Author Topic: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo (Read 20443 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #150 on:** October 21, 2020, 11:49:50 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 21, 2020, 11:20:56 AM

my main issue here is still that until the Church in some way *tells us* that Francis is a manifest and formal heretic and thus has fallen from the pontificate, its just a theory, at best.

To a point it is just a theory. So, for instance, Archbishop Lefebvre speculated too about other possible explanations. Was Paul VI replaced by a double? Was he insane? He dismissed those. I don't think he broached the subject of whether Paul VI was blackmailed on account of sodomy (a real possibility). In that case, his acts weren't free.

That's why I don't really care how one lands on the Pope issue. What I care about is this ...

Catholics cannot say that the Catholic Church has done all this evil. That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church. Either these things that have been done were not evil (conservative Novus Ordites) or else it was not the Catholic Church doing them (sedevacantists) ... for whatever reason, or with whatever explanation, the explanation being theoretical, as you put it, and just an opinion.

Here's my take. I do not recognize the Conciliar Church as the Catholic Church because it lacks all the marks of the Church: it's got corrupt doctrine, corrupt Sacraments, a corrupt Mass, corrupt Canon Law, corrupt moral discipline, etc. etc.

This is where there IS in fact a role for private judgment, identifying the Church as the one founded by Our Lord. Vatican I taught this in the lesser know teachings of the Council (overshadowed by papal infallibility), that the reason plays a role in assessing the "motives of credibility" that lead one to subjecting oneself to the authority of this Church. I see these "motives of credibility" to be completely absent with the Conciliar Church, so I cannot recognize it as the Church. As one of the sheep, I do not recognize its voice as being that of the Shepherd.

Beyond that, if someone wants to say papa haereticus ipso facto depositus or papa haereticus ab Ecclesia deponendus (as Fr. Chazal does where he stipulates that they lack authority), I really don't care, as Catholics can licitly hold either opinion. Heck, I'm OK if someone wants to say that Paul VI was replaced by a double, or was blackmailed for sodomy (not sure about the other V2 papal claimants). The only thing I'm NOT OK with is to say that these evils were perpetrated on the faithful by the authority of the Catholic Church. That is absolutely impossible. And, to be honest, I'm actually fine, in principle, with the conservative Novus Ordite assertion that these things were NOT evils at all, but just need some interpretation with the hermeneutic. Now, I don't buy it, but I can't say that it's an intrinisically un-Catholic position to take ... as many articulations of R&R are. I'm MORE AGAINST THESE BAD ARTICULATIONS OF R&R than I am against those conservative NO Catholics who try applying the hermeneutic of continuity to V2, etc.

That's why I have said that I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist. I am a dogmatic indefectibilist.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #151 on:** October 21, 2020, 11:53:41 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 21, 2020, 11:20:56 AM

I can look at the things he says and conclude that many of them fall out of accord with what the Church has taught in the past. But I have no idea how I could know whether the heresy is formal or just material. And a "come on it seems obvious its formal" isn't theologically airtight

You're right. Under normal circuмstances, it's not our competence or our business to decide whether a given pope is a pertinacious heretic.

This is merely an attempt at an EXPLANATION for how this could have happened, all this evil coming from the Conciliar Church. It's a theoretical explanation and should not be seen as some kind of proof for the sedevacantist hypothesis. I believe that sedevacantists should stop trying to prove that these men are formal heretics, and just focus on the fact that this is NOT the Catholic Church. From the sedevacantist standpoint, I like the approach of a Fr. Jenkins, who says that the status of the Pope is a mystery. He quotes another priest as saying "I'm not saying that he's not the pope; I just don't see how he CAN be." And this pithy statement is exactly what I'm articulating myself. That based on all that we've seen here, we cannot see how these men could be legitimate popes.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #152 on:** October 21, 2020, 11:59:18 AM »

So the R&R answer has been that this IS the Church AND it ISN'T the Church, the two-Church theory. To me this is grasping at a kind of sedprivationist thinking, that Fr. Chazal gets even closer to with his articulation. Now, we know from Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy that one thing cannot be two things at the same time, but one material thing can have two different formal aspects. This is what they've been clumsily saying with the two-Church theory really, but they don't want to elaborate what that DISTINCTION really is, namely, that it is MATERIALLY the Catholic Church but FORMALLY the Conciliar Church, one Church considered in two different aspects. I think they're afraid of using that language because of the sedeprivationist position. But it's the only way that one (material/objective) thing, one substance, can be two different things at the same time, through the formal-material distinction. What's funny is that this concept was taught in the very first week of the Philosophy curriculum at STAS. It's THE core distinction used by the scholastics.

