Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine  (Read 4562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2019, 08:36:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on October 26, 2019, 08:29:07 AM
    So, all of the bishops in the Conciliar Church are Catholic?
    Materially.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #31 on: October 26, 2019, 08:37:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Clemens Maria, do you believe there is a Catholic Hierarchy today with Ordinary Jurisdiction? Ecclesia-vacantism is the denial of that. The Dimonds are ecclesia-vacantists. Even they don't deny there are a few episcopi vagantes here and there, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopus_vagans but valid Bishops alone are not enough. You need Papal Appointment to Office. Otherwise, Ordinary Jurisdiction cannot be transmitted.

    As for the Cardinals/Roman Clergy, what is needed is incardination into the Roman Church. For that too, a Roman Pontiff is needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incardination_and_excardination

    Your claim about me is incorrect. All the Popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI who lived and died/resigned as universally accepted Popes are certainly Popes and will always be such. The Church has already ruled on their status infallibly by accepting not only their election as Popes, but also their death as Popes. Pope Francis' election was certainly valid. But Pope Francis may lose the pontificate at some point in the future, provided he proves manifestly obstinate after one or two admonitions from the Cardinals and Bishops. I didn't say Pope Francis has already lost his office, nor even that he would necessarily do so in the future. Reread my post carefully please, and don't impute to me something I didn't say. I only outlined the canonical process by which both (1) the fact of the heresy itself, as opposed to a lesser theological error, and (2) the fact of public pertinacity, as opposed to being ready to be corrected by the Church, must be established by the Bishops and the Cardinals.

    61 year SVism hasn't taken of in 61 years. It's unlikely it'll take off even in the next 61. The scholars who wrote the letter believe all the Cardinals are real Cardinals and all the Ordinaries appointed by Pope Francis and his 5 predecessors are real Ordinaries. That's the advantage they have.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2529
    • Reputation: +1041/-1108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #32 on: October 26, 2019, 09:05:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 26, 2019, 08:36:33 AM
    Materially.
    What's your stance on the various NO sacraments? Which do you think are valid and which do you think are doubtful? 
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #33 on: October 26, 2019, 02:43:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on October 26, 2019, 09:05:24 AM
    What's your stance on the various NO sacraments? Which do you think are valid and which do you think are doubtful?

    As promulgated, I am only concerned about the new Rite of episcopal consecration (but stemming from this, indirectly, I have concerns about all the sacraments which require a priest or bishop as minister, which is all of them except baptism and marriage).

    In short, I find them all “probably” valid (but a merely probable sacrament is a doubtful sacrament), and for this reason (among others), I would not receive a conciliar sacrament from a conciliar cleric, unless necessity required it.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48042
    • Reputation: +28378/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #34 on: October 26, 2019, 04:26:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on October 26, 2019, 08:37:39 AM
    All the Popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI who lived and died/resigned as universally accepted Popes are certainly Popes and will always be such. The Church has already ruled on their status infallibly by accepting not only their election as Popes, but also their death as Popes.

    So you disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre, who clearly stated otherwise.

    In that case, you'd better make haste to return to full communion with and submission to Pope Bergoglio.
    Logged

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #35 on: October 26, 2019, 04:50:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on October 26, 2019, 04:26:00 PM
    So you disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre, who clearly stated otherwise.

    In that case, you'd better make haste to return to full communion with and submission to Pope Bergoglio.
    No, I disagree with you, who have clearly stated what is objectively false. +ABL stated Pope John Paul II's election was certainly valid, "I have no reservation whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness." and did not live to see Pope John Paul II's death in 2005. In 2005, Pope Benedict XVI was subsequently validly elected the Supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church. To knowingly, and deliberately, with full knowledge, and wilful consent, obstinately and manifestly fight against this Truth, after being fully informed of the theological basis of this Catholic teaching that Pope Benedict XVI was truly Pope, as you do, is a mortal sin. You ought to confess that mortal sin and, with firm resolve neither to believe, to profess or teach sedevacantism again, be happily reconciled to the Catholic Church.
    If you want to contest the fact that Pope Benedict XVI had universal acceptance in 2005, show at least 500 Bishops who didn't recognize him as the validly elected Pope and name him as the Pope during Mass at the time. Can you do that? I don't think so. 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48042
    • Reputation: +28378/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #36 on: October 26, 2019, 04:59:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on October 26, 2019, 04:50:31 PM
    No, I disagree with you, who have clearly stated what is objectively false.

