Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on October 25, 2019, 01:52:22 PM
-
Note that there is an important (critical) discrepancy between Dr. Lamont’s description of St. Bellarmine’s position regarding the deposition of heretical popes, and Siscoe/Salza’s description of St. Bellarmine’s position on that subject:
According to Dr. Lamont, St. Bellarmine’s position is, “that a manifestly heretical pope loses the papacy ipso facto, with no need or possibility for an intervention of the Church.”
(See Dr. Lamont’s “Open Letter” here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/'open-letter'-author-criticizes-the-sspx-for-attacking-the-said-letter/msg672833/?topicseen#msg672833 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/'open-letter'-author-criticizes-the-sspx-for-attacking-the-said-letter/msg672833/?topicseen#msg672833))
This is also the interpretation given to St. Bellarmine by most sedevacantists.
Siscoe/Salza, however, say nearly the opposite, in arguing that St. Bellarmine and Cajetan/JST were in agreement that the Church had to be involved in the deposition process (with the disagreement between them being merely whether or not the Church had to make a second declaration regarding the fact of the deposition, after tge initial declaration of the pope’s heresy).
Presuming I have properly understood Dr. Lamont and Siscoe/Salza, the two interpretations of St. Bellarmine on papal deposition are mutually exclusive.
Someone is not reading St. Bellarmine correctly.
-
I don't think the distinction is all that important. The important thing to remember is that the pope has deposed himself. The only question is when was he deposed. St Robert would say that as soon as his heresy has become manifest. John of St Thomas would say not until the Church has declared him deposed. But I doubt John of St Thomas was imagining a scenario where the pope was a public heretic for many years while the Cardinals did nothing. But if the pope is a manifest heretic and the Cardinals have done nothing for decades, what does that say about the Cardinals? Pretty obvious isn't it?
-
I don't think the distinction is all that important. The important thing to remember is that the pope has deposed himself. The only question is when was he deposed. St Robert would say that as soon as his heresy has become manifest. John of St Thomas would say not until the Church has declared him deposed. But I doubt John of St Thomas was imagining a scenario where the pope was a public heretic for many years while the Cardinals did nothing. But if the pope is a manifest heretic and the Cardinals have done nothing for decades, what does that say about the Cardinals? Pretty obvious isn't it?
Disagree:
If the Siscoe/Salza interpretation of Bellarmine is correct, we know Francis has not been deposed with infallible certitude, by the mere fact that the Church has not declared his heresy!
But if Dr. Lamont is correct in his presentation of St. Bellarmine’s position (ie., no need for Church Intervention), then Francis might not even be pope today.
That is why I say resolving the discrepancy is critical.
-
Step 1: Determine/declare that the pope is a manifest heretic. (Required by all major theologians).
.
Step 2: (debatable). Does the Church need to declare the former pope is deposed?
.
The Church has yet to do either step. Step 1 is a necessity, which is why ‘OnePeterFive’ is calling for the Church officials to corner the pope on his errors. If the Church determines that the pope is a manifest heretic, then the pope would depose himself. But not before.
-
Disagree:
If the Siscoe/Salza interpretation of Bellarmine is correct, we know Francis has not been deposed with infallible certitude, by the mere fact that the Church has not declared his heresy!
But if Dr. Lamont is correct in his presentation of St. Bellarmine’s position (ie., no need for Church Intervention), then Francis might not even be pope today.
That is why I say resolving the discrepancy is critical.
It would be almost irrelevant if the Cardinals had immediately leapt into action the moment he made his heresy manifest. It is only because this thing has been dragging on for decades that we have this problem. But that just shows that it wasn't just the pope who left the Church. It is also true that the Cardinals almost entirely fell into heresy as well. And that allowed the "pope" to remove all Catholic bishops and replace them with heretics and perverts. It also allowed him to replace Catholic ordination/consecration rites with non-Catholic pseudo rites. So the Conciliar Church has no Catholic clergy/hierarchy at all. There's no need to declare or depose anyone or anything in the Conciliar Church because it's not the Catholic Church (as +Lefebvre himself explicitly said publicly many times). There is only the need for Catholic clergy to elect a true Catholic pope. It took the Church centuries to declare the Anglican orders invalid. Meanwhile, it was already assumed that they were invalid. That's where we Catholics are now. We just assume the whole Conciliar Church is an invalid fraud. We're moving on now. Slowly.
-
Step 1: Determine/declare that the pope is a manifest heretic. (Required by all major theologians).
.
Step 2: (debatable). Does the Church need to declare the former pope is deposed?
.
The Church has yet to do either step. Step 1 is a necessity, which is why ‘OnePeterFive’ is calling for the Church officials to corner the pope on his errors. If the Church determines that the pope is a manifest heretic, then the pope would depose himself. But not before.
Your "Step 1" is ambiguous:
Who is determining and declaring?
According to Lamont's take on Bellarmine, no Church involvement is required (which would also mean the theologians are NOT unanimous).
