-
JOINT STATEMENT OF SSPX-MC PRIESTS: FR. D. HEWKO & Fr. H. RUIZ V.
THE SILENCE OF THE SHEPHERDS... BUT NOT OF ALL OF THEM
IT IS NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THE DOCTRINAL AND PRUDENTIAL TRUTHS IN THIS HOUR OF DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION, IN ORDER TO GUIDE CATHOLICS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO CLAIM TO DEFEND TRADITION.
THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH IS LINKED TO THE PROFESSION OF THE FAITH
1. THE INTEGRAL AND PUBLIC PROFESSION OF THE FAITH IS NECESSARY FOR THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH, INDEED, FOR THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
2. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THOSE AMONG THE CLERGY AND THE FAITHFUL WHO PROFESS THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH, THAT IS, THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH, BECAUSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH IS ONE OF ITS MOST ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CANNOT BE DESTROYED. IF THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS NOT INTEGRAL, IT IS NO LONGER THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND IF THERE WERE NO LONGER ANYONE WHO PROFESSED ALL THE TRUTHS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, THE CHURCH WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED.
3. THE VISIBLE PROFESSION OF THE FAITH IS ABOVE ALL THE MISSION OF THE TEACHING CHURCH (ECCLESIA DOCENS) AND THIS ABOVE ALL BY DEFENDING ALL THOSE TRUTHS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING QUESTIONED. BUT EVEN SO, IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT PASTORS TEACH THE TRUTH, BUT IT IS NECESSARY THAT THEY ALSO DENOUNCE AND CONDEMN THE CONTRARY ERROR.
4. TODAY THE CHURCH ISECLIPSED BY THE ABSENCE OF TEACHING FROM THE MAJORITY OF PASTORS: WE LIVE IN THE AGE OF FAINTHEARTED, MUTE, AMBIGUOUS AND COWARDLY PASTORS. JUST AS THE APOSTLES ABANDONED AND DENIED JESUS CHRIST DURING HIS PASSION, SO TODAY THE PASTORS DENY THE CHURCH AND ABANDON IT DURING HIS PASSION.
5. THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH REQUIRES IN ITS MEMBERS FIRST OF ALL A PUBLIC PROFESSION OF THE FAITH, THAT IS TO SAY VISIBLE, IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO HAVE ONLY THE NAME OF CATHOLIC. THE CHURCH IS NOT A PRIVATE OR SECRET SOCIETY.
WHERE ARE THE MARKS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY?
1. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CANNOT IN ITSELF BE IN CRISIS SINCE IT IS ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC. THE CRISIS OF THE CHURCH IS ABOVE ALL THE CRISIS OF THOSE SICK MEMBERS WHO ARE THE BAD CHRISTIANS, AND TODAY UNFORTUNATELY, IT COMPRISES A GREATER PART OF THE CLERGY. BUT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE FOR ALL, SINCE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS FROM JESUS CHRIST THE PROMISE OF INDEFECTIBILITY, AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THOSE WHO REPRESENT IT IN ALL ITS MARKS, BUT IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT THEY BE IN GREAT NUMBERS.
2. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IS FIRST OF ALL IN THE UNITY OF THE FAITH, THAT IS, IN DOCTRINAL UNITY. THE UNITY OF GOVERNMENT IS AT THE SERVICE OF THE UNITY OF THE FAITH AND NOT THE CONTRARY.
3. THERE CAN BE NO AUTHENTIC HOLINESS WHERE THERE IS NO INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH. THE "SAINTS" WHO ERR ON FAITH ARE FALSE SAINTS AND IMPOSTORS.
4. THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH LIES IN HER ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE TO ALL PEOPLE THE TRUTHS OF THE FAITH, OF
WHICH SHE IS THE EXCLUSIVE DEPOSITORY. CONCILIAR EcuмENISM DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE IT OPPOSES THE SPREADING OF THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
5. OUR ADHERENCE TO THE APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH IS MADE POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE BY THE BOND THAT WE HAVE WITH THE APOSTLES, BUT THIS IS MAINLY REALIZED THROUGH THE FAITH THAT THEY PREACHED AND THAT HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION UNTIL OUR DAYS, THIS HERITAGE IS ALSO CALLED THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH, IT IS THE TEACHING, THE STABLE EXPRESSION, NOT EVOLUTIONARY, OF ALL THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST, THAT IS WHY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ESSENTIALLY AND IN ITSELF TRADITION.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE CONCILIAR CHURCH
1. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH THAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE DURING THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS A COUNTERFEIT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS SOMETHING NEW, A NEW CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS NOT THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS A SECT. POPE FRANCIS IS AT THE SAME TIME THE HEAD OF TWO CHURCHES: OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH, IT IS IN THIS THAT THE GREAT DECEPTION, THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION OF THE HOLY PLACE CONSISTS. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS GRADUALLY ECLIPSING THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF REPLACING IT ABSOLUTELY.
2. WE CANNOT ACCEPT SEDEVACANTISM AS A “SOLUTION” TO THE CRISIS OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE DENYING THAT ALL THE LAST POPES ARE POPES TAKES AWAY FROM THE CHURCH EVEN THE VERY HOPE OF FINDING A SOLUTION AND AN FND TO THIS TREMENDOUS CRISIS. WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CANONICALLY JUDGE THESE POPES, ONLY A TRULY CATHOLIC POPE IN THE FUTURE WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT.
3. IN THE ORDER OF VIRTUES, FAITH IS PRIOR TO OBEDIENCE. AUTHORITY IS AT THE SERVICE OF FAITH AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE FULL PROFESSION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BEING IN HARMONY WITH AUTHORITIES WHO ARE DESTROYING THE CHURCH. AT THE PRESENT TIME THE MEMBERS OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH HAVE ILLEGITIMATELY TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE HIGHEST OFFICES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THAT IS TO SAY, OF ITS STRUCTURE, IT IS NECESSARY TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IN SOME CASES IT IS LICIT TO DISOBEY MEN IN ORDER TO OBEY GOD. TO DISTANCE ONESELF FROM THIS STRUCTURE IS NOT IN ITSELF A SCHISMATIC ACT BUT SIMPLY A GREATER ACT OF PRUDENCE.
THE POISONED FRUITS OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH
1. ALL THE CONCILIAR DOcuмENTS AND ALL THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM ARE NOT, NOR CAN THEY BE, A DOCTRINAL REFERENCE FOR CATHOLICS. WE MUST REJECT AS A WHOLE ALL THE TEXTS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL TOGETHER WITH ALL ITS REFORMS.
2. PASTORS AND OTHERS WHO CITE CONCILIAR AND POST- CONCILIAR TEXTS AS CRITERIA OF AUTHORITY ARE FOSTERING
CONFUSION AND DISORIENTATION AMONG THE FAITHFUL. THE PEOPLE ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY EDUCATED TO DISTINGUISH WHAT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TRADITIONAL MAGISTERIUM FROM WHAT IS NOT. IN ADDITION, ALL THE CONCILIAR TEXTS ARE SO IMBUED WITH THE NEW SPIRIT THAT IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO FREE THEM FROM IT, NOR FROM THEIR) CONTEXT, WHICH IS FORMED BY THE OTHER CONCILIAR DOcuмENTS.
3. THE NEW MASS IS THE DIRECT FRUIT OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. ITT WAS CREATED FOR EcuмENICAL MOTIVES AND TO PLEASE PROTESTANTS, THAT IS WHY IT IS SERIOUSLY CONTAMINATED WITH PROTESTANT ELEMENTS, AND IS THEREFORE POISONED. IT WAS NOT LEGITIMATELY PROMULGATED, NOR CAN IT BE CONSIDERED A CATHOLIC RITE. IT IS SO VITIATED THAT IT CAN BE SAID TO BE EVIL IN ITSELF AND INTRINSICALLY SO.