    You reveal yourself as a bad-willed Liar.  +Lefebvre:
    Quote
    The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

    SeanJohnson conferred with his sources that +Lefebvre did in fact consider it possible that the See was vacant.  Notice how +Lefebvre holds out as a possibility that Paul VI may never have been the Pope.

    SeanJohnson had the honesty to admit that this was in fact the case.

    Now, is +Lefebvre some kind of infallible god to you where you can't bring yourself to say:  "I disagree with the Archbishop on this one." ... when in point of fact you?  Heck, I would have a newfound respect for some semblance of sincerity on your part if you were to do so.
    Logged

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #37 on: October 26, 2019, 05:07:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Rubbish taken from Fr. Cekada. Cekada is a rebel who fought +ABL and had to be expelled from the Society for grave disobedience and you go to him? Figures. Answer the quotation of 1978 where +ABL speaks about Pope John Paul II's election as being without a doubt.

    None of the 4 Lefebvre Bishops are sedevacantists, and they were closest to +ABL till teh day of his death. Not even the Resistance Bishops are sedevacantists. That is prima facie evidence against your historical revisionism.

    Also, don't hide behind +ABL. +ABL wasn't alive in 2005, and the Society's best theologians, just like +ABL said they would do in the 21st century have studied the question in more detail since the time, and like Fr. Boulet, and many others, have proved the dogmatic fact teaching in more detail recently. You are now a heretic if you deny the dogmatic fact teaching after it has been clearly proven.

    You are the bad-willed liar, Liarslaus. You won't answer this question because you know it refutes you, and you don't have the decency and honesty to discuss it patiently and honestly in an irenic manner.

    Why do I even bother being kind to you, and trying to make allowance for your subjective culpability? Your'e a heretic and schismatic who denies dogmas, like the impossibility of a 61 year sedevacante, doctrines, like the necessity of there being Popes to appoint Bishops to office, and dogmatic facts, like the fact that a Pope universally accepted by the world's Bishops, is most certainly validly elected Pope.

    You won't answer this question because you know it refutes you, so you dodge, evade, and do a bunch of other silly things: "If you want to contest the fact that Pope Benedict XVI had universal acceptance in 2005, show at least 500 Bishops who didn't recognize him as the validly elected Pope and name him as the Pope during Mass at the time. Can you do that? I don't think so."
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13165
    • Reputation: +8288/-2565
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #38 on: October 26, 2019, 05:15:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    In short, I find them all “probably” valid (but a merely probable sacrament is a doubtful sacrament), and for this reason (among others), I would not receive a conciliar sacrament from a conciliar cleric, unless necessity required it.
    The quote in red is similar to the "exceptions" for abortion (i.e. rape/incest).  We know that such exceptions are wrong, and are based on human sentimentality and not based on catholic theology.  In the same way, exceptions made for new rite sacraments are morally and logically baseless.
    Logged

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #39 on: October 26, 2019, 05:20:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Those who believe an indefinite SVism, even 60+ or 80+ years or whatever, is possible deny the Vatican I dogma that St. Peter must have Perpetual Successors. Without Petrine Succession, Apostolic Succession cannot be continued. Visiblity and many other dogmas will be affected. +ABL already summarized some 40 odd years ago theological reasons why even 20 odd year Sede-vacantism appears contrary to the dogma of visiblity, and we are supposed to believe His Grace would have no problem with a 60+ year one? What rubbish.

    "The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.
    Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings.
    We wish to remain attached to Rome and to the Successor of Peter, while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors. We are not afraid to speak to him, respectfully but firmly, as did St. Paul with St. Peter.
    And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith.
    Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.
    Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid."

    From: https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

    http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501

    The Angelus: As for the place of the pope in all this, we certainly must admit that there is a mystery here, a mystery of iniquity.

    Fr. Gleize: No doubt, but a mystery is a truth that surpasses reason; that the Church should be habitually deprived of her head is an absurdity and contrary to the promises of indefectibility. One of the reasons the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X could rely on to reject the sedevacantist hypothesis was that “the matter of the visibility of the Church is too essential to its existence for God to be able to do without it for decades; the reasoning of those who assert the non-existence of the pope places the Church in an insoluble situation.”3 Actually, your reasoning is more or less equivalent to sedevacantism. This is nothing new; but it is an old error that was already condemned by the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X. Pardon me if I disappoint you, but I will not run the risk of trying to be wiser than Solomon! The 40 years of Archbishop Lefebvre’s episcopate matter, if not in the sight of men, at least in the sight of God. Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man, a great bishop, because he was a man of the Church.