This implies any Catholic can make a determination for himself. I believe this would be ruinous for Church unity and cause schisms, which makes it hard to believe Bellarmine would really have thought like this.
But according to Siscoe/Salza's take on Bellarmine, yes, the Church must be involved.
Sure wish I could read Bellarmine in Latin.
-
It would be almost irrelevant if the Cardinals had immediately leapt into action the moment he made his heresy manifest. It is only because this thing has been dragging on for decades that we have this problem. But that just shows that it wasn't just the pope who left the Church. It is also true that the Cardinals almost entirely fell into heresy as well. And that allowed the "pope" to remove all Catholic bishops and replace them with heretics and perverts. It also allowed him to replace Catholic ordination/consecration rites with non-Catholic pseudo rites. So the Conciliar Church has no Catholic clergy/hierarchy at all. There's no need to declare or depose anyone or anything in the Conciliar Church because it's not the Catholic Church (as +Lefebvre himself explicitly said publicly many times). There is only the need for Catholic clergy to elect a true Catholic pope. It took the Church centuries to declare the Anglican orders invalid. Meanwhile, it was already assumed that they were invalid. That's where we Catholics are now. We just assume the whole Conciliar Church is an invalid fraud. We're moving on now. Slowly.
You are an ecclesiavacantist conclavist (i.e., you just said there are no Catholic clergy, yet the catholic clergy must elect a pope)?
By "clergy," then, you must refer to some independents?
Serious question: Why then do you not accept "Pope" Michael?
PS: Lefebvre did not believe the conciliar and Catholic churches were entirely distinct (See good article here: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/ (http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/))
-
The approach in the Open Letter is actually quite interesting and has much to commend it. For one thing, the signatories explicitly avoid choosing and openly declare they have no intention of choosing one side between Cardinal Cajetan and Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine - that, they say, is for the Church Herself i.e. the Bishops to determine and rule on how they wish to proceed. It's actually an eminently defensible canonical procedure, it leaves everything for the Bishops to judge. Unfortunately, I don't think many Bishops have stepped up.
There are some 5000+ Bishops in the Catholic Church. Supposing at least 50 Bishops, 1%, begin to say, something like, "The Pope has fallen into heresy. That is sure and clear. Now we're working out whether he is obstinate, or ready to correct and retract." At that point, we could consider whether the Pope was losing his office. Both the heresy and the pertinacity must be manifest, i.e. the Pope must be manifestly obstinate in defending his heresy, even knowing he contradicts the Church in doing so. At that time, no longer universally accepted, he would fall from office. And then the Bishops of the Church could declare this fact, and then with Cardinals elect a new Pope.
It's unlikely all this will go ahead right now - but at least one good thing has come out of all this, the heretics in the Vatican now know the Traditional and even Conservative world is watching and won't just let them get away with anything. I think the best thing to do would be for good Bishops and Cardinals, like in their recent declaration of Truths, to define a few important dogmatic Truths taught by Tradition, and say that anyone who teaches otherwise, by the Church's Traditional Teaching, is anathema. Or, they could all profess the anti-Modernist Oath, or some other traditional Creed, like the Tridentine profession of Faith, and demand the Pope profess it. Or so on. But they have to step up now, imho, otherwise the process can't proceed much, since by divine law, they are the only judges with habitual ordinary jurisdiction in the Church beside the Pope.
-
...but at least one good thing has come out of all this, the heretics in the Vatican now know the Traditional and even Conservative world is watching and won't just let them get away with anything...
Well, the conservatives might not let them get away with it, but the silence coming from Menzingen is deafening. They want their deal.
-
As discussed, Rev. Fr. Pagliarani, Superior General, said recently, to the question, "In your opinion, what should these prelates and faithful do who have at heart the future of the Church?
First of all, they should have the lucidity and courage to recognize that there is a continuity between the teachings of the Council, the popes of the post-conciliar era, and the current pontificate. Citing the magisterium of "Saint" John Paul II, for example, to oppose Pope Francis's innovations is a very bad remedy, one that is doomed to failure from the outset. A good doctor cannot simply use a few stitches to close a wound without first evacuating the infection inside the wound. Far from despising these efforts, it is a matter of charity to indicate where the root of the problems lies.
