Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on November 15, 2023, 03:51:48 PM
-
Archbishop Vigano versus Bishop Schneider on the validity of Pope Francis (https://ronconte.com/2023/10/04/archbishop-vigano-versus-bishop-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/)
Posted on 4 October 2023 (https://ronconte.com/2023/10/04/archbishop-vigano-versus-bishop-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/) by Ron Conte (https://ronconte.com/author/ronconte/)
This article is on the doctrine of the universal peaceful acceptance of a Pope.
Archbishop Carlo M. Vigano has published a speech that he had intended to give at the Catholic Identity Conference in Pittsburgh on October 1st, 2023. But his speech and appearance were “deleted”, he explains, from the program. So here is his publication of the speech, which he calls Vitium Consensus (https://exsurgedomine.it/en/230930-cic-eng/), meaning Vice of Consensus. In the speech, he argues against the position of Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the universal peaceful acceptance of a Pope as a clear sign that the Pope is valid. So Vigano is referring to this particular type of “consensus” as if it were corrupt.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: “There is no authority to declare or consider an elected and generally accepted Pope as an invalid Pope. The constant practice of the Church makes it evident that even in the case of an invalid election this invalid election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected by the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops.” [Schnieder’s Article (https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/) | My Commentary (https://ronconte.com/2023/09/19/commentary-on-bishop-athanasius-schneiders-article-on-heretical-popes/)]
The usual doctrine of the universal peaceful acceptance of the Pope (UPA) is based on the Church as a whole — Bishops, other clergy, religious, laity — accepting a Pope as the true successor of Peter. However, I agree with Bishop Schneider that the acceptance of a Pope by the body of Bishops is sufficient to prove that the Roman Pontiff is valid. The reason I would give is that the Church is always necessarily apostolic and indefectible. So it is not possible for the body of Bishops, successors to the Apostles, to go astray following a false or invalid or heretical successor of Peter (or claimed successor of Peter). If that happened, the Church would lose Her apostolic character, which is not possible, and would lose Her indefectibility, as the visible Head of the Church, Vicar of Christ, and foundational Rock of the Church would have gone astray along with the body of successors to the other Apostles. God does not permit the gates of Hell to prevail over the Church in this or any other way.
The usual version of the UPA of the Pope relies on the body of the faithful, including the clergy, as a witness to the validity of a Roman Pontiff. This is also true, since the indefectibility of the Church prevents the body of the faithful, even if that body were considered apart from the Bishops, from going astray. For the Church can never be the Shepherds without a flock, nor a flock without the Shepherds. And so neither the body of Bishops, nor the body of the faithful can ever go astray by following a false, invalid, or heretical Pope.
Cardinal Billot’s teaching on this subject is often cited, as follows:
Cardinal Billot: “Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
“Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” [Source of this quote: an article by Robert Siscoe here (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html)]
Notice that the acceptance of the Church (or of the body of Bishops) “heals in the root” any problems with the papal election. This circuмvents and invalidates any arguments or claims about the papal election. No one can undermine the authority of any true Pope by telling stories and making accusations about a conclave, which is relatively easy for dishonest schismatics to do. It is a dogmatic fact that Pope Francis is the Roman Pontiff, and true successor of Peter, because he has been accepted by the body of Bishops and by the body of all the faithful.
This doctrine of UPA does not require the adherence of every Bishop, since of the 12 Apostles, one named Judas betrayed Christ. It is the body of Bishops which demonstrates that a Pope is valid by their obedience to the Pope, by their acceptance of his decisions on doctrine and discipline, and by their cooperation with him as both a fellow Bishop AND the head of the Bishops and head of the Church. Similarly, the doctrine does not require the adherence of every member of the faithful. It is the body of the faithful who show the validity of a Pope as successor of Peter, by accepting that he is the true Pope. For the Church cannot lose Her indefectibility, nor her characteristics as one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The unity of the Bishops as a body, and the faithful as a body, is therefore guaranteed by the grace of God, in the work of the Holy Spirit (who is the soul of the Church).
Archbishop Vigano rejects this doctrine of universal peaceful acceptance, regardless of whether it is based on the body of the Bishops or the body of the faithful.
Vigano: “In 1378, after the election of Pope Urban VI, the majority of Cardinals, Prelates and the people recognized Clement VII as pope, even though he was in reality an antipope. Thirteen out of sixteen cardinals questioned the validity of the election of Pope Urban due to the threat of violence from the Roman people against the Sacred College, and even Urban’s few supporters immediately retracted their election, summoning a new Conclave at Fondi which elected the antipope Clement VII. Even Saint Vincent Ferrer was convinced that Clement was the real pope, while Saint Catherine of Siena sided with Urban. If universal consensus were an indefectibly valid argument for a pope’s legitimacy, Clement would have had the right to be considered the true pope, rather than Urban. Antipope Clement was defeated by Urban VI’s army in the battle of Marino in 1379 and transferred his See to Avignon, leading to the Western Schism, which lasted thirty-nine years. Thus we see that the universal acceptance argument does not withstand the test of history.”
History is subject to distortions and misinterpretations. So the test of a doctrine is not historical, but doctrinal. The doctrine is well-attested in Church sources. See this useful list of sources and quotes compiled by Robert Siscoe: Peaceful and Universal Acceptance Quotes (from the 15th to 21st Century) (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-quotes.html).
In addition, the doctrine of UPA is based on the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church, the dogma of the essential characters of the Church as one, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic, and the dogma of the papal charism of truth and never-failing faith. If the body of Bishops, or the body of the faithful (considered with or even without the Bishops) were to go astray following a false, invalid, or heretical Pope, then the above dogmas would be false, which cannot be. A pope is certainly valid and the true successor of Peter, if he is accepted by the body of Bishops and the body of the faithful. If the historical conditions and the length of time that has passed since that time make it difficult to ascertain both, then either one is sufficient proof, being based on dogmatic teachings. If the historical conditions or the time that has passed make it difficult for us today to determine the acceptance of the body of Bishops or the body of the faithful, this does not invalidate a past Pope, and certainly not in the case of a Pope clearly ruled to be a valid Pope by the Church in subsequent years.
Vigano distorts history by claiming the following: “In 1378, after the election of Pope Urban VI, the majority of Cardinals, Prelates and the people recognized Clement VII as pope, even though he was in reality an antipope.” Note that the number of Cardinals is not relevant. Most or all Cardinals will also be Bishops, so Bishop Athanasius Schneider says “cardinals and bishops”. But the doctrinal basis is that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. (A priest who becomes Cardinal, e.g. Cardinal Dulles, is not a successor of the Apostles.) So a majority of Cardinals is not relevant. I should also point out that, historically, Popes were usually elected by a conclave of Cardinals, so the fact that a majority accepts the Pope that a majority voted for is not a proof. Vigano says “Prelates”, instead of Bishops, and this is also irrelevant. The body of Bishops, led by the Pope, is the Apostolic College, which is indefectible.
In addition, antipope Clement VII appointed 19 Cardinals in order to give himself the majority of the Cardinals that Vigano cites. But Cardinals created by an antipope are not valid. It is absurd to use the number of Cardinals created by an antipope in any argument concerning papal validity. An antipope could hypothetically appoint 100 Cardinals, and it would prove nothing (except the invalidity of those Cardinals).
Then it is simply historically false to claim that most of the people (the faithful) accepted Pope (antipope) Clement VII. Everyone knew that Pope Urban VI was still in office, and the faithful know not to accept a new Pope, while the prior Pope is still in office (not having resigned or died). In fact, Urban ruled from Rome, and the people know that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. It is true that Popes can rule from other places, as has happened from time to time. But the current Pope ruling from Rome makes it clear to the faithful not to accept a new claimed-pope elected by a subset of the Cardinals, not a full conclave. Clement VII has some support politically, as the Popes of those days were involved in politics and even warfare. But political support does not grant UPA.
It does not matter whether Pope Urban VI was popular or not. What matters is that he was accepted by the body of Bishops and the body of the faithful. For he was the Bishop of Rome, and reigned prior to Clement. Then the antipope Clement had so little support, that he was force to flee from city to city to city. Here is what Wikipedia says about antipope Clement VII, and it clearly shows the historical fact that Clement was not accepted by the body of the faithful:
Robert [Clement VII] was elected pope at Fondi on 20 September 1378 by the cardinals who opposed the return of the Papacy from Avignon to Rome, and the election of Pope Urban VI in the latter town.[9] He chose the regnal name of Clement VII, and became the first of the line of ‘popes’ (now counted as antipopes) of the so-called Western Schism, the second of the two periods referred to as the Great Schism, which lasted until 1417.[10] Following a victory at Marino by Urban VI’s troops,[11] Clement, feeling vulnerable, fled Anagni to Sperlonga, then Gaeta, finally landing at Naples.[12] Received with great respect by Queen Joanna I of Naples, Clement found himself assailed by the local populace which chanted, “Viva Papa Urbano” and “Muoia l’Anticristo”.[12][13] He deemed Naples unsafe and fled by ship to Avignon, France, being greeted by five cardinals.[12]
The people shouted at antipope Clement VII, “Long live Pope Urban” and “Death to the Antichrist”. Clement was force to flee from Anagni to Sperlonga to Gaeta to Naples to Avignon. And in the latter city, he had the support of 5 Cardinals only. Pope Saint John Paul II traveled the world for many years, and was greeted by literally millions of the faithful. Pope Francis also travels widely and is accepted by the Catholic faithful everywhere he goes.