    The Angelus: Thank you, Father Gleize.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #40 on: October 26, 2019, 06:32:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 26, 2019, 05:15:39 PM
    The quote in red is similar to the "exceptions" for abortion (i.e. rape/incest).  We know that such exceptions are wrong, and are based on human sentimentality and not based on catholic theology.  In the same way, exceptions made for new rite sacraments are morally and logically baseless.

    There are no exceptions for abortion because that is an intrinsically evil act.

    But receiving doubtful sacraments is not intrinsically evil, as circuмstances can make it permissible and even obligatory.

    According to you, if I was in a state of mortal sin and dying in a car accident, and an FSSP priest showed up (or a NOM priest) to receive my confession, I would not only not be permitted to make my confession, but would commit an additional grave sin.

    Where do you come up with this stuff?

    Certainly not Archbishop Lefebvre (or any approved moralist).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48042
    • Reputation: +28378/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #41 on: October 26, 2019, 06:45:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on October 26, 2019, 05:07:03 PM
    Rubbish taken from Fr. Cekada. Cekada is a rebel who fought +ABL and had to be expelled from the Society for grave disobedience and you go to him?

    #1 ... the quotes were compiled by John Daly, not Father Cekada.

    #2 ... so you're saying he made this quotation up.  Short of that, these are simply the words of Archbishop Lefebvre.

    You are not an honest man, and I have no respect for you whatsoever.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48042
    • Reputation: +28378/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #42 on: October 26, 2019, 06:49:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on October 26, 2019, 05:07:03 PM
    Answer the quotation of 1978 where +ABL speaks about Pope John Paul II's election as being without a doubt.

    #1 ... I needn't answer the quote.  You claimed that ALL the V2 popes were beyond doubt.  I only have to show one to refute you.

    #2 ... He changed his mind later about JP2 at about the time of Assisi, thinking it highly likely that he was not a pope.

    #3 ... You continue to use +Lefebvre as if he were some inerrant rule of faith.

    #4 ... You continue to quote selectively, not taking into account that +Lefebvre was a human being who is capable of changing his mind, and he's entitled to do so.

    #5 ... You completely ignore the quote I cited from +Lefebvre and then insolently demand that I answer a different quote (which I did above).

    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #43 on: October 26, 2019, 06:53:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 26, 2019, 06:32:37 PM
    There are no exceptions for abortion because that is an intrinsically evil act.

    But receiving doubtful sacraments is not intrinsically evil, as circuмstances can make it permissible and even obligatory.

    According to you, if I was in a state of mortal sin and dying in a car accident, and an FSSP priest showed up (or a NOM priest) to receive my confession, I would not only not be permitted to make my confession, but would commit an additional grave sin.

    Where do you come up with this stuff?

    Certainly not Archbishop Lefebvre (or any approved moralist).

    Lol...I should be obliged to go to hell, in order to do the right thing!

    :facepalm:
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48042
    • Reputation: +28378/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #44 on: October 26, 2019, 06:59:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on October 26, 2019, 05:07:03 PM
    None of the 4 Lefebvre Bishops are sedevacantists, and they were closest to +ABL till teh day of his death. Not even the Resistance Bishops are sedevacantists. That is prima facie evidence against your historical revisionism.

    NOBODY has ever claimed that they were sedevacantists.  Logical Fallacy:  Straw Man.

    Nevertheless, I have demonstrated that +Lefebvre, +de Castro Mayer, +Williamson, and +Tissier do not hold the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants to be certain with the certainty of faith, i.e. they do not hold it to be dogmatic fact.  Consequently, they tacitly reject your position.  Word on the street at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in the early days was that +Gallaretta was privately sedevacantist, but there's very little by way of public statements from him about anything ... so I leave him out of consideration.

    Logical Fallacy:  False Dilemma.  You assert that because they are not sedevacantists they must agree with your opposite assertion of dogmatic sedeplenism.  They do not.  They neither agree with me, NOR do they agree with you.  They are neither sedevacantists, nor are they dogmatic sedeplenists.

    Your posts are prima facie evidence that you are a bad-willed liar.

    You simply lack the testicular fortitude to simply say that you do not agree with them when they question the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.  Consequently, you falsely allege that they back your position when they do not, so YOU engage in historical revisionism (aka lie) that they support your dogmatic sedeplenism ... when it's very easy to demonstrate that they did not.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
    « previous next »