To give a concrete example of this contradiction, it is sufficient to mention one name among others: that of Cardinal Müller. He is presently the most virulent opponent of Amoris lætitia, the Instrumentum laboris, and the Curia's reform project. He uses very strong language, even talking about "breaking with Tradition." And yet, this cardinal who has the fortitude to publicly denounce these errors is the same one who wanted to impose the acceptance of the whole Council and the post-conciliar magisterium on the Society of Saint Pius X (in continuity with his predecessors and successors at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Regardless of the Society and its positions, Cardinal Müller’s criticism, which focuses only on the symptoms without going back to their cause, gives rise to a most damaging and illogical situation." https://sspx.org/en/church-its-head-50632 (https://sspx.org/en/church-its-head-50632)
See also: Although arguing at great length that the cause of the disaster of this pontificate lies squarely at the feet of the Second Vatican Council, the Superior General is not dismissing the radical nature of the current pontificate. He describes Amoris Laetitia in the following dramatic fashion: “Amoris lætitia represents, in the history of the Church in recent years, what the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the modern history of Japan: humanely speaking, the damage is irreparable. It is undoubtedly the most revolutionary act of Pope Francis.” https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2019/09/17/a-true-doctor-of-souls-diagnoses-the-cancer-that-produced-the-malignant-tumor-of-the-pope-francis-pontificate-an-interview-of-father-davide-pagliarani/ (https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2019/09/17/a-true-doctor-of-souls-diagnoses-the-cancer-that-produced-the-malignant-tumor-of-the-pope-francis-pontificate-an-interview-of-father-davide-pagliarani/)
-
According to Dr. Lamont, St. Bellarmine’s position is, “that a manifestly heretical pope loses the papacy ipso facto, with no need or possibility for an intervention of the Church.”
"Manifest" heresy means that the Church has determined, through St Paul's 2 rebuke process (from Scripture), that a person is pernicious/obstinate in their error. In regards to the pope, the only Catholics who could determine such, would be the Cardinals, which is what +Burke stated and why they sent +Francis the "dubia" letter.
.
This is also why 'OnePeterFive' is asking Church leaders to continue the dubia process and corner +Francis on his heresies, so as to determine if he is pernicious/obstinate.
.
Once such pernicious/obstinacy is determined, then a person is declared manifest and they would fall from office immediately (i.e. they would judge themselves).
-
Step 1: Determine/declare that the pope is a manifest heretic. (Required by all major theologians).
Well, Determine vs. Declare are the sticking points. I believe that "determination" is key and not declaration. Declaration may be a part of the Church's determination process (if, for instance, the Church is divided on the matter), but I don't believe that the declaration has any other effect. In cases where the Church might be unanimous and the situation is obvious (e.g. Bergoglio were to come out and state, "I know that the Church teaches Jesus is God, but I don't believe it."), there's no need for ANY declaration whatsoever, since it would simply be obvious. Certainly the Church needs to decide whether she believes the man to be a Catholic or not. And I believe that to be St. Robert Bellarmine's meaning. S&S keep using language that the Church must find the Pope juridically guilty of a crime, as if the Church were passing sentence on him, and that's nothing short of a flavor of Conciliarism.
-
"Manifest" heresy means that the Church has determined, through St Paul's 2 rebuke process (from Scripture), that a person is pernicious/obstinate in their error.
But rebukes are a process thing, and there's no magic (or canonical) effect from the rebukes. If Bergoglio just admits it, "Hey, the Church teaches this dogma, but I don't believe it." ... there's no need for any rebuke whatsoever. That is only in the case of Bergoglio insisting that he's orthodox when the Church says otherwise.
-
According to Lamont's take on Bellarmine, no Church involvement is required (which would also mean the theologians are NOT unanimous).
But here's the key to Bellarmine. Manifest heresy deposes ipso facto. But manifest to WHOM? To my 85-year-old Aunt Flo? Obviously not. But, rather, to the Universal Church. When St. Robert speaks of determining heresy, it's a question of the Church coming to RECOGNIZE it, to make up her mind. If some process is needed, it's because the Church is divided, and there must be a way for the Church to "make up her mind," so to speak.
Let's say 50% of the Church considered the Pope a heretic, but 50% did not. How does one resolve this impasse? What is the actual "mind of the Church"? Heresy has become manifest to half the Church? Heresy has become manifest to one person? Heresy has become manifest to 25 people? Here we have the case of a Papa Dubius, where there's neither universal acceptance nor universal rejection. Now, what if it was 75% thinking Francis is just dandy, while 25% think he's a heretic? Those 75% convene a Council and declare Francis orthodox? But what's stopping that 75% from being wrong and perhaps even heretical themselves?
This is a colossal mess. There's no simple or simplistic answer. I believe we are in just such a Papa Dubius situation.
Let's say I and thousands of Catholics have serious grounds for considering him a heretic. Am I now required to shut up and pretend that what he's spouting is NOT heresy (when I obviously know that it is) just because the rest of the Church hasn't come around yet? S&S would have to say yes, that it's dogmatic fact that he's Pope. But then I cannot even BEGIN to raise the question of possible heresy, since that would make me a heretic and a rejecter of dogmatic fact.
-
“Ipso facto” penalties are part of canon law. So, yes, the rebuke process is related to and has a “juridical effect”. The declaration of manifest heresy logically follows the determination/rebuke process.
.
Even if the pope came out tomorrow and said “I don’t care about doctrine, this is what I believe.” The Church would still need to declare him a heretic. You may not need any rebukes (since the former pope was belligerent about his error), but a declaration is necessary, just for Church unity’s sake. And also for canon law’s sake. While an “ipso facto” penalty has an immediate effect, Church law would still have to “rubber stamp” that thr former pope did say “x heresy” on “x date”, to record the matter. The Church is a government, let’s not forget.