If, as a counter-factual hypothetical, Pope Benedict XVI did not resign, and some schismatic Cardinal elected Francis, then he would be an antipope. But in fact Benedict not only resigned, and called for a papal conclave, but Benedict also accepted Pope Francis as the true Pope for many year, even up to Benedict’s death. Note that Benedict wrote an encyclical, which was completed by Pope Francis and published by Pope Francis under his authority as Pope. So his cooperation is yet another clear indication that Pope Benedict XVI validly resigned and did accept Pope Francis as his true successor.
Vigano claims that “Urban’s few supporters immediately retracted their election, summoning a new Conclave at Fondi.” False. The Cardinals who broke away from the current Pope, Urban VI, and the rest of the Cardinals and Bishops, were those that disliked the return of the papacy to Rome. Urban did not have “few supporters”, as shown by the fact that Clement VII was created by the people with cries of “Long live Pope Urban” and “Death to the Antichrist”. Vigano claims: “If universal consensus were an indefectibly valid argument for a pope’s legitimacy, Clement would have had the right to be considered the true pope, rather than Urban.” False. The rejection of Clement by the Bishops of Italy and many other nations, by the other Cardinals, and by the people, who went so far as to call him the Antichrist, shows that Clement did not have UPA, while Pope Urban did.
In any case, if an historical situation does not, from out point of view centuries later, clearly show UPA, that may be due to the passing of time and the lack of docuмentation about that acceptance in the dioceses and parishes of the world. We need not prove UPA for each past Pope. Rather, it is a way for us to recognize, as a dogmatic fact, the validity of Roman Pontiffs and also Ecuмenical Councils.
Archbishop Vigano rejects the Second Vatican Council, calling it “the conciliar cancer”. But all the dioceses of the world have accepted Vatican II and have put its decision on doctrine and discipline in to practice. The Bishops of the world have continuously taught the doctrines of Vatican II, and its decisions on discipline have been put into practice. Every Pope since Vatican II has accepted the Council and taught from it, and the faithful throughout the world, as a body, have accepted Vatican I and Vatican II as valid Councils. The rejection of Vatican II (and even Vatican I) by some persons today, does not contradict the UPA, as there are always some in the Church whose faith is so weak that they will walk away from the Lord Jesus and His Church, when the Church does not teach what they would like.
Since Archbishop Vigano rejects the validity of Pope Francis as well as the validity of the Second Vatican Council, Vigano is a schismatic who is automatically excommunicated. As Pope Leo XII taught in Satis Cognitum:
Pope Leo XII: “15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.” [Satis Cognitum (https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum.html)]
Ronald L Conte Jr
-
"Since Archbishop Vigano rejects the validity of Pope Francis as well as the validity of the Second Vatican Council, Vigano is a schismatic who is automatically excommunicated. As Pope Leo XII taught in Satis Cognitum:
Pope Leo XII: “15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.” [Satis Cognitum (https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum.html)]
-
Conte? :laugh1:
-
Conte? :laugh1:
And Siscoe/Salza are strangely quiet.
:popcorn:
-
And Siscoe/Salza are strangely quiet.
:popcorn:
Yeah, I've been waiting.
-
But Conte does make one decent point, that I've brought up before. Universal Peaceful Acceptance has to do with whether the Church can accept a false rule of faith. That is the core principle. But all of the world's Bishops (apart from a few handful) have accepted Vatican II and the NOM, and therefore V2 and the NOM should in theory fall under the same principle.
Regardless of how this might affect pre-Bergoglian V2 popes, I hardly think that Jorge enjoys Universal Peaceful Acceptance as a rule of faith. Anyone who still has even a little bit of their sensus Catholicus left is questioning Jorge. We have conservative Novus Ordites wondering whether Jorge is the pope. Does that sound like Universal PEACEFUL Acceptance to you? It certainly doesn't to me.
-
We have conservative Novus Ordites wondering whether Jorge is the pope. Does that sound like Universal PEACEFUL Acceptance to you? It certainly doesn't to me.
They weren't questioning this at the time of the election though. That relates more to the question of whether or not he could have fallen from office on account of heresy.
-
They weren't questioning this at the time of the election though. That relates more to the question of whether or not he could have fallen from office on account of heresy.
What's the time limit for UPA? Thirty seconds after the election to voice your concern? A day? A week? A year? 13?
-
I admit I questioned this papacy the moment I heard the name.
-
What's the time limit for UPA? Thirty seconds after the election to voice your concern? A day? A week? A year? 13?
Billot as quoted above:
“Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”
-
"However, I agree with Bishop Schneider that the acceptance of a Pope by the body of Bishops is sufficient to prove that the Roman Pontiff is valid. The reason I would give is that the Church is always necessarily apostolic and indefectible. So it is not possible for the body of Bishops, successors to the Apostles, to go astray following a false or invalid or heretical successor of Peter (or claimed successor of Peter). If that happened, the Church would lose Her apostolic character, which is not possible, and would lose Her indefectibility, as the visible Head of the Church, Vicar of Christ, and foundational Rock of the Church would have gone astray along with the body of successors to the other Apostles. God does not permit the gates of Hell to prevail over the Church in this or any other way."
There it is, right there: the stranglehold, the Great Conundrum - the "indefectibility" of the Church, by which Conte and his ilk in the hierarchy (not only present, but past as well) mean, "ourselves, i.e., the moral majority (overwhelming consensus equaling unanimity) of the bishops in union with the current pontiff." So the twisting and writhing into theses (Cassiascuм) and otherwise in attempts to untangle, trying to fit the square peg in the round whole of that.
And on and on it goes . .
-
If that happened, the Church would lose Her apostolic character, which is not possible, and would lose Her indefectibility, as the visible Head of the Church, Vicar of Christ, and foundational Rock of the Church would have gone astray along with the body of successors to the other Apostles. God does not permit the gates of Hell to prevail over the Church in this or any other way.
The testimony of Scripture:
Daniel 7:21
21 I beheld, and lo, that horn made war against the saints, and prevailed over them,
Daniel 8:10-12
9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn: and it became great against the south, and against the east, and against the strength. 10 And it was magnified even unto the strength of heaven: and it threw down of the strength, and of the stars, and trod upon them. 11 And it was magnified even to the prince of the strength: and it took away from him the continual sacrifice, and cast down the place of his sanctuary. 12 And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and truth shall be cast down on the ground, and he shall do and shall prosper . . . 24 And his power shall be strengthened, but not by his own force: and he shall lay all things waste, and shall prosper, and do more than can be believed. And he shall destroy the mighty, and the people of the saints,
Apoc. 11:7
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast, that ascendeth out of the abyss, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
Apoc. 13:7
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation.
Cardinal Manning:
No man could break through that circle of omnipotence until the hour came, when by His own will He opened the way for the powers of evil. For this reason He said in the garden, “This is your hour, and the power of darkness.” [60] For this reason, before He gave Himself into the hands of sinners, He exerted once more the majesty of His power, and when they came to take Him, He rose and said, “I am He,” [61] and “they went backward, and fell to the ground.” Having vindicated His divine majesty, He delivered Himself into the hands of sinners. So too, He said, when He stood before Pilate, “Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.” [62] It was the will of God; it was the concession of the Father that Pilate had power over His incarnate Son. Again, He said, “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions of angels? how then shall the Scripture be fulfilled?” [63] In like manner with His Church. Until the hour is come when the barrier shall, by the Divine will, be taken out of the way, no one has power to lay a hand upon it. The gates of hell may war against it; they may strive and wrestle, as they struggle now, with the Vicar of our Lord; but no one has the power to move Him one step, until the hour shall come when the Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed; then will come the persecution of three years and a half, short, but terrible, during which the Church of God will return into its state of suffering, as in the beginning; and the imperishable Church of God, by its inextinguishable life derived from the pierced side of Jesus, which for three hundred years lived on through blood, will live on still through the fires of the times of Antichrist.
Manning, Archbishop Henry. The Present Crisis of the Holy See . Desert Will Flower iPress. Kindle Edition.
-
For the Trads who mindlessly parrot back UPA, the same principle behind UPA applies also to Vatican II and the NOM. Entire "Church" also accepts V2 and the NOM, so the entire Church can't be wrong. UPA, as admitted by Billot, is rooted in the fact that the entire Church cannot accept a false rule of faith. If you're a Trad who uses UPA to claim that Jorge is the pope, then you're a schismatic for rejecting V2 and the NOM.
UPA as proof of legitimate election is debunked by three different historical incidents where a living pope who had been taken into exile was replaced by another one while he was still alive and in one case openly protesting his replacement, and who was nevertheless "universally accepted".
UPA as proof of legitimate election is also debunked implicitly by Paul IV in cuм ex Apostolatus, where he holds that (per his decree) a heretic Pope would not be legitimate even if he were accepted and given obedience by all. While cuм ex is not doctrinal per se, the principle is implicit in that UPA would render it moot.
We hare our resident Old Catholics, such as DR, trying to use UPA to justify their heretical rejection of the Church's indefectibility.
Either V2 and the NOM represent a corruption of the Church or they do not. If they do, they could not have come from legitimate papal authority. If they don't, you'd better get your arses back into communion with and submission to Jorge or you're going to lose your souls.