4. SINCE THE NEW MASS IS AN INTRINSICALLY EVIL RITE, CATHOLICS SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN IT, NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT OFFENDS OUR FAITH, BUT ALSO BECAUSE IT IS AN ATTACK AGAINST IT, SINCE IN THE LONG RUN THE NEW MASS MAKES THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN IT ACQUIRE A PROTESTANT SPIRIT. CONSEQUENTLY, ATTENDANCE AT THE NEW MASS IS IMMORAL AND THEREFORE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO POSITIVELY ADVISE ANYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN IT. NEITHER IS IT LICIT TO RECEIVE THE HOSTS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSECRATED THERE, BECAUSE COMMUNION, BEING THE DIRECT FRUIT OF THE NEW MASS, IS THE MOST PERFECT FORM OF PARTICIPATION IN THIS MASS.
5. ALL THE NEW SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW CONCILIAR CHURCH ARE OBJECTIVELY DOUBTFUL BECAUSE WE CAN NO LONGER BE SURE OF THE INTENTIONS OF THEIR MINISTERS. AND ALSO OF THE NEW MASS AND OF THE EUCHARIST.
6. MIRACLES ARE THE CREDENTIAL THAT GOD GIVES TO HIS CHURCH AS PROOF OF HIS DIVINITY. ‘THE NEW MASS CANNOT BE THE OBJECT OF DIVINE APPROVAL BY MEANS OF MIRACLES. IN THE CONCILIAR CHURCH TODAY THERE ARE SO MANY ABUSES AND ANOMALIES THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CONCILIAR CLERGY ON ALLEGED "MIRACLES" CAN DEFINITELY NOT BE TAKEN AS A GUARANTEE.
7. THE PROCESS USED TODAY IN THE CANONIZATION OF THE NEW SAINTS HAS BEEN PROFOUNDLY MODIFIED BY THE NEW CHURCH, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS A DOUBT ABOUT ALL THE NEW CANONIZATIONS, BECAUSE OF A DEFECT OF FORM, ABOUT THEIR REGULARITY AND THEIR VALIDITY. THE CONCILIAR POPES, BEING MODERNISTS, NO LONGER INTEND TO DO ANYTHING ABSOLUTE AND DEFINITIVE, SINCE MODERNISM IS EVOLUTIONIST.
IS COLLABORATION WITH THE CONCILIAR CHURCH LEGITIMATE AND MORAL?
1. IN THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE CHURCH, ONE CANNOT COLLABORATE WITH THE PASTORS WHO, CONSCIOUSLY OR NOT, ARE DESTROYING THE CHURCH, BECAUSE THERE IS ALSO A VERY GRAVE DANGER OF BEING ABSORBED BY THE CONCILIAR CHURCH. IT IS A GREAT ILLUSION TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH CAN BE CORRECTED FROM WITHIN, SINCE IT IS A HIERARCHICAL SOCIETY AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROFESS THE WHOLE OF THE TRADITIONAL FAITH WITHIN ITS STRUCTURE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE WHO TODAY OCCUPY THE HIGHEST POSITIONS ARE DETERMINED TO CONTINUE THE REFORMS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. THIS IS THE ILLUSION OF THE “ECCLESIA DEI" CONGREGATIONS, OF OTHER SIMILAR INDULT CONGREGATIONS AND RECENTLY OF THE NEO-SSPX.
2. FOR THE PARISHIONERS THERE IS ALSO THE GRAVE DANGER OF BEING ABSORBED BY THE NEW CONCILIAR CHURCH THROUGH THESE ACCORDIST CONGREGATIONS, SINCE BEING SUBJECTED TO THE CONCILIAR ROME THEY CANNOT OPENLY CRITICIZE THE ERRORS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, NOR THOSE OF THE MODERNIST HIERARCHY AND END UP BEING GRADUALLY ABSORBED BY THE NEW CHURCH. THE FAITHFUL OF THE TRADITION SHOULD NOT FREQUENT THESE CONGREGATIONS SINCE IT IS NOT ONLY ABOUT THE MASS AND THE SACRAMENTS BUT ALSO ABOUT THE FACT OF FREQUENTING AN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WHOLE PASTORAL CARE THAT GOES WITH THEM. NOT TO HEED THIS WARNING IS TO EXPOSE ONESELF TO THE GRAVE DANGER OF BEING DISORIENTED AND GRADUALLY ASSIMILATED BY THE CONCILIAR CHURCH. IT IS BETTER NOT TO ATTEND ANY OF THESE MASSES OR TO FREQUENT ANY OF THESE ENVIRONMENTS AND TO WAIT UNTIL ONE FINDS A TRULY TRADITIONAL PRIEST WHO IS NOT COMPROMISED BY THE ACCORDISM OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH.