.
One could argue that the process of electing a new pope would necessarily presume the former pope is not valid (and that’s true) but processes and clarity in the law are important. Personal decisions and personal judgements have no place in canon law, which is part of the justice system. “The wheels of justice turn slowly” as it is said. How much more deliberate is the Church, looking back at history? We must have patience and wait for the Church to act.
-
Siscoe's and Salza's work has some merits, and moreover was endorsed by several Society Bishops and Priests prior to its publication.
Now, let's look at the question more carefully, especially considering a certain famous text of Fr. Ballerini, of St. Robert's school,
Step 1: The Cardinals (or at least a handful, say 10% of them) rebuke the Pontiff. The Pope rejects this first admonition of the Church
Step 2[a]: The Bishops (or at least a handful, say 10% of them) rebuke the Pontiff. The Pope [Alternative 1] does not reject this second admonition.
In such a case, the day is saved, the Pontiff retracts, the heresy is corrected - something like a solemn anathema of it should be instituted, or some kind of dogmatic profession of Faith, or Creedal requirement etc, in future, for the Pope - and the Church goes on.
But otherwise, suppose,
Step 2[ b ]: The Bishops (or at least a handful, say 10% of them) rebuke the Pontiff. The Pope [Alternative 2] rejects this second admonition also, and no longer universally accepted, at this point of time, openly and publicly declares and manifests himself as a formal heretic.
Then, as mentioned here, the Pope would fall from the Pontificate. And the vacancy of the Apostolic Throne of St. Peter can be declared.
"“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. (Italics added) (7)"http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/heretical.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/heretical.htm) Note the bolded. So it is after one or two warnings, from the Cardinals, or the Roman Clergy, or from a Synod of Bishops, now no longer UA, that the Pope falls from the Chair.
Such, at least, is the canonical process for this case. My view is, if it goes forward, itself unlikely, Alt 1 is more likely than Alt 2.
But let's pray, wait, work and see. We know Our Lord Jesus and Our Mother Mary are in control despite everything. They will take care.
-
Now, what if it was 75% thinking Francis is just dandy, while 25% think he's a heretic? Those 75% convene a Council and declare Francis orthodox? But what's stopping that 75% from being wrong and perhaps even heretical themselves?
True, it’s quite an unprecedented situation. And your example shows the ridiculousness of many sedes who go around saying “I just know he’s not pope.” Or “it’s just so clear to me...”. Who cares what you think? Who cares what I think? It matters about as much as arguing what temperature we think it’ll be tomorrow. It will be what it will be. The Church will act, or she won’t. Eventually the pope will die, so it won’t matter.
-
You are an ecclesiavacantist conclavist (i.e., you just said there are no Catholic clergy, yet the catholic clergy must elect a pope)?
By "clergy," then, you must refer to some independents?
Serious question: Why then do you not accept "Pope" Michael?
PS: Lefebvre did not believe the conciliar and Catholic churches were entirely distinct (See good article here: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/ (http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/))
You just admitted that I said the Catholic clergy must elect a pope, yet you accuse me of being an ecclesiavacantist? C'mon, man.
The Catholic clergy are those men who have been accepted into the clerical state by Catholic bishops. But Conciliar bishops are not Catholic bishops. In order to be Catholic you have to profess the Catholic faith which Conciliar bishops most certainly do not.
See this article for how a pope might be elected without the cardinals: https://romeward.com/articles/239749895/a-valid-papal-election-without-cardinals
David Bawden was not elected by Catholic clergy. And even if he was elected by Catholic clergy, he hasn't even made any pretense to actually govern the local church of Rome. Therefore it is certain that he is not the Roman Pontiff. But at least he is Catholic. Which makes his claim slightly more believable than the Pachamama-worshipping sodomite in Rome.
If the most you can say is that +Lefebvre did not believe the Conciliar and Catholic Churches were entirely distinct then it follows that he did believe they were distinct. Can we say the same for XavierSem, Praeter and the other neo-SSPX people who recognize a heretical sodomite as the supreme authority of their Fag Mafia-led syndicate?
-
Siscoe's and Salza's work has some merits, and moreover was endorsed by several Society Bishops and Priests prior to its publication.
Now, let's look at the question more carefully, especially considering a certain famous text of Fr. Ballerini, of St. Robert's school,
Step 1: The Cardinals (or at least a handful, say 10% of them) rebuke the Pontiff. The Pope rejects this first admonition of the Church
Step 2[a]: The Bishops (or at least a handful, say 10% of them) rebuke the Pontiff. The Pope [Alternative 1] does not reject this second admonition.
In such a case, the day is saved, the Pontiff retracts, the heresy is corrected - something like a solemn anathema of it should be instituted, or some kind of dogmatic profession of Faith, or Creedal requirement etc, in future, for the Pope - and the Church goes on.