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the "5 Opinions", but this simple fact stands. Some of you have become thinly-veiled Old Catholics in your belief system and need to convert back to the Catholic faith.
-
Conte:
Archbishop Vigano rejects the Second Vatican Council, calling it “the conciliar cancer”. But all the dioceses of the world have accepted Vatican II and have put its decision on doctrine and discipline in to practice. The Bishops of the world have continuously taught the doctrines of Vatican II, and its decisions on discipline have been put into practice. Every Pope since Vatican II has accepted the Council and taught from it, and the faithful throughout the world, as a body, have accepted Vatican I and Vatican II as valid Councils. The rejection of Vatican II (and even Vatican I) by some persons today, does not contradict the UPA, as there are always some in the Church whose faith is so weak that they will walk away from the Lord Jesus and His Church, when the Church does not teach what they would like.
Since Archbishop Vigano rejects the validity of Pope Francis as well as the validity of the Second Vatican Council, Vigano is a schismatic who is automatically excommunicated.
At least Conte rightly applies the principles behind UPA to both the legitimacy of Jorge and to the acceptability / Catholicity of Vatican II and the NOM. So for you not-so-bright Trads who are defending Conte's thesis, he's condemning you right here as well.
-
We hare our resident Old Catholics, such as DR, trying to use UPA to justify their heretical rejection of the Church's indefectibility.
I made no mention of UPA. Concentrate, and stop responding to straw men standing in your mind.
What I did mention, rather quote, was Scripture, and Cardinal Manning, speaking with the Spirit of Truth, and in perfect unison with the Word.
-
I made no mention of UPA. Concentrate, and stop responding to straw men standing in your mind.
What I did mention, rather quote, was Scripture, and Cardinal Manning, speaking with the Spirit of Truth, and in perfect unison with the Word.
Decem Rationis, just to clarify, is it your position that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church? And are you are quoting the various scripture passages and Cardinal Manning in an attempt to support this position?
-
So the twisting and writhing into theses (Cassiascuм) and otherwise in attempts to untangle, trying to fit the square peg in the round whole of that.
The Cassiascuм thesis is not a twisting of anything. It's not deceitful, nor theologically manipulative, even if it's incomplete or unsatisfactory in all areas of explanation.
DR, you seem to imply that our times are "the end". They are not. When the present Church sails through the last gasps of this 5th Age of spiritual chaos, She will find land, stability and peace in Our Lady's 6th Age, the period of peace, rejuvenation and rebirth. Then the oft-prophecized resurrection of the Church will occur, with the great Council that will settle all wrongs, explain all errors, and condemn all heresies of the last 500 years. Then will the Church define the parameters of the Magisterium, the limits of papal infalibility, and everything that we now see as contradiction and scandal in new-rome will be explained in a doctrinal way, wherein we will see God's wisdom and glorious protection of His Divine Bride, and the papacy too.
12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. (1 Corinthians)
-
The Cassiascuм thesis is not a twisting of anything. It's not deceitful, nor theologically manipulative, even if it's incomplete or unsatisfactory in all areas of explanation.
The problem with the Cassiacuм Thesis is it is based on an error, namely, that an internal intention to undermine the faith (whether manifest or not) will prevent a lawful office holder from acquiring the authority of the office that he lawfully holds. That is a complete novelty, and as the Fathers are want to say, novelty is always the sure sign of heresy.
-
The problem with the Cassiacuм Thesis is it is based on an error, namely, that an internal intention to undermine the faith (whether manifest or not) will prevent a lawful office holder from acquiring the authority of the office that he lawfully holds. That is a complete novelty, and as the Fathers are want to say, novelty is always the sure sign of heresy.
No it's not. You (and the individual who up-thumbed this post) are completely ignorant about the Thesis and yet bloviate and pontificate nonsensically about it as if you were some authority. Bishop Guerard was arguably the greatest pre-Vatican II theologian who probably forgot more theology in one hour than you or I will ever know, but you sit here in your armchair dismissing it with a wave of your hand.
Defect of Intention is simply one explanation for WHY the pre-V2 popes do not formally possess office, and it's been advanced mostly by the Italian priests and Bishop Sanborn, for various reasons I'll not go in here. Other explanations include simply their manifest heresy. Both are tangential to the core of the Thesis, which is that one could lose authority (the formal office) while still retaining the legal office (the material office). That is no "novelty", but we see it even in the teaching of Pope St. Celestine early on when he declared that Nestorius had lost his authority from the moment he began to preach his heresy (i.e. his pertinacious heresy became manifest) even before he was formally / legally removed from office, nearly 3 years later.
-
The problem with the Cassiacuм Thesis is it is based on an error, namely, that an internal intention to undermine the faith (whether manifest or not) will prevent a lawful office holder from acquiring the authority of the office that he lawfully holds. That is a complete novelty, and as the Fathers are want to say, novelty is always the sure sign of heresy.
You mention that the Cassiacuм Thesis is a novelty/error, since it says that the internal intention to undermine the Faith, whether manifest or not, will prevent a lawful office holder from acquiring the office that he lawfully holds. Perhaps you can provide a little more context? I'm apt to agree with you, but I would like to have more info.
-
You mention that the Cassiacuм Thesis is a novelty/error, since it says that the internal intention to undermine the Faith, whether manifest or not, will prevent a lawful office holder from acquiring the office that he lawfully holds. Perhaps you can provide a little more context? I'm apt to agree with you, but I would like to have more info.
You're "apt to agree" with anything critical of SVism in general, so that's no barometer. He falsely conflated the defect of intention argument as being of the essence for sedeprivationism. It's not. It's merely one explanation for WHY the V2 papal claimants don't have papal authority. Alternative explanation is simply due to their manifest heresy.
-
Manning, Archbishop Henry. The Present Crisis of the Holy See . Desert Will Flower iPress. Kindle Edition.
What's the commentary from that on Matthew 16:18 ?
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
-
Nevermind.
Here it is.
The Present Crisis of the Holy See
Henry Edward Manning
Pages 67 - 68
https://archive.org/details/ThePresentCrisisOfTheHolySee/page/n83/mode/2up
We have already seen reason to believe that as our Divine Lord delivered Himself into the hands of sinners when His time was come, and no man could lay hand upon Him, until of His own free will He delivered Himself over to their power, so in like manner it shall be with that Church of which He said, " Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” As the wicked did not prevail against Him even when they bound Him with cords, dragged Him to the judgment, blindfolded His eyes, mocked Him as a false King, smote Him on the head as a false Prophet, led Him away, crucified Him, and in the mastery of their power seemed to have absolute dominion over Him, so that He lay ground down and almost annihilated under their feet; and as, at that very time when He was dead and buried out of their sight, He was conqueror over all, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and was crowned, glorified, and invested with His royalty, and reigns supreme, King of kings and Lord of lords,—even so shall it be with His Church : though for a time persecuted, and, to the eyes of man, overthrown and trampled on, dethroned, despoiled, mocked, and crushed, yet in that high time of triumph the gates of hell shall not prevail. There is in store for the Church of God a resurrection and an ascension, a royalty and a dominion, a recompense of glory for all it has endured. Like Jesus, it needs must suffer on the way to its crown; yet crowned it shall be with Him eternally.
-
You're "apt to agree" with anything critical of SVism in general, so that's no barometer. He falsely conflated the defect of intention argument as being of the essence for sedeprivationism. It's not. It's merely one explanation for WHY the V2 papal claimants don't have papal authority. Alternative explanation is simply due to their manifest heresy.
Is Coptic the first person on this forum to bring up this issue? I would just like to see his perspective on it, since he's new here. We are all allowed an opinion on the subject, aren't we?
-
Is Coptic the first person on this forum to bring up this issue? I would just like to see his perspective on it, since he's new here. We are all allowed an opinion on the subject, aren't we?
Yes, he's the first one to conflate the vitium consensus with sedeprivationism (The Thesis), probably because +Vigano used the argument and then +Sanborn chimed in that it was very similar to his position (and to that of some of the Italians). But it's more of a peripheral explanation for why Bergoglio et al. didn't have papal authority; another explanation is simply manifest heresy.
I agree with sedeprivationism in principle, but I don't believe this is the explanation. I believe that the root cause goes back to the illegitimate election of Roncalli, since I believe Siri was the legitimate Pope from 1958 - 1989 (when he died). So this is yet a different explanation for the crisis that's completely separate from sedeprivationism. I don't believe these guys even had material possession of the office. So, in a sense, sedeprivationism is moot for me, but I agree with it in principle.
-
even so shall it be with His Church : though for a time persecuted, and, to the eyes of man, overthrown and trampled on, dethroned, despoiled, mocked, and crushed, yet in that high time of triumph the gates of hell shall not prevail. There is in store for the Church of God a resurrection and an ascension, a royalty and a dominion, a recompense of glory for all it has endured. Like Jesus, it needs must suffer on the way to its crown; yet crowned it shall be with Him eternally.
DecemRationis, it certainly sounds like the resurrection which the Church shall undergo shall be the Sixth Age of the Church.
The Fifth Age is coming to an end, the Sixth Age will began for a time, and then the Antichrist shall appear marking the Seventh Age, and then the ascension of the Church shall shortly follow that, after a few years.
-
Nevermind.
Here it is.