So, failing to make this distinction, they leave everyone with the impression that it is formally the Catholic Church and formally the Conciliar Church ... at the same time, which is logically and ontologically impossible. This is like saying that a certain animal is both a dog and a cat at the same time ... not possible. It's either one or another. Now, if geneticists were to blend a dog and a cat into some monstrous hybrid, then it would be a separate thing, having both some accidents of dog and some accidents of cat ... but substantially a new thing. So either the Conciliar Church is some monstrous hybrid, in which case it's a new thing entirely from the Catholic Church, just as this hypothetical dogcat creature would no longer be a dog nor a cat, or else it's a cat, something different from a dog. But to say that this dogcat is both a dog and a cat at the same time, that is ontologically impossible.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #153 on:** October 21, 2020, 12:06:43 PM »

Indefectibility only applies when such Conciliar evils are obligated by the Conciliar authorities. Syllogism:
.
Indefectibility protects the Church from error when She binds the faithful to believe/act in a way that is obligatory, under pain of sin.
.
All things V2 and of the Conciliar Church are not obligatory nor are they binding under pain of sin.
.
The Conciliar evils are promoted as binding (ie the evil hierarchy lies to the faithful), but legally (ie the fine print) such things are not obligatory but optional.
.
Therefore, because all things Conciliar are optional, then indefectibility does not protect the Conciliar Church from error.
.
There is nothing inherent in the idea of indefectibility that says the hierarchy (in a non-binding, non-authoritative way) cannot lie, propose, condone and support evil. Indefectibility only protects definitive teachings.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #154 on:** October 21, 2020, 12:11:38 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2020, 12:06:43 PM

Indefectibility only applies when such Conciliar evils are obligated by the Conciliar authorities. Syllogism:

That is absolutely and utterly false. You're saying that the Church can defect in pretty much every way except in terms of the core dogmatic definitions. It can have a harmful Protestant Mass that displeases God, corrupt Canon Law, totally corrupt Magisterium (minus those few core dogmas). That's a monstrous notion of the Church, that it could be 99% putrid, all except those solemnly defined dogmas.

IS THE CONCILIAR CHURCH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR IS IT NOT? that's the simple question that confronts all Catholics.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #155 on:** October 21, 2020, 12:13:00 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2020, 12:06:43 PM

Indefectibility only applies when such Conciliar evils are obligated by the Conciliar authorities. Syllogism:
.
Indefectibility protects the Church from error when She binds the faithful to believe/act in a way that is obligatory, under pain of sin.
.
All things V2 and of the Conciliar Church are not obligatory nor are they binding under pain of sin.
.
The Conciliar evils are promoted as binding (ie the evil hierarchy lies to the faithful), but legally (ie the fine print) such things are not obligatory but optional.
.
Therefore, because all things Conciliar are optional, then indefectibility does not protect the Conciliar Church from error.
.
There is nothing inherent in the idea of indefectibility that says the hierarchy (in a non-binding, non-authoritative way) cannot lie, propose, condone and support evil. Indefectibility only protects definitive teachings.

Your ecclesiology is heretical, Pax, not even close to being Catholic. You need to rethink your concept of the Church.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #156 on:** October 21, 2020, 12:23:53 PM »

It's not heretical at all. The Church is only free from error when She solemnly defines, binds or obligates a teaching. Indefectibility and Infallibility are intertwined together.
.
You attempt to apply indefectibility to non-infallible areas. This is the whole reason why V2 even had a chance to happen - an exaggeration of the authority/obedience due to the pope. An exaggeration of indefectibility leads us to follow the hierarchy into non-obligatory error - wolves leading the sheep off a cliff.
.
The pope has limits to his infallibility and this is similar to the Church's limits on indefectibility. Because indefectibility is a Church attribute which only applies to the papacy, because only the Pope can teach infallibly.

Mr G · « **Reply #157 on:** October 21, 2020, 12:27:01 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2020, 12:11:38 PM

That is absolutely and utterly false. You're saying that the Church can defect in pretty much every way except in terms of the core dogmatic definitions. It can have a harmful Protestant Mass that displeases God, corrupt Canon Law, totally corrupt Magisterium (minus those few core dogmas). That's a monstrous notion of the Church, that it could be 99% putrid, all except those solemnly defined dogmas.

IS THE CONCILIAR CHURCH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR IS IT NOT? that's the simple question that confronts all Catholics.

The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, but I think the problem or confusion comes in determining what degree are baptized Catholic have willing give their full consent of the will, with sufficient reflection to accept the Conciliar (non- Catholic) teachings? To what extent can one be IN the Conciliar church but not OF the Conciliar church?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #158 on:** October 21, 2020, 12:39:37 PM »

Quote

You're saying that the Church can defect in pretty much every way except in terms of the core dogmatic definitions. It can have a harmful Protestant Mass that displeases God, corrupt Canon Law, totally corrupt Magisterium (minus those few core dogmas). That's a monstrous notion of the Church, that it could be 99% putrid, all except those solemnly defined dogmas.