But otherwise, suppose,
Step 2[ b ]: The Bishops (or at least a handful, say 10% of them) rebuke the Pontiff. The Pope [Alternative 2] rejects this second admonition also, and no longer universally accepted, at this point of time, openly and publicly declares and manifests himself as a formal heretic.
Then, as mentioned here, the Pope would fall from the Pontificate. And the vacancy of the Apostolic Throne of St. Peter can be declared.
"“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. (Italics added) (7)"http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/heretical.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/heretical.htm) Note the bolded. So it is after one or two warnings, from the Cardinals, or the Roman Clergy, or from a Synod of Bishops, now no longer UA, that the Pope falls from the Chair.
Such, at least, is the canonical process for this case. My view is, if it goes forward, itself unlikely, Alt 1 is more likely than Alt 2.
But let's pray, wait, work and see. We know Our Lord Jesus and Our Mother Mary are in control despite everything. They will take care.
There are 224 living cardinals in the Conciliar Church. So 10% is 22. You have exactly ONE who has publicly rebuked Frank. That's about .5%. That means 99.5% are going along with Frank. Doesn't that meet your definition of Universal Peaceful Acceptance? By your own standard, Cardinal Burke is a heretic. And you are a heretic for questioning the legitimacy of a universally and peacefully accepted pope. Either that or you are hypocrite. Which is it?
-
you accuse me of being an ecclesiavacantist? C'mon, man.
The Catholic clergy are those men who have been accepted into the clerical state by Catholic bishops. But Conciliar bishops are not Catholic bishops. In order to be Catholic you have to profess the Catholic faith which Conciliar bishops most certainly do not.
Can you give me some examples of Catholic clergy in 2019?
-
Can you give me some examples of Catholic clergy in 2019?
Many of the neo-SSPX clergy are still Catholic, the Resistance, CMRI, SSPV and other sede clergy. If you limited the UPA theory to only those clergy who actually profess Catholic doctrine then it would quickly become apparent that there is NOT universal peaceful acceptance of any of the Conciliar popes.
-
Many of the neo-SSPX clergy are still Catholic, the Resistance, CMRI, SSPV and other sede clergy. If you limited the UPA theory to only those clergy who actually profess Catholic doctrine then it would quickly become apparent that there is NOT universal peaceful acceptance of any of the Conciliar popes.
So I am deducing your principle, which seems to be this: The next pope must come from the election of those who have no jurisdiction or office to elect a pope?
-
Quote from: Clemens Maria (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=53751.msg672884#msg672884) on Fri Oct 25 2019 16:21:21 GMT-0500 (CDT)
You just admitted that I said the Catholic clergy must elect a pope, yet you accuse me of being an ecclesiavacantist? C'mon, man.
The Catholic clergy are those men who have been accepted into the clerical state by Catholic bishops. But Conciliar bishops are not Catholic bishops. In order to be Catholic you have to profess the Catholic faith which Conciliar bishops most certainly do not.
See this article for how a pope might be elected without the cardinals: https://romeward.com/articles/239749895/a-valid-papal-election-without-cardinals
David Bawden was not elected by Catholic clergy. And even if he was elected by Catholic clergy, he hasn't even made any pretense to actually govern the local church of Rome. Therefore it is certain that he is not the Roman Pontiff. But at least he is Catholic. Which makes his claim slightly more believable than the Pacha-mama-worshipping sodomite in Rome.
If the most you can say is that +Lefebvre did not believe the Conciliar and Catholic Churches were entirely distinct then it follows that he did believe they were distinct. Can we say the same for XavierSem, Praeter and the other neo-SSPX people who recognize a heretical sodomite as the supreme authority of their Fag Mafia-led syndicate?
The John Daly article you cite referring to “extraordinary conclaves” lists two possible categories of papabile:
“An imperfect general council, i.e. a council of all the world’s bishops, which however is called “imperfect” because no council is fully general in the absence of the pope and of course the absence of the pope is in this case the very reason for summoning the council. The basis of this solution is that in the absence of the pope the bishops are the highest authority in the Church.
The Roman clergy. The basis of this solution is that the pope is pope because he is bishop of Rome. The cardinals are considered to be the chief clergy of Rome. In their absence, the remaining clergy of Rome become competent to elect their bishop, who, in virtue of being bishop of Rome, will be pope.”
But none of the bishops or clergy you mention as still comprising “Catholic clergy” meet either of these two requirements.
Consequently, there is no possibility of the Church heirarchy recovering and reestablishing itself.
Conclusion: The Church has defected (or equally untenable: Its constitution has substantially mutated such that we now have a perpetually non-hierarchical “church”).
-
So I am deducing your principle, which seems to be this: The next pope must come from the election of those who have no jurisdiction or office to elect a pope?
I’m not sure there is an office or jurisdiction to elect a pope. I wondered about that too but I’ve been told that cardinals don’t have jurisdiction to elect a pope, it is simply a function of the office. I don’t understand it so maybe talk to someone who knows more about it than me. But keep in mind that you don’t need to be a bishop nor do you need to have ordinary jurisdiction to elect a pope because not all cardinals who have participated in elections were bishops and not all the cardinals who were bishops were ordinaries. And Cardinal Billot or was it another prominent 20th c theologian, I can’t remember, said that in the event that the cardinals are wiped out, the power to elect would devolve to either the Roman clergy or a general council. And you don’t have to be an ordinary or a bishop to participate in a general council or a gathering of the local Roman clergy.
-
Can you give me some examples of Catholic clergy in 2019?
Since it appears you do not include the traditional clergy, can you give examples of Catholic clergy in 2019?
-
Can you give me some examples of Catholic clergy in 2019?
Am assuming you're referring to someone with actual ordinary jurisdiction, and I completely agree this is a problem; to name the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI, etc., misses the point since none of them have it and doesn't resolve the issue. And if this has disappeared so has the Church; even if it'd then somehow be miraculously recovered, it'd still be a new institution. So who and where are these shepherds?
-
Since it appears you do not include the traditional clergy, can you give examples of Catholic clergy in 2019?
Everyone with an office who has not been formally excommunicated?
-
Everyone with an office who has not been formally excommunicated?
Can you name one or two?
-
Can you name one or two?
Every Bishop in America? Canada? Pick another country?
-
Every Bishop in America? Canada? Pick another country?
So, all of the bishops in the Conciliar Church are Catholic?
-
So, all of the bishops in the Conciliar Church are Catholic?
Materially.
-
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 (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 (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.
-
Materially.
What's your stance on the various NO sacraments? Which do you think are valid and which do you think are doubtful?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
No, I disagree with you, who have clearly stated what is objectively false.
You reveal yourself as a bad-willed Liar. +Lefebvre:
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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 (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 (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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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).
-
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:
-
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.
-
Even if the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil, receiving Holy Communion could represent a material, rather than formal, participation in the evil. Material participation in evil can be permitted based on various circuмstances. So, in a grave situation, such as danger of death, I do not see how it would be illicit to receive a doubtfully-valid Holy Communion that resulted from a Novus Ordo consecration.
-
My contention is that the NOM is intrinsically evil only in the scholastic/philosophical sense of lacking something normal to its nature (eg., an offertory, or a man with one arm, etc.), but not in the moral sense.
It is in this sense that the SSPX and allied groups have taught the intrinsic evil of the new Mass.
Were this not true, then one would be at a loss to explain how Lefebvre said grace could pass to one who, allegedly, would be committing an intrinsically evil moral act (which by definition would mean the recipient would not be well-disposed, having erected the obex gratiae of insincerity to block the transmission of grace).
One would also be at a loss to explain how Lefebvre could say in 1980/1981 tgat the faithful could fulfill their Sunday obligation at the NOM, if in doing so, they were committing an intrinsically evil moral act (which by definition is exactly contradictory to the precept of sanctifying the Lord’s day).
Finally, we would be forced to acknowledge the very grave sins and unreliable leadership of an Archbishop Lefebvre who taught and permitted these allegedly intrinsically evil moral acts.
In other words, it is nonsense to claim as the Hewkonian/Pfeifferian’s do, that attending the NOM is an intrinsically evil moral act.
-
Sean, we're discussing Holy Communion from a liturgically sacrilegious service, not Confession. If you want to discuss the analogous confession scenario it is this:
.
You ask a priest to hear your confession tomorrow and he says “Yes, I’ll hear your confession. Meet me at the health club at noon tomorrow and we can sit by the pool drinking beers while I forgive you your sins.” Would you go to confession in this scenario?
.
This gravely immoral, blasphemously scandalous situation is a mockery of the sacrament, yet it doesn’t come close to the abomination of the new mass, and thus all Holy Communions from this utter blasphemy are tainted.
.
Such “grace” received at such services is not sanctifying grace but only actual grace, coming from the “well disposed” individual’s piety and Faith. The sacrament itself is doubtful, while the mass is certainly immoral. No sanctifying grace can come from an immoral mass, nor from a confession gotten poolside while drinking beers. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
-
Sean, we're discussing Holy Communion from a liturgically sacrilegious service, not Confession. If you want to discuss the analogous confession scenario it is this:
.
You ask a priest to hear your confession tomorrow and he says “Yes, I’ll hear your confession. Meet me at the health club at noon tomorrow and we can sit by the pool drinking beers while I forgive you your sins.” Would you go to confession in this scenario?
.
This gravely immoral, blasphemously scandalous situation is a mockery of the sacrament, yet it doesn’t come close to the abomination of the new mass, and thus all Holy Communions from this utter blasphemy are tainted.
.
Such “grace” received at such services is not sanctifying grace but only actual grace, coming from the “well disposed” individual’s piety and Faith. The sacrament itself is doubtful, while the mass is certainly immoral. No sanctifying grace can come from an immoral mass, nor from a confession gotten poolside while drinking beers. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
Please reread (or read for the first time) my post just before yours above.
-
So, in a grave situation, such as danger of death, I do not see how it would be illicit to receive a doubtfully-valid Holy Communion that resulted from a Novus Ordo consecration.
Holy Viaticuм is different from participating in the new mass and receiving Holy Communion from such an evil service. I still don’t agree with the new-rite, Holy Viaticuм but that’s your scenario, not Sean’s.
.
Sean is not simply arguing that it’s ok in danger of death, he then applies the allowance to “ignorant” folks, then also to those in “necessity”. See how the slippery slope devolves? It’s much the same slippery slope logic which abuses EENS.
-
Holy Viaticuм is different from participating in the new mass and receiving Holy Communion from such an evil service. I still don’t agree with the new-rite, Holy Viaticuм but that’s your scenario, not Sean’s.
.
Sean is not simply arguing that it’s ok in danger of death, he then applies the allowance to “ignorant” folks, then also to those in “necessity”. See how the slippery slope devolves? It’s much the same slippery slope logic which abuses EENS.
I think you like to make stuff up as you go.
But did you realize there is no theology in your response? Only emotional sliganing.
-
Sean, as the sede topic proves, +ABL was anything but consistent on many topics. I don’t agree with +ABL on the new mass and I never have (and many other Trads didn’t either). The new mass must be judged on all 3 levels equally - validity, legality and morality. +ABL falsely elevated validity as being the main question to resolve, even while the new mass failed the other two questions (legality, morality) with flying colors.
.
A satanic mass can be valid but obviously immoral and illegal. If one can attend a valid new mass, then one can attend a black mass. A black mass is obviously worse in degree of sin, but they are both immoral of the same kind - they are not catholic. Validity is of far less importance in determining morality than the service’s purpose and goal. (Which was +Ottaviani and Bacci’s conclusion as well). This is why +ABL’s theology is wrong.
-
Sean, as the sede topic proves, +ABL was anything but consistent on many topics. I don’t agree with +ABL on the new mass and I never have (and many other Trads didn’t either). The new mass must be judged on all 3 levels equally - validity, legality and morality. +ABL falsely elevated validity as being the main question to resolve, even while the new mass failed the other two questions (legality, morality) with flying colors.
.
A satanic mass can be valid but obviously immoral and illegal. If one can attend a valid new mass, then one can attend a black mass. A black mass is obviously worse in degree of sin, but they are both immoral of the same kind - they are not catholic. Validity is of far less importance in determining morality than the service’s purpose and goal. (Which was +Ottaviani and Bacci’s conclusion as well). This is why +ABL’s theology is wrong.
Wrong:
ABL’s position regarding Mass attendance changed, but not his theology (grace passes/does not pass).
None of your evasions will hide the fact that if the NOM confects a valid sacrament, then Trent applies, and it is infallibly certain that a well-disposed communicant receives an increase of sanctifying grace.
One attending a black Mass would not be well-disposed.
I can go on refuting your confused, homemade errors till the cows come home, but it apparently is only making you a more pertinacious heretic.
“Let he who hateth correction...”
-
So is one “well disposed” who receives communion at a Latin mass, without fasting 1 hour? Because we know that this mass is valid, but such an act is illegal. Doesn’t the illegality make this Holy Communion sinful?
-
P.s. You dodged my question concerning going to a poolside confession while drinking beer. This concerns whether circuмstances can make a valid sacrament immoral. Hint: They certainly can.
-
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."
Xavier Sem,
So say the theologians . . . blah, blah, blah.
I happened to read Paul IV’s cuм Ex again this morning. It’s amazing how God in His providence gave us, through His Holy Pontiff Paul IV, such clear guidance to steer us through the maze of the “theologians.”
How’s this for a theologian, elevated by the Holy Ghost to the See of Peter, successor to blessed St. Peter himself with primacy over the Church of Christ and a charism that none of your theologians were granted - Pope Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostalatus Officio:
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]
that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-
that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).
http://sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html
That our Lord should make it perfectly clear that this should be a guidance to us in these troubled times, he directed Pope Paul IV so say:
By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority. We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.
1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.
Sure, now go ahead, cite your theologians, and argue about whether this is still “binding” and of legal effect.
As far as I’m concerned, I - or any Catholic seeking to hold to the Catholic faith - find clear guidance in these words of a successor of Peter about our current situation, and the finer questions of the theologians as to dogmatic facts, continuity of the apostolic succession, etc. can await unraveling in the time of the beatific vision.
I think blessed Paul IV settled your (and anyone else’s) “universal acceptance” question quite clearly, thank you.
DR
-
cuм ex was partly abrogated with the promulgation of the 1917 CIC.
-
cuм ex was partly abrogated with the promulgation of the 1917 CIC.
Yeah, I know it's a law, but ... as often is the case with laws, it's merely a concrete expression of some theological principle.