The Present Crisis of the Holy See
Henry Edward Manning
Pages 67 - 68
https://archive.org/details/ThePresentCrisisOfTheHolySee/page/n83/mode/2up
Agree with all of that, especially:
even so shall it be with His Church : though for a time persecuted, and, to the eyes of man, overthrown and trampled on, dethroned, despoiled, mocked, and crushed, yet in that high time of triumph the gates of hell shall not prevail. There is in store for the Church of God a resurrection and an ascension, a royalty and a dominion, a recompense of glory for all it has endured. Like Jesus, it needs must suffer on the way to its crown; yet crowned it shall be with Him eternally.
You do know what the "high time of triumph" and the "resurrection and ascension" is referring to, right?
You did read my quote of the Cardinal, where he says the "powers of evil" temporarily "prevail" for a time? I hope you do not think the Cardinal contradicts himself. I don't think he does.
With the Cardinal, I know who ultimately wins or "prevails" permanently in this war, and where the victory lies and reaches its fulfillment.
-
All I know is that Our Lady of Fatima promised a period of peace, and it is very likely that this period will be the Sixth Age of the Church.
-
DecemRationis, it certainly sounds like the resurrection which the Church shall undergo shall be the Sixth Age of the Church.
The Fifth Age is coming to an end, the Sixth Age will began for a time, and then the Antichrist shall appear marking the Seventh Age, and then the ascension of the Church shall shortly follow that, after a few years.
This is what I know, for certain, because it is written down and revealed by God, and no one who is Christ's denies its inerrancy and authority: I know how the Antichrist is defeated -
2 Thessalonians 2:8
8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,
There is no "few years" after this, but the next age, eternity.
-
No it's not.
Then quote anyone before Vatican II who taught that the intention to undermine the faith will prevent an officeholder from acquiring the authority of the office that he legally holds. Bishops Sanborn hasn't been able to locate anyone who taught it and, needless to say, neither could Gerard des Laurier, but if you know of someone who taught it, provide the quote. If not, then please admit that the foundation of the Thesis is a novelty.
-
There is no "few years" after this, but the next age, eternity.
I meant the few years to be reign of the Antichrist.
Apocalypse 13:5
. . . and power was given to him to do two and forty months
-
I meant the few years to be reign of the Antichrist.
Apocalypse 13:5
. . . and power was given to him to do two and forty months
What do you mean by the "resurrection" of the Church? It sounds like you believe that happens before the Antichrist. Is that the case?
-
What do you mean by the "resurrection" of the Church? It sounds like you believe that happens before the Antichrist. Is that the case?
Yes, precisely.
-
He falsely conflated the defect of intention argument as being of the essence for sedeprivationism. It's not. It's merely one explanation for WHY the V2 papal claimants don't have papal authority. Alternative explanation is simply due to their manifest heresy.
Nope. Sanborn, Dutertre, etc. all oppose ipso facto loss of office, they reject cuм Ex Apostolatus, and are on record stating Paul VI, JP2 and Francis are Catholics.
For proof you can watch the video from MHFM on Sanborn's and Salza's error that a declaration is necessary for someone to be a formal heretic.
-
You mention that the Cassiacuм Thesis is a novelty/error, since it says that the internal intention to undermine the Faith, whether manifest or not, will prevent a lawful office holder from acquiring the office that he lawfully holds. Perhaps you can provide a little more context? I'm apt to agree with you, but I would like to have more info.
That's the rational for the Thesis. Des Laurier came up with the novel theory that because authority is intended for the common good, if a person lacks the intention or promoting the common good, he is incapable of possessing authority. But he went even further by claiming that a subjective intention of promoting the common good was not enough. To possess authority, the person must have the objective and subjective intention of promoting the common good, which, in practice, means the person must be infallible and impeccable. And his reasoning would not be limited to spiritual authority, but would necessarily have to extend also to civil authority and to the authority that parents have over their children. Lastly, he also believed that it was up to the subjects to judge whether or not the superior had the requisite intention. If not, they were free to publicly declare that even though a person legally holds office, they lack the intention required to possess the authority of the office they legally hold. And Bishops Sanborn possesses the unique ability to have judged that every single bishop alive today who was appointed to the office by the post-Conciliar "Pope," and who he admits legally holds the office, lacked the intention to promote the common good when he was appointed, and therefore lacks the authority (form) of the office that he legally holds. And bishop Sanborn was able to make that judgment even though he couldn't name 99% of the bishops without looking it up.
As I often tell my friends, the Cassiacuм Thesis sounds plausible until you actually understand it.
-
Nope. Sanborn, Dutertre, etc. all oppose ipso facto loss of office, they reject cuм Ex Apostolatus, and are on record stating Paul VI,
Correct.
-
Yes, precisely.
Then I emphatically disagree with you. The resurrection and ascension of the Church occurs after the defeat of the Antichrist. Compare what I quoted - the Antichrist is defeated by Our Lord "with the brightness of his coming," i.e., the Second Coming - with what else happens at the Second Coming:
1 Thessalonians 4:12-17
12 And we will not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that are asleep, that you be not sorrowful, even as others who have no hope. 13 For if we believe that Jesus died, and rose again; even so them who have slept through Jesus, will God bring with him. 14 For this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who have slept. 15 For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead who are in Christ, shall rise first.
16 Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with the Lord. 17 Wherefore, comfort ye one another with these words.
Then occurs both the defeat of Antichrist and the resurrection and ascension of the Church, at the Second Coming of Our Lord.
-
Then I emphatically disagree with you.
Like I said in another thread, the next 20 years will certainly be interesting.
-
Then I emphatically disagree with you. The resurrection and ascension of the Church occurs after the defeat of the Antichrist. Compare what I quoted - the Antichrist is defeated by Our Lord "with the brightness of his coming," i.e., the Second Coming - with what else happens at the Second Coming:
Then occurs both the defeat of Antichrist and the resurrection and ascension of the Church, at the Second Coming of Our Lord.
Can you quote any Church Father who doesn't believe the Second Coming will be at the end of time but at the start of a metaphorical or analogical resurrection of the Church?
-
You're "apt to agree" with anything critical of SVism in general, so that's no barometer. He falsely conflated the defect of intention argument as being of the essence for sedeprivationism. It's not. It's merely one explanation for WHY the V2 papal claimants don't have papal authority. Alternative explanation is simply due to their manifest heresy.
You just proved that you don't understand sedeprivationism, yet I believe I have seen posts where you say that is the position that you hold. How can you hold that position when you don't even understand it? But don't feel bad, 99.999999% of sedeprivationists don't understand sedeprivationism.
-
Then quote anyone before Vatican II who taught that the intention to undermine the faith will prevent an officeholder from acquiring the authority of the office that he legally holds.
It's a simple application of principle that the Church is both a human AND a Divine institution. Christ gave St Peter the power to "bind and loose", but there are limits to this (i.e. St Peter did not have the authority to create an 8th sacrament.
Canon Law (and many other papal docuмents) refer to excommunications which happen "immediately" (i.e. spiritually) while also allowing the necessary temporal due process of law (i.e. human aspect). Just like sacraments have matter and form, so the papacy (being part of the sacrament of Holy Orders) has a human and divine office.
Further, when we read the revisions to conclave election laws changed by Pope St Pius X and Pius XII, both refer to spiritual penalties being "paused" until the election is over (i.e. human voting), but then *immediately* such (spiritual) penalties are incurred again. In other words, these popes differentiated between the human aspect of the conclave/papacy and the spiritual aspect/authority.
cuм Ex makes the same distinction, but not as clear because it's so old. Both Popes Pius X and XII knew the imminent dangers/confusion which was coming upon the Church; they acted accordingly and made the proper separation between the human/Divine elements in the papal office. Same as did St Bellarmine and those of his time.
This concept is nothing new; but the application of it to an actual pope (i.e. every V2 pope) is unprecedented. When the shoe fits...
-
Decem Rationis, just to clarify, is it your position that the gates of hell have prevailed against the
Church? And are you are quoting the various scripture passages and Cardinal Manning in an attempt to support this position?
Capic,
This will be lengthy. Sorry. It calls for some elaboration.
We know two things about this "prevailing' which have been revealed directly by God in Scripture. We are told:
Matthew 16:18
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
We also told (I cited some of these verses above0;
Apoc. 11:7
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast, that ascendeth out of the abyss, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
Apoc. 13:7
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation.
Since God is talking there, we know that both are true, and we know that there is no contradiction between them.Yet there is a surface tension, for sure.
I agree with Cardinal Manning's view:
[63] In like manner with His Church. Until the hour is come when the barrier shall, by the Divine will, be taken out of the way, no one has power to lay a hand upon it. The gates of hell may war against it; they may strive and wrestle, as they struggle now, with the Vicar of our Lord; but no one has the power to move Him one step, until the hour shall come when the Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed; then will come the persecution of three years and a half, short, but terrible, during which the Church of God will return into its state of suffering, as in the beginning; and the imperishable Church of God, by its inextinguishable life derived from the pierced side of Jesus, which for three hundred years lived on through blood, will live on still through the fires of the times of Antichrist.
The "little horn" or Daniel will "prevail, and the saints will be "overcome, and killed" when they "have finished their testimony."
In Matthew, Our Lord tells us:
Matthew 24:14-15
14 And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. 15 When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.