No one is obliged to attend the new mass, so the fact that it exists and is corrupted is a spiritual mystery, just like God allowed the High Priests of the Old Law to corrupt the Jєωιѕн Faith in the time of Christ.
.
Your non-sensical use of "99% is corrupted" is an emotional appeal which isn't based on reality. The truth of the matter is that if you open up the catechism, that book contains the Catholic Faith, and it is 100% based on doctrine. When you teach a child the Faith, you don't read to him St Thomas, St Augustine or Pope St Pius X. You teach him doctrine, i.e. the catechism.
.
The rest of the non-infallible Magisterium is meant to EXPLAIN the catechism in more details. So, yes, as long as DOCTRINE is not corrupted, the rest of the common, ordinary, fallible magisterium can fail and fall into error. And this % of corruption is not 99% but more like 10-15%, in importance.
.
Doctrine (i.e. solemn magisterium) is like a Turkey on Thanksgiving day and an encyclical (i.e. ordinary/fallible magisterium) is like a side dish. It's meant to complement the main entree. Normally, an encyclical is meant to expand, explain and enlighten us on doctrine. But if it doesn't, the Catholic Faith is nothing less special. Because doctrine is of Divine origin, while the ordinary/fallible magisterium is of human origin. Doctrine cannot fail, but human explanations of it can.
.

Quote

IS THE CONCILIAR CHURCH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR IS IT NOT? that's the simple question that confronts all Catholics.

.
The Conciliar Church cannot exist without the Catholic Church, so it's not a separate entity. I've heard the analogy that the Conciliar Church is like a parasite or maybe a tumor that surrounds an unhealthy organ. Our Lady of LaSalette said "The Church will be in eclipse". The True Church still exists, but is shadowed or surrounded by the conciliar sect, which feeds off the support and $ of the faithful. The dogmas, beliefs of the True Church still exist, but the V2 explanations of these dogmas are wrong. The conciliar church both says truth and error in the same sentence. It's certainly a mystery.

Stubborn · « **Reply #159 on:** October 21, 2020, 12:42:14 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on October 21, 2020, 12:27:01 PM

The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, but I think the problem or confusion comes in determining what degree are baptized Catholic have willing give their full consent of the will, with sufficient reflection to accept the Conciliar (non- Catholic) teachings? To what extent can one be IN the Conciliar church but not OF the Conciliar church?

You are right, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. If V2 would have taken place a century or more ago, they would not have kept the name Catholic, instead would have coined the new name for themselves, perhaps "Conciliar," perhaps something else.

But for our purification, in separating the sheep from the goats, they retained the name, the buildings, the clergy and most of the people by keeping "Catholic" as the name of their new religion.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #160 on:** October 21, 2020, 12:46:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2020, 11:53:41 AM

You're right. Under normal circuмstances, it's not our competence or our business to decide whether a given pope is a pertinacious heretic.

Right but no one can make the decision on where to go to Mass for us. That is solely on each one of us. Naturally that decision is going to have a huge impact on what we believe concerning the legitimacy and status of the claim(s) to the papacy. In the Great Western Schism, no one lost membership in the Church for making the wrong decision on who was the pope. But all the claimants were Catholic. Today is different. The most popular claimant (George Bergoglio) is not the least bit Catholic. So the wrong decision in this case could put you outside the Church in communion (sharing the same faith) with a heretic. You and Matthew in another thread today were talking about how finding yourself without access to the sacraments on your deathbed is a bad sign for your salvation. Well being in communion with a heretic is also a bad sign for your salvation.

TKGS · « **Reply #161 on:** October 21, 2020, 02:30:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2020, 11:17:56 AM

Right, a Pope (can't remember who) famously said that in the case of heresy, the Pope is judged, or rather shown to have already been judged, i.e. judged by man to have been judged by God (with "judged" being used in two different senses, as actually explained by S&S).

Pope Innocent III?

“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”

Mark 79 · « **Reply #162 on:** October 21, 2020, 02:45:14 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 21, 2020, 05:12:59 AM

You said; "The pope's status" is derivative of his manifest actions and statements—"automatically," "immediately," "without need for any further declaration, etc." which simply cannot be true once he accepts his election because that is an idea which contradicts the law that popes themselves have made.

The truth of the matter is that according the law, once declared that he accepts his election, he "automatically, immediately, without need for any further declaration" is instantly the true pope. In all of Church history and tradition, the only way for a pope to be dethroned, *is* indeed to self dethrone - by either dying or retiring.