Here we have a "law" that overrules Universal Acceptance? Popes cannot be deposed by force of law. To me this is more a statement of principle, that a heretic cannot be a pope.
-
P.s. You dodged my question concerning going to a poolside confession while drinking beer. This concerns whether circuмstances can make a valid sacrament immoral. Hint: They certainly can.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, the Communion is fine, but the bastardised and improper rite of Mass surrounding it makes it evil? Or am I misunderstanding?
Also, what are your thoughts on the validity and liceity of Anointing of the Sick?
-
cuм ex was partly abrogated with the promulgation of the 1917 CIC.
Yes sir, just as anticipated.
-
Yeah, I know it's a law, but ... as often is the case with laws, it's merely a concrete expression of some theological principle.
Here we have a "law" that overrules Universal Acceptance? Popes cannot be deposed by force of law. To me this is more a statement of principle, that a heretic cannot be a pope.
Yep. You got it Lad.
-
The theologians who wrote about universal acceptance did so well after cuм ex was promulgated.
They would have had all that in mind when they were writing.
It is a reasonable conclusion, therefore, to say that cuм ex does not trump the universal consent (i.e., If it did, Billot et al coul not have made the universal consent argument).
PS: It was not I who down-thumbed Lad and Decem R.
-
The theologians who wrote about universal acceptance did so well after cuм ex was promulgated.
They would have had all that in mind when they were writing.
It is a reasonable conclusion, therefore, to say that cuм ex does not trump the universal consent (i.e., If it did, Billot et al coul not have made the universal consent argument).
PS: It was not I who down-thumbed Lad and Decem R.
I never said it was “unreasonable.”
If V2 has taught me anything, it has taught me to distrust the theologians and an argument from a tacit acceptance of what they say. I’ve mentioned this on another thread: someone name me a clerical “theologian” (I mean Traditional, Sede, R & R or Resistance) who asserts plainly and without quibbling that one must have explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation to be saved. I can’t think of one; in fact, I believe they to a man allow for “implicit faith” for those in other religions who are “inculpable” and “invincibly innocent.” Doe that “universal” “consensus” of these living theologians indicate it is now de fide that such explicit faith in the Son of God is not necessary?
Anyway, I don’t condemn your view . . . you can keep it, and have it. I merely say Paul IV is expressing a matter of divine law and knew what he was talking about. I side with him and find him by virtue of his office and grace a more reliable authority.
-
Even if the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil, receiving Holy Communion could represent a material, rather than formal, participation in the evil. Material participation in evil can be permitted based on various circuмstances. So, in a grave situation, such as danger of death, I do not see how it would be illicit to receive a doubtfully-valid Holy Communion that resulted from a Novus Ordo consecration.
It would be illicit to receive a doubtful communion because canon law says it's illicit. Secondly, +ABL and +W aren't allowing the novus ordo ONLY "in danger of death", and neither is Sean. They are condoning attendance for normal situations, for normal catholics. What are the parameters for such attendance? It's very hazy. Validity seems to be the litmus test, as validity = grace. All other evil circuмstances are ignored (illicitness and immoral/sacrilegious behavior).
-
It would be illicit to receive a doubtful communion because canon law says it's illicit. Secondly, +ABL and +W aren't allowing the novus ordo ONLY "in danger of death", and neither is Sean. They are condoning attendance for normal situations, for normal catholics. What are the parameters for such attendance? It's very hazy. Validity seems to be the litmus test, as validity = grace. All other evil circuмstances are ignored (illicitness and immoral/sacrilegious behavior).
More inaccuracies from you, but I lost patience some time ago.
Pax Vobis believes adultery is permissible.
-
cuм ex was partly abrogated with the promulgation of the 1917 CIC.
In its provision on loss of ecclesiastical office without declaration (canon 188.4), the 1917 Code of Canon Law quotes this bull for its teaching on loss of office through heresy. This demonstrates that the Code’s teaching on loss of office without a declaration through heresy (and a Catholic’s ability to recognize it) is in accord with this bull.
-
Pax Vobis believes adultery is permissible.
Sean resorts to posting gibberish because he can't defend his position.
-
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 (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 (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.
Please cite your sources. If you can give me even one Catholic source for the idea that there must be at least one living ordinary at every moment of time, then I will concede. But I've had this argument with dozens of people and so far not one source has ever been produced. 61-year heretical hierarchy with no end in sight is contrary to the teaching of all the theologians. Gallicanism is condemned. Your idea that you can resist a legitimate Successor of Peter is condemned. If you read the theological manuals carefully, you will see that a 61-year systematic r&r scenario is not possible. Whereas a 61-year sede vacante has never been denied or condemned by any theologians. Of course, you could always just go novus ordo conservative and then I would see that at least on the authority of the pope you are consistent but then I would stop calling you Catholic. I'd rather you stay Catholic but really you should also be consistent in your treatment of papal authority.