The preaching of the Gospel throughout the whole word - i,e, the testimony being finished (Apoc. 11:7) - happens, and then the "abomination of desolation" in the holy place "spoken of by Daniel," who also speaks of the "little horn" and his "prevailing" over the saints, etc.
This all happens, in the words of St. Paul, when the "witholder" is taken out of the way:
2 Thessalonians 2:6-8
6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,
Cardinal Manning reads the "witholder" as the Holy Ghost working through the pope and "Christendom," i.e the Church. It is taken out of the way temporarily, and the powers of evil "prevail" for a time.
But the "Church" nonetheless lives on, and survives.
Now we have a heretic/apostate sitting in the chair of Peter, and a moral unanimity of bishops in union with him in heresy/apostasy. I believe this is the time prophesied. The Gospel has been spread over the earth; the "testimony" is finished in the governing hierarchy, the hierarchy with power and jurisdiction.
Now, Conti says:
If that happened (i.e., what I just described above,in the first sentence in the prior paragraph, and which we all here pretty much agree on), the Church would lose Her apostolic character, which is not possible, and would lose Her indefectibility, as the visible Head of the Church, Vicar of Christ, and foundational Rock of the Church would have gone astray along with the body of successors to the other Apostles. God does not permit the gates of Hell to prevail over the Church in this or any other way.
Well, it happened. Conti is wrong, and thus his idea of "indefectibility" is patently false, as history has proved and is still proving - it will likely get much, much worse before the end.
You can say he's wrong because the pope is not the pope, the bishops are not the bishops, but to me, that's just absurd, and avoids the demonstrable facts. It is also saying "no" to God in my view, because it denies what God had worked in His Providence, a refusal to accept His working and will, in order to justify what some men, like Conti, have asserted about the "Church."
To hold onto Conti's notion, in light of what God has willed and determined in His wisdom and judgment, is misguided, wrong, and results in a contradiction, either with objective reality, the facts, or in theory itself, because, as I have argued in several threads here, the "Conti theory" of indefectibilty requires a hierarchy possessing not only truth in its preaching but also the power to rule and govern the members of Christ's Church. The necessity of power to rule and govern is generally ignored in discussions here. Why? Because it exposes the falsity of the "Conti theory," which is basically the theory of the theologians pre-Vatican II. The Sedes and most of the R & R adhere to this theory of indefectibility, which simply doesn't work, and which the Crisis has demonstrated to be false.
If you want to read a serious discussion about this, you can in this thread:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/
DR
-
What do you mean by the "resurrection" of the Church? It sounds like you believe that happens before the Antichrist. Is that the case?
It's both, actually. The transition from the 5th age (heresy/communism) to the 6th (Age of Our Lady), is similar (a precursor) to the transition from the 7th (antichrist persecution) to the end of the world (Age of Christ the King).
Our times, which are part of the "end times" are a prefigurement of the ACTUAL end time (i.e. antichrist). Both periods have a falling away (i.e. V2 vs antichrist religion), both periods will have a persecution, and both will have a resurrection of the Church and peace.
-
You just proved that you don't understand sedeprivationism, yet I believe I have seen posts where you say that is the position that you hold. How can you hold that position when you don't even understand it? But don't feel bad, 99.999999% of sedeprivationists don't understand sedeprivationism.
That's why they're constantly "Explaining the Thesis™"
:jester: In typical smug Most Highly Trained seminary fashion they spend more time explaining sophisticated distinctions most can barely keep track of to run-of-the-mill laity than actually evangelizing.
Thank God MHFM has lots of material for everyone from atheists to eastern schismatics, Sanborn's clowns only spend time playing inside baseball and addressing other traditionalists.
-
Can you quote any Church Father who doesn't believe the Second Coming will be at the end of time but at the start of a metaphorical or analogical resurrection of the Church?
What????
I don't believe the resurrection of the Church will be "metaphorical or analogical." Read 1 Thessalonians 4:12-17. That's literally what I believe.
PS - that happens at the end of time.
-
only truth in its preaching but also the power to rule and govern the members of Christ's Church. The necessity of power to rule and govern is generally ignored in discussions here. Why? Because it exposes the falsity of the "Conti theory," which is basically the theory of the theologians pre-Vatican II. The Sedes and most of the R & R adhere to this theory of indefectibility, which simply doesn't work, and which the Crisis has demonstrated to be false.
True, but we sedes are consistent with the facts and recognize the Vatican II sect doesn't meet those criteria, while Lefebvrites refuse to address this issue or they would have to become sede or redefine indefectebility as you have done, and I'm glad you honestly admit your view is not shared by pre-Vatican II theologians, but I'd also like to add that you've reduced indefectebility to something meaningless, an empty formula if you will.
-
It's both, actually. The transition from the 5th age (heresy/communism) to the 6th (Age of Our Lady), is similar (a precursor) to the transition from the 7th (antichrist persecution) to the end of the world (Age of Christ the King).
Our times, which are part of the "end times" are a prefigurement of the ACTUAL end time (i.e. antichrist). Both periods have a falling away (i.e. V2 vs antichrist religion), both periods will have a persecution, and both will have a resurrection of the Church and peace.
I agree with this.
-
Then quote anyone before Vatican II who taught that the intention to undermine the faith will prevent an officeholder from acquiring the authority of the office that he legally holds.
Do you even read English? If so, re-read my post. It's written in English. Then try again.
-
The problem with the Cassiacuм Thesis is it is based on an error, namely, that an internal intention to undermine the faith (whether manifest or not) will prevent a lawful office holder from acquiring the authority of the office that he lawfully holds. That is a complete novelty, and as the Fathers are want to say, novelty is always the sure sign of heresy.
Ladislaus: "No it's not."
Capic: "Then quote anyone before Vatican II who taught that the intention to undermine the faith will prevent an officeholder from acquiring the authority of the office that he legally holds. Bishops Sanborn hasn't been able to locate anyone who taught it and, needless to say, neither could Gerard des Laurier, but if you know of someone who taught it, provide the quote. If not, then please admit that the foundation of the Thesis is a novelty."
Ladislaus: "Do you even read English? If so, re-read my post. It's written in English. Then try again."
What did I misunderstand?
-
The problem with the Cassiacuм Thesis is it is based on an error, namely, that an internal intention to undermine the faith (whether manifest or not) will prevent a lawful office holder from acquiring the authority of the office that he lawfully holds.
A spiritually deficient intention nullifies any kind of spiritual act. This is basic canon law and catholic teaching. No proper intention = no sacrament/no indulgence/no grace/etc.
If you are arguing that a spiritually deficient/absent intention still provides the person with the legal/human office, then you are describing EXACTLY the Cassiacuм thesis. Because when you mention the word "lawfully" this directly relates to the human/govt side of things, which can still exist despite the lack of spiritual intention that God requires (i.e. Divine Law) for the person to have spiritual authority.
That is a complete novelty,
St Robert Bellarmine would disagree with you.
-
A spiritually deficient intention nullifies any kind of spiritual act. This is basic canon law and catholic teaching. No proper intention = no sacrament/no indulgence/no grace/etc.
No it doesn't, but without going down that rabbit trail, comparing a sacrament to an appointment to office is apples and oranges. Please quote canon law stating that the intention to promote the common good is a condition required for an officeholder to obtain the authority of the office that he legally holds.
If you are arguing that a spiritually deficient/absent intention still provides the person with the legal/human office, then you are describing EXACTLY the Cassiacuм thesis.
That's not what I'm arguing. What I am saying is that "the habitual intention to promote the common good" is not required for an officeholder to acquire the authority of the office he legally holds.
Because when you mention the word "lawfully" this directly relates to the human/govt side of things, which can still exist despite the lack of spiritual intention that God requires (i.e. Divine Law) for the person to have spiritual authority.
So now God requires the intention to promote the common good to obtain authority. Please cite the divine law you are referring to (bible verse) and the canon law.
St Robert Bellarmine would disagree with you.
Please quite Bellarmine saying that the intention to promote the common good is required for an officeholder to acquire the authority of the office that he legally holds.
-
Please quite Bellarmine saying that the intention to promote the common good is required for an officeholder to acquire the authority of the office that he legally holds.
Promoting the common good is not required in order to acquire the authority of an office he holds.
However, every particular law he may promulgate must work for the common good in order for it to acquire legitimacy.
You are aware that for a law to be legitimate it must:
1) Be promulgated by competent authority;
2) Be ordered toward the common good.
If it lacks either of these qualities, it is not a legitimate law (and if not legitimate, it cannot bind).
As applied to Francis, one could say he is materially pope (i.e., he has acquired the office).
But formally, since his laws are not ordered toward the common good, and are therefore not legitimate, formally, his authority to execute the functions of the office are impounded.
This is not my position, but I'm just pointing out the argument others are making against you.
I do realize we are analyzing Vigano's contention regarding defective consent to accept the office, and not the sedeprivationist argument I have delineated above.
-
Please quote canon law stating that the intention to promote the common good is a condition required for an officeholder to obtain the authority of the office that he legally holds.
I thought we were speaking of the validity of a person who was accepting the papal office? That was +Vigano's argument. Similar to marriage...AT THE MOMENT of receiving the sacrament, if one of the persons does not have the intention to fulfill the marriage office, then they do not validly marry. If a person does not have the intention to fulfill the office of the papacy (i.e. they do not get to personally define what 'papacy' means...they have to govern/rule the Church as an orthodox catholic), then their "acceptance" of such an office is null and void.
But you keep using the phrase "office that he legally holds" which presumes the conclave/acceptance of the papal office has already taken place. This isn't +Vigano's argument and is a different scenario, a la St Bellarmine. (p.s. I don't know what "common good" you're referring to...we're talking about doctrine/theology and basic catholic rules).
In the scenario of Francis, wherein the election has already taken place (i.e. +Vigano's argument of intention is noteworthy but flawed (not theoretically but practically), being we can't go back in time, nor can we prove an intention), the conditions for fulfilling the papal office have to do with upholding doctrine, teaching theology, and passing on Tradition/Scriptural truths.
Francis does NOT do any of these things, and on the contrary, does quite the opposite. Thus, he (along with all the other V2 popes) have incurred multiple and various excommunications, interdicts, and spiritual penalties for their wayward rule of Faith and their lack of (and contrary to) the shepherd duties which they *accepted* as part of being a Catholic pope. Thus, they still retain the (physical/govt) office but their (spiritual) authority is suspended/impounded, until such time that they repent/convert/publicly confess of heresies.
-
True, but we sedes are consistent with the facts and recognize the Vatican II sect doesn't meet those criteria, while Lefebvrites refuse to address this issue or they would have to become sede or redefine indefectebility as you have done, and I'm glad you honestly admit your view is not shared by pre-Vatican II theologians, but I'd also like to add that you've reduced indefectebility to something meaningless, an empty formula if you will.
I've reduced indefectibility to something meaningless? I've simply noted that the pre-V2 definition doesn't hold under these circuмstances, and God has worked that and shown us that. That's divine Providence at work, and those who hold to the pre-V2 definition are telling God, "no, the pre-v2 definition is eternally true, and it's simply that x and y occurred to indicate that the facts, not the theory, have made the theory inapplicable, but still nonetheless true." The "x and y" here provided by many totalist Sedes is that popes and bishops are not really popes and bishops, but their sees have been usurped - when the rai·son d'ê·tre - or at least one of the critical reasons underpinning the purposes of the doctrine of indefectibility - is that such a manifest and total usurpation of the hierarchy with jurisdiction couldn't and wouldn't happen, "so that through his visible body (the Church), Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men":
We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.
Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.
As to those Sedes who hold to the Cassiascuм thesis, they have actual popes and bishops with no real jurisdiction, no power to rule and govern - popes and bishops who you can tell to go pound sand, get lost when they issue an order - just like the R & R many of them impugn. It's ridiculous.
No, Marulus, I am not making "indefectibility" meaningless. God has given us popes and bishops to show it (the Conti and pre-V2 version of the theologians) clearly meaningless at least at this time in His design, and perhaps the hubris of the hierarchy in declaring itself (though they say "the Church," they put themselves front and center as integral to the doctrine) "indefectible" is part of the reason He did so.
-
What did I misunderstand?
I had just finished explaining that the intention theory that you claim discredits the CT / sedeprivationism is not to be confused with sedeprivatonism itself, but is merely one explanation for WHY the V2 popes do not exercise formal papal authority. Then you harp in again with the exact same post, as if this did not register. Other explanations are simply that manifest heresy impedes the exercise of papal authority.
Apart from that, everyone knows that a Pope doesn't assume the office until he ACCEPTS it. He can't be made Pope against his will. Pius XII taught that the man who's elected Pope becomes the pope the moment he accepts the election. There's nothing novel about this. So what it reduces to is arguing about what constitutes acceptance, what does one have to intend to accept, thus reducing to the same types of questions that arise in moral theology and sacramental theology about what constitutes acceptance, consent, and a human act, etc.
-
I'm beginning to suspect that DecemRationis is actually Pontrello, since Pontrello is constantly quoting DR posts on his blog. DecemRationis, are you Pontrello?
And if DR is not Pontrello, that should give you pause, DR, and only reinforces my contention that you've been pushing a thinly-veild Old Catholicism here on CI ... but perhaps it's actually Eastern Orthodoxy you've been pushing (except that if you had been open about it, you would have been banned).
-
As to those Sedes who hold to the Cassiascuм thesis, they have actual popes and bishops with no real jurisdiction, no power to rule and govern - popes and bishops who you can tell to go pound sand, get lost when they issue an order - just like the R & R many of them impugn. It's ridiculous.
They're not "actual" popes, to use your term. They're more "potential" popes. ... if you want to start using those types of terms. They're the equivalent of popes-elect. This is a perfectly valid distinction between the election/designation and the actual authority of the papacy. Take the analogy of a layman who had been elected pope. Once he accepts, the Church can't withdraw the election. But he also cannot fully exercise papal authority yet, since the Pope has to be the Bishop of Rome. He can likely start making appointments and other administrative types of decisions right away. But he cannot exercise full papal authority until he's ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop. He can't write an Encyclical because as a layman he's not even part of the Ecclesia Docens or otherwise teach the Church.
Let's say this layman refuses to be consecrated. Theologians have dealt with such a scenario and conclude that this could be construed as tacit resignation, and the Church can then proceed to elect someone else. That's where the vitium consensus angle comes in that's been held by Bishop Sanborn and others.
But let's say this layman is elected, refuses to be ordained / consecrated, and some world war erupts making it impossible for the College of Cardinals to reconvene and elect someone else. This man would remain in some limbo state, where he still was the last one elected, but cannot fully function as Pope, at least with regard to teaching the Church or establishing universal discipline ... because he's not a bishop.
We find the principles for sedeprivationism in Bellarmine, who in turn is citing Pope St. Celestine. Pope St. Celestine declared that Nestorius had lost authority from the moment he began to "preach" heresy (i.e. became a pertinacious manifest heretic) ... even before his actual removal from office, and was in a state of excommunicandus. This state of excommunicandus is analogus to Father Chazal's notion of a Pope who's been "suspended".
There's absolutely nothing "ridiculous" about this, and with this comment we have yet another armchair poster here deriding the work of arguably the top theologian in the Church before Vatican II based on a gross oversimplification of it.
Whatever you think of it, it's far preferable to your heretical assertion that "actual" papal authority can corrupt the Magisterium, the Mass, the cult of the saints, and everything else those scoundrels have corrupted. I'd rather be a sedeprivationist than a purveyor of some variation on Protestantism, Old Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. This is precisely what the Prots claimed, that the Church had become corrupt, and what the Old Catholics claim, that the Church had departed from Tradition, and what the Eastern Orthodox claim, that the Pope has some "primacy of honor," i.e. that it suffices to pay lip service to him.
Of course, while I agree with sedeprivationism being the most rational position, I don't believe that's the actual explanation for what's happened to the Church. I believe that these men have not been material popes either, that Cardinal Siri had been elected the legitimate pope and remained thus until his death in 1989. By then there were few Cardinals left who had been appointed by Pius XII, the last legitimate pope to appoint Cardinals, and also that it's highly doubtful that Ratzinger and Bergoglio were valid bishops.
-
No, Marulus, I am not making "indefectibility" meaningless.
Of course you are. It doesn't suffice for indefectibility to simply have a legitimate pope. One need only read the CE article on the subject. Indefectibility precludes the Church from undergoing any substantial change or corruption.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals ...
It's more easy to reconcile a lengthy period of SV with indefectibility than the corruption of the Magisterium, the Mass, Canon Law, and the cult of the saints:
We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.
I hold that Siri was the legitimate Pope until 1989, effectively being "in exile", and thus the actual period of sedevacante has gone on for about 34 years now, with about 31 years of a pope in exile. I believe that this exile will last until 2029, for 40 years, and also 100 years after the request of Our Lady for the consecration of Russia.
-
I'm beginning to suspect that DecemRationis is actually Pontrello, since Pontrello is constantly quoting DR posts on his blog. DecemRationis, are you Pontrello?
And if DR is not Pontrello, that should give you pause, DR, and only reinforces my contention that you've been pushing a thinly-veild Old Catholicism here on CI ... but perhaps it's actually Eastern Orthodoxy you've been pushing (except that if you had been open about it, you would have been banned).
:facepalm:
If I am Pontrello, Pontrello is schizophrenic:
The Impossibility of Sedevacantism - page 6 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-impossibility-of-sedevacantism/msg910796/#msg910796)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-impossibility-of-sedevacantism/msg910803/#msg910803) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-impossibility-of-sedevacantism/msg910810/#msg910810)The Impossibility of Sedevacantism - page 6 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-impossibility-of-sedevacantism/msg910803/#msg910803)The Impossibility of Sedevacantism - page 6 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-impossibility-of-sedevacantism/msg910810/#msg910810)
Shut up, DR!!!!
Now, John, you should hiding now . . . . :laugh1:
It's always good to cite that great Catholic bard, Shakespeare. I'll do some King Lear here, Lear speaking to the madness rising within him:
O, how this mother (Pontrello) swells up toward my heart!
Hysterica passio, down, thou climbing sorrow (Pontrello)!
Thy element’s below.
I love this site, the discussion in search of truth by those who love the Catholic Church in these trying times.
It appears, Lad, that you may be lobbing to have me banned. I pray not. Yet I am subject to a true authority here, and can only hope that is not the case.
In case it is, I'll quote King Lear again, this time, aptly, the Fool, ere I am put to silence:
This is a brave night to cool a courtesan.
I’ll speak a prophecy ere I go:
When priests are more in word than matter,
When brewers mar their malt with water,
When nobles are their tailors’ tutors,
No heretics burned but wenches’ suitors,
When every case in law is right,
No squire in debt, nor no poor knight;
When slanders do not live in tongues,
Nor cutpurses come not to throngs,
When usurers tell their gold i’ th’ field,
And bawds and whores do churches build,
Then shall the realm of Albion
Come to great confusion;
Then comes the time, who lives to see ’t,
That going shall be used with feet.
This prophecy Merlin shall make, for I live before
his time.
DR
-
Of course, while I agree with sedeprivationism being the most rational position, I don't believe that's the actual explanation for what's happened to the Church.
Agree. What's going on the church is a whole host of theological extremes all rolled into one -
a. heretics claiming the papal office
b. popes becoming heretics after election
c. *apparent* corruption of the magisterium
d. *apparent* corruption of the catechisms, sacraments, etc
e. etc etc
It's much bigger than just the 'papal question'.
-
Agree. What's going on the church is a whole host of theological extremes all rolled into one -
a. heretics claiming the papal office
b. popes becoming heretics after election
c. *apparent* corruption of the magisterium
d. *apparent* corruption of the catechisms, sacraments, etc
e. etc etc
It's much bigger than just the 'papal question'.
For me, the driving theological principle is that it's not possible that the Magisterium, the Mass, the Universal Discipline (Canon Law), and the cult of saints (with their pantheon of bogus saints, despite most theologians holding canonizations to be infallible) can be corrupted. What's left of the Church if all these have gone corrupted, some guys walking around wearing white, scarlet, and purple? At that point, why were the Prots, Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholics wrong ... since what they claim happened (corruption of doctrine) can theoretically happen? To me, it's about the fact that Our Lord founded the Church on the papacy as a rock, where people could remain anchored to it and be assured of not being led astray (in any serious way at least). I even consider the big "5 Opinions" debate to be a distraction. We'll never solve that debate here, when much bigger minds than ours couldn't come to a clear consensus. None of those 5 Opinions dealt with the question of the Magisterium being corrupted, just the pope "as a private person", and they held it to be impossible that the Magisterium could undergo any kind of significant corruption.
-
For me, the driving theological principle is that it's not possible that the Magisterium, the Mass, the Universal Discipline (Canon Law), and the cult of saints (with their pantheon of bogus saints, despite most theologians holding canonizations to be infallible) can be corrupted.
Yes, I agree. I'm just saying it's much bigger than that. Hypothetically, if every *real* Catholic in the world (probably about 30% of all catholics) agreed that V2 was a sham and that all V2 popes were fake, that only solves the problems in the Church theoretically. Practically speaking, God has still allowed the Church to be infiltrated with up to 50% of all the clergy who are freemasons intent on destroying Her (with the rest of the 50% of the clergy not sure how to solve the problems because they don't control the leadership positions), and the practical issues of the new mass, new sacraments, new catechisms, etc still remain.
In other words, even if most of a country realizes that their govt is illegitimate communists, the practical problems of a bad govt remain.
-
Yes, I agree. I'm just saying it's much bigger than that. Hypothetically, if every *real* Catholic in the world (probably about 30% of all catholics) agreed that V2 was a sham and that all V2 popes were fake, that only solves the problems in the Church theoretically. Practically speaking, God has still allowed the Church to be infiltrated with up to 50% of all the clergy who are freemasons intent on destroying Her (with the rest of the 50% of the clergy not sure how to solve the problems because they don't control the leadership positions), and the practical issues of the new mass, new sacraments, new catechisms, etc still remain.
In other words, even if most of a country realizes that their govt is illegitimate communists, the practical problems of a bad govt remain.
Of course. None of this "solves" the crisis, as one poster put it. For me, the big thing is not to throw the Church under the bus and start assimilating Old Catholic attitudes and ecclesiology in the process. Ideas matter, and theology matters even when they have no practical effect.
-
Yes, agree totally.
-
. . .
There's absolutely nothing "ridiculous" about this, and with this comment we have yet another armchair poster here deriding the work of arguably the top theologian in the Church before Vatican II based on a gross oversimplification of it.
Whatever you think of it, it's far preferable to your heretical assertion that "actual" papal authority can corrupt the Magisterium, the Mass, the cult of the saints, and everything else those scoundrels have corrupted. I'd rather be a sedeprivationist than a purveyor of some variation on Protestantism, Old Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. This is precisely what the Prots claimed, that the Church had become corrupt, and what the Old Catholics claim, that the Church had departed from Tradition, and what the Eastern Orthodox claim, that the Pope has some "primacy of honor," i.e. that it suffices to pay lip service to him.
Of course, while I agree with sedeprivationism being the most rational position, I don't believe that's the actual explanation for what's happened to the Church. I believe that these men have not been material popes either, that Cardinal Siri had been elected the legitimate pope and remained thus until his death in 1989. By then there were few Cardinals left who had been appointed by Pius XII, the last legitimate pope to appoint Cardinals, and also that it's highly doubtful that Ratzinger and Bergoglio were valid bishops.
I see. How dare I! Nonsense. Anything I say, anything anyone says, is subject to the same standards on the merits of what is said. Period. The same faults are continually committed, because we don't learn from Scripture. Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., was a leader of the Church and a learned man. Yet what he said and thought is subject to the dictates of truth, i.e., reason, the laws of reason, correspondence with reality (i.e., facts), etc.
As I said, he was leader of the Church, and with others in the hierarchy "sitten in Moses's seat." Matt. 23:2. Of course, as Our Lord taught, those sitting in that seat, the legitimate heirs, also can teach falsely contrary to Scripture (Matthew 15, Mark 7), and we are even told to be wary and on guard against their "doctrine" and to test it's compliance with God's Word (Matthew 16:11-12; Galatians 1:8-9), but, as I said, us sheeple don't learn much from the Scripture's right under our noses.
You can claim "Old Catholic" all you want, and I'm sure the current Pharisees love to hear that argument, which they turn back on you quite easily and appropriately. Of course, when you reject the hierarchy, it's not "old" Catholic, but Traditionalism. It's also hypocrisy. You have a mote in your eye, brother. But, of course, I'm being "oversimplistic."
I'd rather be a sedeprivationist than a purveyor of some variation on Protestantism, Old Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. This is precisely what the Prots claimed, that the Church had become corrupt, and what the Old Catholics claim, that the Church had departed from Tradition, and what the Eastern Orthodox claim, that the Pope has some "primacy of honor," i.e. that it suffices to pay lip service to him.
:laugh1::jester:
You're not paying "lip service to him," because it's not "him." Right. Got it. We've had 5 or 6 "not hims" in the seat over the last 55 years.
There's an inherent contradiction between the "indefectibility" of the united Roman Catholic hierarchy - which we both admit is the true successors of the Apostles and the rulers in Christ's true Roman Catholic Church - and the Conciliar Church. You resolve it by a factual end run around the facts by claiming it's not "fact" because it's all illusion: popes are not popes, bishops are not bishops, etc. Fine. I resolve it by looking to Scripture, and finding that this reality, these popes and bishops given us by Providence, accords with what God has said in the Scriptures He has given us. We both know that we have heretics and apostates governing the Church of Christ, sitting in authority. I find your "resolution" ridiculous and palpably spitting in the face of reality; you find my "resolution" - God said His Holy Catholic Church would be given false shepherds according to His just will and judgment - heretical Old Catholicism.
Yet the points I make about the "Conti theory," i.e., your theory of indefectiblity (and, yes, the indefectibility taught by the pre-V2 theologians) not holding are not rebutted by you. And that main point being, according to that theory and the one you profess to hold to, the indefectibility of the Church is GONE because that theory requires a hierarchy with the true power of jurisdiction to "command" and govern Christ's sheep. That hierarchy being gone, the theory evaporates into the void - such is my contention.
My contention is not that the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ, and that its popes and bishops are not popes of the true Church of Christ; they are. It is my contention that is the Great Deception, the Great Apostasy, the Great and Final "mystery of inquity," that this temporary "prevailing" is by the Hand of God, a judgment visited upon "Israel," the chosen and true Israel - Catholic Israel- before Our Lord's return. A judgment similar to that visited upon the current hierarchy's likewise legitimate predecessors, the Pharisees and Scribes. I believe God meant us, His Catholic people, to learn from that, and hence He gave us notice in the Scriptures.
If you want to have a serious discussion about that point being wrong, by all means. Where is this "governing body," for example, this hierarchy necessary to the theory and its continuing application? Join the argument. If all you can do is say, "wise men like Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, O.P disagree (and DR's just an 'armchair theologian')," or "DR's an 'Old Catholic' heretic . . . you lose the argument. Sorry. You can't evade a true observation and argument with such rhetorical tripe.
If I'm wrong, in the spirit of true Catholicism and inquiry, show me to be in error on the merits. I'll gladly say I'm wrong, and renounce my error. That's how serious and righteous discussion between brothers should work.
DR
-
I see. How dare I! Nonsense. Anything I say, anything anyone says, is subject to the same standards on the merits of what is said. Period.