Should the pope be an apostate heretic like the conciliar popes have been, then per cuм Ex, we are not to listen to him - "he may nonetheless be contradicted" is what cuм Ex says - which, even if cuм Ex never would have said this, doing this agrees with Scripture, tradition and what the Church has taught always and everywhere as regards how to deal with heretics of whatever stripe. IOW, because that is what the Church has always taught, that is what we Catholics are expected to actually do about heretic popes.

Deciding his status is a new idea and as such, per the Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins, being an idea that has *not* been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic.

Because this law is the tradition of the Church, neither can we say this law contradicts Divine Law. The popes made the law specifically so that the whole world knows with absolute certainty, exactly who the pope is and at the precise moment in time he came to be pope.

"…simply cannot be true…"—Because you say so?

At the risk of repeating myself—He can be elected (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis §34) and then fall "automatically "immediately" "without need for any further declaration" (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio).

"Deciding his status is a new idea…"—There is nothing new about recognizing manifest heresy and manifest heretics.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #163 on:** October 21, 2020, 02:51:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2020, 11:49:50 AM

To a point it is just a theory. So, for instance, Archbishop Lefebvre speculated too about other possible explanations. Was Paul VI replaced by a double? Was he insane? He dismissed those. I don't think he broached the subject of whether Paul VI was blackmailed on account of sodomy (a real possibility). In that case, his acts weren't free.

That's why I don't really care how one lands on the Pope issue. What I care about is this ...

Catholics cannot say that the Catholic Church has done all this evil. That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church. Either these things that have been done were not evil (conservative Novus Ordites) or else it was not the Catholic Church doing them (sedevacantists) ... for whatever reason, or with whatever explanation, the explanation being theoretical, as you put it, and just an opinion.

Here's my take. I do not recognize the Conciliar Church as the Catholic Church because it lacks all the marks of the Church: it's got corrupt doctrine, corrupt Sacraments, a corrupt Mass, corrupt Canon Law, corrupt moral discipline, etc. etc.

This is where there IS in fact a role for private judgment, identifying the Church as the one founded by Our Lord. Vatican I taught this in the lesser know teachings of the Council (overshadowed by papal infallibility), that the reason plays a role in assessing the "motives of credibility" that lead one to subjecting oneself to the authority of this Church. I see these "motives of credibility" to be completely absent with the Conciliar Church, so I cannot recognize it as the Church. As one of the sheep, I do not recognize its voice as being that of the Shepherd.

Beyond that, if someone wants to say papa haereticus ipso facto depositus or papa haereticus ab Ecclesia deponendus (as Fr. Chazal does where he stipulates that they lack authority), I really don't care, as Catholics can licitly hold either opinion. Heck, I'm OK if someone wants to say that Paul VI was replaced by a double, or was blackmailed for sodomy (not sure about the other V2 papal claimants). The only thing I'm NOT OK with is to say that these evils were perpetrated on the faithful by the authority of the Catholic Church. That is absolutely impossible. And, to be honest, I'm actually fine, in principle, with the conservative Novus Ordite assertion that these things were NOT evils at all, but just need some interpretation with the hermeneutic. Now, I don't buy it, but I can't say that it's an intrinisically un-Catholic position to take ... as many articulations of R&R are. I'm MORE AGAINST THESE BAD ARTICULATIONS OF R&R than I am against those conservative NO Catholics who try applying the hermeneutic of continuity to V2, etc.

That's why I have said that I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist. I am a dogmatic indefectibilist.

But… but… but… Meg said sedes believe only their opinion is correct.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #164 on:** October 21, 2020, 02:58:05 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2020, 12:23:53 PM

It's not heretical at all. The Church is only free from error when She solemnly defines, binds or obligates a teaching. Indefectibility and Infallibility are intertwined together.
.
You attempt to apply indefectibility to non-infallible areas. This is the whole reason why V2 even had a chance to happen - an exaggeration of the authority/obedience due to the pope. An exaggeration of indefectibility leads us to follow the hierarchy into non-obligatory error - wolves leading the sheep off a cliff.
.
The pope has limits to his infallibility and this is similar to the Church's limits on indefectibility. Because indefectibility is a Church attribute which only applies to the papacy, because only the Pope can teach infallibly.

No.
The Church and Pope are indefectible when they teach what has always and everywhere been taught by everyone.
ORDINARY Magisterium.

Author Topic: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo (Read 20443 times)

Ladislaus

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Ladislaus

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Ladislaus

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Pax Vobis

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Ladislaus

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Ladislaus

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Pax Vobis

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Mr G

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Pax Vobis

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Stubborn

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Clemens Maria

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

TKGS

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Mark 79

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Mark 79

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo

Mark 79

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo