for themselves. The internet is saturated with lies - especially coming from the "Catholic" media - and people are obsorbing them constantly without any effort. Just look at how many duped Catholics believed the Amozonian Catholics were worshipping Pachamama in the Vatican Gardens. Some were so deceived that they still believe it. In our day, the truth takes effort to discover, and it takes courage to accept. After all, you could be labeled a "Popesplainer" for simply defending the truth.Please explain, then why all of the traditional Masses associated with the NO have been pushed aside and suppressed? What was Pope Francis actually trying to do?
Please explain, then why all of the traditional Masses associated with the NO have been pushed aside and suppressed? What was Pope Francis actually trying to do?
He hasn't suppressed all of them There are two approved Traditional Masses in my area and neither has been suppressed. But to your point, why is Francis restricting the Traditional Mass? It could be because the majority of those who attend the Old Mass not only hate him and deny his legitimacy, but claim the Church over which he is the head is a false Church. And that usually happens to those who begin attending the old Mass. That could have something to do with why he is restricting it.Do you agree that Pope Francis should do this?
Do you agree that Pope Francis should do this?
If you do then, what is your purpose on a site that is obviously focusing on Catholics who do not report directly to Pope Francis?
I didn't say I agree with him, but that's probably a big part of why he is suppressing the Traditional Mass. I don't know any Catholic who reports directly to Francis.By report to, I meant be in communion with. Most of the people here attend churches that do not fall under the jurisdiction of Pope Francis.
He hasn't suppressed all of them There are two approved Traditional Masses in my area and neither has been suppressed. But to your point, why is Francis restricting the Traditional Mass? It could be because the majority of those who attend the Old Mass not only hate him and deny his legitimacy, but claim the Church over which he is the head is a false Church. And that usually happens to those who begin attending the old Mass. That could have something to do with why he is restricting it.Like all the conciliar popes, pope Francis is a flaming Liberal and a Modernist. Modernists hate all things traditionally Catholic - except for those things traditional that can be used against the faith and traditional Catholics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting revenge against those who love the True Mass, you're being ridiculous with this one. As a Modernist, he hates all that the Mass of all time represents and stands for, that's the reason he wants it gone, and that's the reason the new "mass" was perpetrated in the first place. It's that simple.
By report to, I meant be in communion with. Most of the people here attend churches that do not fall under the jurisdiction of Pope Francis.Good post Gray. Not off topic at all. I'd like to know Mr Wright's purpose here as well. He seems to be avoiding that question.
If you think +GDL started a new religion, then did +Thuc and +Lefebvre?
Again what is your purpose for being here? Are you wanting to convince all of us to go back to the TLM approved by Pope Francis?
Have you read Gaudium et Spes? It seems to be contrary to Catholicism. It seems to make Catholicism a man centered religion. This dumbing down of Catholicism is what most of us reject. Since all the Popes after V2 hold to these writings, it seems like they are going against their predecessors and causing doubt for Truth.
I am not very eloquent in explaining some of this stuff and I probably have gone off topic, but it is not just about Pope Francis being a heretic, it is about all the things that have gone wrong with Catholicism since Vatican 2. The point is Vatican 2 taught heresy, something the Church can't do and all the popes after
Vatican 2 so far have not corrected the errors.
Good post Gray. Not off topic at all. I'd like to know Mr Wright's purpose here as well. He seems to be avoiding that question.I would not be surprised if "Mr. Wright" is Josh Salza, or at least agrees with Salza that those Traditionalist without "official" approval are schismatic.
He hasn't suppressed all of them There are two approved Traditional Masses in my area and neither has been suppressed. But to your point, why is Francis restricting the Traditional Mass? It could be because the majority of those who attend the Old Mass not only hate him and deny his legitimacy, but claim the Church over which he is the head is a false Church. And that usually happens to those who begin attending the old Mass. That could have something to do with why he is restricting it.
I would not be surprised if "Mr. Wright" is Josh Salza, or at least agrees with Salza that those Traditionalist without "official" approval are schismatic.
He hasn't suppressed all of them There are two approved Traditional Masses in my area and neither has been suppressed.
I too think that the restrictions of the Latin Mass has something to do with the criticisms of him from those who attend the Latin Mass. That seems obvious. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be criticized, however.
Agreed. But that doesn't make him "sede".
Good point. He also doesn't answer any valid questions on X, like this one:
Ohhh... but don't you see, he can't say these talismanic words that might alienate his social media ranking.
"Sede-vacantist", "jew", "conditional Apostolic Consecration"... these are all bad words that AI screens would detect to narrow his neo-trad base.
Of course, Salza declares Trads to be outside the Church based on Traditional theological principles, but the Conciliar/V2 religion actually holds that Traditionalists are IN the "Church of Christ" (along with the Orthodox schismatics and even many/most Prots). So Salza violates the principles of the Conciliar ecclesiology in condemning Traditional Catholics.
Maybe Francis an his minions are guilty of the sin of heresy, maybe they are not (God knows), but what is certain is that they are not notorious heretics (public heretics) since they never explicitly and directly deny any dogmas.One can be a heretic without explicitly or directly denying dogma. In fact, to subvert dogma by implicit and subtle means is a greater sin because it shows a predetermined agenda and planning.
So, your version of Traditional Catholicism is refuted by "Traditional theologial principals," and to defend it you have to appeal to the "Conciliar/V2 religio, which you believe to be heretical? O the irony. What does that tell you about your versions of Traditional Catholicism?I don't recall that debate, but I suspect that what Mario was referring to was that if you agree with Vatican II, then you shouldn't take issue with sedevacantists or any other stripe of Tradition (ie. non-Catholic sects in your view). Because your religion teaches that non-Catholic sects are means of salvation. After all, the Catholic Church only subsists in the True Church of Christ according to Vatican II.
Last year, I witnessed Novus Ordo Watch get destroyed in a debate on Twitter. When the other guy pointed out that Mario Derksen of NO Watch belongs to a heretical sect, he defended himself by appearling to Vatican II! The ecclesiology that he claims is heretical, is what he appeals to to justify his version of Traditional Catholicism. What that proves is that his (and your) version of Traditional Catholicism is anything but Traditional.
And for the record, I am not Josh Salza (or John Salza).
Two more valid question he needs to answer are 1) why he ends his letters with the Masonic ritual phrase "so mote it be" (e cosi sia in the original Italian), and 2) why he blapshemed Christ by calling him Sol Invictus, the false Roman sun god that the Masons to this day stll honor.We've had long discussions about these two things. Search for them. I'd do it for you, but to be quite honest, I don't think you're worth the effort.
I bet Vigano and his Lodge brothers have a good laugh at the number of Catholic he's duped at their monthly Lodge meetings.
So, your version of Traditional Catholicism is refuted by "Traditional theologial principals," and to defend it you have to appeal to the "Conciliar/V2 religio, which you believe to be heretical? O the irony. What does that tell you about your versions of Traditional Catholicism?
Just look at how many duped Catholics believed the Amozonian Catholics were worshipping Pachamama in the Vatican Gardens. Some were so deceived that they still believe it.Wojtyla praying for the comming of the jew's messiah, with jews. Was I also dupped?
Good post Gray. Not off topic at all. I'd like to know Mr Wright's purpose here as well. He seems to be avoiding that question.Speaking of questions that need to be answered:
And yes, the issue isn't the personal heresy of Bergoglio. It's always been V2.
One can be a heretic without explicitly or directly denying dogma.
Catholic common sense is able to reject these people even if the (fallible, limited) canon law must wait for (human) justice. “The wheels of justice turn slowly” is a truism; this does not mean that such heretics cannot be “judged” in the public realm of catholic ideals. In fact, they should be judged, avoided and repudiated as St Paul and St Bellarmine (and many others) tell us.
No one except the Sedevacantist heretics of our day, think a pope who is an occult heretics loses his office.
...
Let's see the actual quote. I won't hold my breath waiting or it. :laugh1:
Read TC, Salza. It's in there and was called out at the time that nonsense was issued. I'm not going to spend my time pulling it out for you, since you don't give a rip anyway and already have your heretically-diseased mind made up on this matter.That's what I thought. You can't provide the quote because it's not in there. Are you in the habit of calumniating Francis by falsely accusing him of teaching what he doesn't teach. You do realize that is a mortal sin, right?
Read TC, Salza. It's in there and was called out at the time that nonsense was issued.
APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED "MOTU PROPRIO"
BY THE SUPREME PONTIFFFRANCIS«TRADITIONIS CUSTODES»On the Use of the Roman Liturgy
Prior to the Reform of 1970
Official translation
Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches. [1] (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html#_ftn1) Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them. [2]
(https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html#_ftn2)
In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II (https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm), my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en.html) and Benedict XVI (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en.html), granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en.html) in 1962. [3] (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html#_ftn3) In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others. [4]
(https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html#_ftn4)
In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en.html) to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificuм.html) three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.
At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (https://www.vatican.va/content/romancuria/en/congregazioni/congregazione-per-la-dottrina-della-fede.index.html), I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:
Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, [5] (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html#_ftn5) to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. [6] (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html#_ftn6) Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.
Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:
§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;
§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);
§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7] (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html#_ftn7) In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;
§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;
§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;
§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.
Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.
Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.
Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.
Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.
Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.
Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.FRANCIS
Yep, Salza ... spewing his garbage again. Plus, you're also a slanderer, since I know of no SVs who hold that occult heretics lose office. That's the one very minority opinion (of the 5) that I think was held by one or two theologians in the past few hundred years.
He appealed to Vatican II ecclesiology (as he interprets it) to defend his ecclesiastical status, namely, of belonging to a heretical sect.Mr Wright, is the SSPX or The Resistance a non-Catholic sect too?
If a child is baptized in a non-Catholic sect, such as the CMRI, and dies before attaining the age of reason, the baptism he received in that sect would save them. In that sense, non-Catholic sects can be seen as a means of salvation, since it was in the non-Catholic sect, my non-Catholic minister, that he received the sacrament.
Vatican II desn't teach that. How long have you believe that lie without taking the time to look into it?
The Dimond Brothers admit to holding it, as does Richard Ibranyi and Fr. Kramer, amongst others.
That's what I thought. You can't provide the quote because it's not in there. Are you in the habit of calumniating Francis by falsely accusing him of teaching what he doesn't teach. You do realize that is a mortal sin, right?
Mr Wright, is the SSPX or The Resistance a non-Catholic sect too?
No, I haven't taken the time to cite Bergoglio because you're full of it and not interested in debating this issue with an open mind.
You just come back to troll again, Salza. You too lazy to read TC yourself?As I said before, I am not John Salze (or Josh Salza). And in case you missed it, I just posted TC.
Every time you come back here, you'r mind has become more and more diseased with your errors and your heretical depravity become more manifest.
Citations? While I do not follow Ibranyi and don't know (or care about) what he says/thinks, I don't recall anything along these lines from the Dimond Brothers or Fr. Kramer ... unless you've decided to redefine occult heresy.
You said you are not "John Salze" but are you "John Salza" ?
As I said before, I am not John Salze (or Josh Salza). And in case you missed it, I just posted TC.
From Fr. Kramer: “Faith, not merely the material and external profession of the objective content of faith, but the virtue of faith as a principium operationis is necessary to be in the soul of person of the pope as its subject in order to receive and preserve within himself the form of the supreme pontificate (…) it would clearly be impossible for one to be a valid Roman Pontiff without the virtue of faith. ... For the record, I do indeed hold that hypothetically, losing the virtue of faith, the pope would lose office."
The Dimond Brothers admit to holding it, as does Richard Ibranyi and Fr. Kramer, amongst others. All the rest hold the positon as well without realizing it since what they call a "manifest heretic" is one who has done things that lead them to conclude he has lost the faith. If the Pope does things that "manifest" to them that he has lost the faith, these ignoramuses think that makes him a "manifes heretic." Why? Because Sedevacantist heretics make up their own definition of terms.
So this is really the bottom line for me. Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?
Does it have the notes of the Catholic Church? IMO, it clearly does not.Of course it does. If it didn't that would mean the true Church defected, since even you would have to admit that the visible Church, consisting of the local Church of Rome and the diocese and eparchy's in union wth it, was the true Church with four marks before Vatican II. If that same visible soceity is no longer the true Church today. it follows that the true Church defected. Period. Uness, of course, you adopt the Protestant definition of indefectibility. The Protestants deny that indefectibility applies to the "institutional Church" and instead maintain that it only guarantees that there will be true believers somewhere in the world. In reality, indefectibility means the visible Church, as described above - the institutional Church - will never defect, since the institutional Church, as such, is the subject in which the four marks adhere (and it is also the object to which the promises of Christ apply, i.e., that gates of hell shall not prevail).
Any heresy that is not notorious is juridically occult; and none of the recent popes - including Francis - have been close to notorious heretics.Baloney. Most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Baloney. Most absurd thing I've ever heard.
...one more reason why the only real answer to these problems rests with the formal/material distinction (sedeprivationism, Chazalism, etc.)
SPism or SIism (sede-impoundism of Fr. Chazal) addresses the valid objections...
I'm pretty sure Sedeprivationism and Sede-impoundism, as well as Sede-impeditism, were a "thing" before Fr. Chazal. He made up neither of these positions. I had heard of all of these 23+ years ago.
Of course, Sean Johnson liked to lump them all into "Sede-whatever" or "Sedevacantist", all of whom he would ban and not speak to. But when something has a different meaning, it needs a different name. A different "word" for a different concept, a different reality. Each distinct concept needs a concise way to refer to it.
And these positions are NOT all the same thing! I feel bad for picking on Sean here, but since the topic of Sede-* (to use a programming shorthand) came up, I am reminded of his rhetoric just a couple years ago. I can't think of anyone else offhand who has been so outspoken about this topic. Not just anti-Sedevacantism mind you (of which there are MANY and PLENTY of specimens) but specifically lumping all the Sede-* positions into one boat, as if they were literally the same thing. I think he even called them all "sedevacantist" with no other qualifiers.
It's part and parcel of the Salza-ist warping of St. Robert Bellarmine, where something that hasn't been juridically determined/established is "occult".Yes, and the other problem is that you can't only use canon law in regards to penalties for heresy/schism. There are other papal docuмents (i.e. cuм Ex, Quo Primum, etc) which have their own specific penalties for heresy and schism. Canon Law is meant as a guideline for cases which aren't covered by historically important papal bulls or docuмents.