Precisely. What was "said" was nothing but a gratuitous assertion made by someone who wasn't competent to even make the assertion in the first place. And the authority of a poster factors in as well. Bishop Guerard des Laurier forgot more theology in one afternoon than most of us have in total, and it takes some kind of hubris to dismiss it with a sentence, deriding it as absurd and ridiculous. Everyone's entitled to disagree, and no one is being forced to accept his Thesis, but it takes quite some audacity to dismiss the thinking of arguably the top theologian in the Church before Vatican II as absurd and ridiculous.
-
You resolve it by a factual end run around the facts by claiming it's not "fact" because it's all illusion: popes are not popes, bishops are not bishops, etc. Fine. I resolve it by looking to Scripture ...
So now you're adding Protestantism into the mix of all your other errors by "looking to Scripture"? I resolve it by appealing to the principles of Catholic ecclesiology. No Pope, Doctor, or theologian has entertained the notion that the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship (Mass) and cult of the saints could become corrupt, so corrupt that Catholics would be forced in their consciences to sever communion with the hierarchy to remain Catholic. No one. Ever. Those allegations were made only by Protestants, Old Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox. At one point you were here promoting almost verbatim the Old Catholics principles in their Declaration of Utrecht.
-
I'm curious to see +Vigano's reaction to this excommunication. Will he ignore it or will he act as if its valid?
-
Precisely. What was "said" was nothing but a gratuitous assertion made by someone who wasn't competent to even make the assertion in the first place. And the authority of a poster factors in as well. Bishop Guerard des Laurier forgot more theology in one afternoon than most of us have in total, and it takes some kind of hubris to dismiss it with a sentence, deriding it as absurd and ridiculous. Everyone's entitled to disagree, and no one is being forced to accept his Thesis, but it takes quite some audacity to dismiss the thinking of arguably the top theologian in the Church before Vatican II as absurd and ridiculous.
I see. Same old, same old. Rhetoric. Can anything good come from Galilee? These people who know not the law are cursed. Got it. No substantive argument. Still losing.
-
So now you're adding Protestantism into the mix of all your other errors by "looking to Scripture"? I resolve it by appealing to the principles of Catholic ecclesiology. No Pope, Doctor, or theologian has entertained the notion that the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship (Mass) and cult of the saints could become corrupt, so corrupt that Catholics would be forced in their consciences to sever communion with the hierarchy to remain Catholic. No one. Ever. Those allegations were made only by Protestants, Old Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox. At one point you were here promoting almost verbatim the Old Catholics principles in their Declaration of Utrecht.
None of them have seen what we have seen. But we have had our prophets in the foreshadows, like Cardinal Manning. And we, like the blind Pharisees, have the Scriptures.
Did I say, "Scriptures"? Uh oh. Here comes the Great Bugbear, a Catholic citing Scripture "like a Protestant."
First, Old Catholicism, and now Protestantism.
Got it. You're hiding behind more rhetoric.
Deal with the argument.
-
Did I say, "Scriptures"? Uh oh. Here comes the Great Bugbear, a Catholic citing Scripture "like a Protestant."
Yep, when you derive an ecclesiology from the "Scriptures" that contradicts all the principles of Catholic ecclesiology, yep, that's textbook Protestantism.
-
Yep, when you derive an ecclesiology from the "Scriptures" that contradicts all the principles of Catholic ecclesiology, yep, that's textbook Protestantism.
Still losing.
Think about it. Maybe you'll be able to address the substance of the argument some day.
-
Still losing.
Think about it. Maybe you'll be able to address the substance of the argument some day.
There is very little substance to your "argument", your private interpretation of Scripture in contradiction of Catholic ecclesiology. What little substance you've actually presented has been refuted.
With regard to the "substance" of your "argument" against sedeprivationism, it consisted or an arrogant dismissal of the position as absurd/ridiculous, where you could have a pope without authority, betraying your ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of the Thesis, namely, that it's more akin distinguishing between an pope-elect and a pope. It's analogous to the condition of a layman who had been elected to the papacy and accepted, but before he received episcopal consecration. There's an impediment there to the exercise of certain aspects of papal authority that cannot be exercised by anyone other than a bishop.
-
Promoting the common good is not required in order to acquire the authority of an office he holds.
[...]
I do realize we are analyzing Vigano's contention regarding defective consent to accept the office, and not the sedeprivationist argument I have delineated above.
.
The idea that an evil intention deprives someone of office is the very foundation of the Cassiciacuм Thesis, and yet I don't think I've ever seen them quote one canonist or theologian who ever said this.
-
There is very little substance to your "argument", your private interpretation of Scripture in contradiction of Catholic ecclesiology. What little substance you've actually presented has been refuted.
With regard to the "substance" of your "argument" against sedeprivationism, it consisted or an arrogant dismissal of the position as absurd/ridiculous, where you could have a pope without authority, betraying your ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of the Thesis, namely, that it's more akin distinguishing between an pope-elect and a pope. It's analogous to the condition of a layman who had been elected to the papacy and accepted, but before he received episcopal consecration. There's an impediment there to the exercise of certain aspects of papal authority that cannot be exercised by anyone other than a bishop.
You know better than that. This is extremely weak, and can easily be dismissed.
My argument goes to the heart of ecclessiology and indefectibility, and goes way beyond the issue of a pope or a vacant seat, or a seat occuplied by a "pope elect" rather than a pope. This is another of your merely rhetorical moves, done for effect, and mere posturing.
When the papal seat is vacant in normal times - all times prior to the Great Apostasy - the Church continued to have a hierarchy with the Catholic faith who had "governing authority," a true, real power of jurisdiction to command observance with Christ's law, subject to discipline. The existence of that was a necessary requirement of the Church's indefectibility as understood prior to V2 and the Conciliar phenomenon. There is no longer such an hierarchy. Ergo . . . as I said, you know better than the actual posturing you're showing us. You CAN connect the dots, but refuse to.
Still losing. And I'm still waiting.
Maybe some day you will present a real argument on the merits, instead of talking to yourself about the distinction between popes and pope elects.
:facepalm:
-
I'm curious to see +Vigano's reaction to this excommunication. Will he ignore it, or will he act as if its valid?
Yes, that would be interesting. However, two thoughts:
(1) This was written almost 2 months ago.
(2) It's Ron Conte.
Does Vigano even know of him/know about the "excommunication"? If he does, would/does he even care what he thinks?
Maybe he would if his purpose is to convert the Novus Ordos.
-
Yes, that would be interesting. However, two thoughts:
(1) This was written almost 2 months ago.
(2) It's Ron Conte.
Does Vigano even know of him/know about the "excommunication"? If he does, would/does he even care what he thinks?
Maybe he would if his purpose is to convert the Novus Ordos.
I didn't realize who Conte wasn't till after I posted that.
-
The idea that an evil intention deprives someone of office is the very foundation of the Cassiciacuм Thesis, and yet I don't think I've ever seen them quote one canonist or theologian who ever said this.
:facepalm: No, it's not. It's peripheral. It's merely one explanation for WHY Bergoglio et al. didn't have formal authority. Another would simply be manifest heresy making them non-members of the Church. I've explained this several times, but this falsehood keeps resurfacing.
What's at the core of the Thesis is the distinction between the legal appointment to office and the ability to formally exercise the authority of the office.
St. Robert Bellarmine cited Pope St. Celestine's declaration regarding Nestorius, that Nestorius lost his authority from the moment he began to "preach" his heresy (i.e. became a pertinacious manifest heretic) while not being formally removed from office until a couple years later. He said that during the interim period (between his manifest heresy and his legal removal from office), Nestorius was in a state of excommunicandus, not unlike the state of "suspension" in Father Chazal's variant of sedeprivationism. This is where the Thesis finds the right balance between the Church's authority and the incapacity of an individual to exercise the office. This incapacity could be caused a number of factors, and the defect of intention is one speculative explanation for it, and is not "the very foundation of the Cassiciacuм Thesis", as has been falsely claimed. So, for instance, a layman who's elected pope but isn't consecrated a bishop becomes the Pope immediately upon acceptance, and can probably exercise certain administrative functions of the office, but cannot, for instance, teach the Church. Other things that might exclude from formal exercise of office are manifest heresy and defect of intention.
In terms of a "Canonist" or "theologian," who's said this, it's universally held that the elected, the candidate, must ACCEPT the office in order to become the Pope. Pius XII even mentioned acceptance in his docuмent on the then-future papal conclave. So the argument here is that Bergoglio et al. did not in fact accept the office of the papacy for what it was intended to do. I don't find this the most convincing reason, and it's held by Bishop Sanborn and some of the Italians, but, to repeat, this is NOT central to the Thesis, much less is it "the very foundation" of it, as you claim.
-
I'd like the straight (non- or anti- sedeprivationist) sedevacantists to explain the following situation.
There were many manifest heretic bishops before Vatican II. Let's take the case of Cardinal "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." Cushing, whose heresies are too many to detail here. Or, if you don't believe that for Cushing (I heard differently from Aunt Helen), let's just take a hypothetical manifest heretic bishop before Vatican II who was nevertheless not removed from office by Pius XII.
What was this bishops status according to straight sedevacantism? With straight SV, he was a non-bishop simpliciter. So then all the priests in the diocese of Boston were free to break from Cushing and set up their own chapels, etc.? Or were the priests required to remain in subjection to Cushing in order to receive the necessary jurisdiction for hearing Confessions, etc.?