3. IT IS NECESSARY TO DISTANCE ONESELF FROM THOSE PRIESTS WHO ONLY SPEAK OF "SPIRITUAL" THEMES AND WHO NO LONGER CRITICIZE MODERN ERRORS, NOR THE ERRORS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, NOR THE AMBIGUITY OF THE “ECCLESIA DEI" AND NEO-SSPX CONGREGATIONS. THE TENACIOUS OMISSION OF CERTAIN POINTS AND THEMES OF CAPITAL IMPORTANCE CAN SOMETIMES BE A SIGN OF COMPLICITY. THE TRUTH IS FITHER TAKEN IN ITS ENTIRETY OR IT IS NO LONGER THE TRUTH, OR IT IS DEFENDED IN ITS ENTIRETY OR ONE IS NO LONGER A TRUE DEFENDER OF IT.
4. THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X WAS FOUNDED BY ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE AFTER THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL TO SAVE THE TRADITION OF THE CONCILIAR TIDAL WAVE, TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH AND TO COMBAT THE ERRORS THAT THREATEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. IT IS FOR THE SAME REASON THAT HE DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM THE CONCILIAR HIERARCHY IN ORDER TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE PRESERVATION AND DEFENSE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
5. HOWEVER, SOME OF HIS SUCCESSORS, IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS CONGREGATION, HAVE BELIEVED THAT THEY COULD DO BETTER THAN THEIR FOUNDER....THE NEW LEADERSHIP OF THE NEO-SSPX IS GRADUALLY LEADING TO THE ASSURED DESTRUCTION OF THIS WORK (OPERATION ѕυιcιdє), WHICH WAS FORMERLY FOUNDED FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (OPERATION SURVIVAL). UNDER THE PRETEXT OF “CONVERTING MODERNIST ROME" THEY HAVE ALLIED THEMSELVES WITH IT AND ARE SLIPPING INTO A REAL TRAP.
THEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM ROME VARIOUS’ "PERMISSIONS" AND "JURISDICTIONS" IN EXCHANGE FOR A CONCILIATORY ATTITUDE, I.E. THEIR SILENCE, WHICH CONSTITUTES A MAJOR COMPROMISE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SIGN A PIECE OF PAPER IN ORDER TO MAKE VERY SERIOUS COMPROMISES AND "INSIDE" THE CONCILIAR STRUCTURE, IT SUFFICES THAT THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, WHICH LITTLE BY LITTLE FORM AN AUTHENTIC AND TRUE AGREEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW THE TOLERANCE OF CERTAIN PRACTICAL FACTS BY THE RELIGIOUS SUPERIORS CAN CREATE WITH TIME A REAL LEGAL “STATUS” ...
IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNTHINKABLE WITHIN THE CONCILIAR CHURCH TO GIVE THE RIGHT TO CONFER SACRAMENTS TO THOSE PRIESTS WHO ARE NOT INCARDINATED; IF THE MEMBERS OF THE NEO-SSPX HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED "PERMISSION" BY THE CONCILIAR CHURCH TO GIVE THE SACRAMENTS IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CLEARLY ALREADY INCARDINATED; IF THE MEMBERS OF THE NEO-SSPX ARE ALREADY INCARDINATED IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE NEW CHURCH AND THAT STRICTLY IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO SIGN ANY AGREEMENT.
6. BLINDNESS IS THE FRUIT OF SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. THIS IS THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL THE CONGREGATIONS AND GROUPS THAT WERE FORMERLY TRULY TRADITIONAL AND THAT HAVE GONE BACKWARDS AND BECOME COMPROMISING. IT IS THE FRUIT OF A SERIOUSLY RECKLESS "PRUDENCE" BECAUSE IT OBSTINATELY IGNORES THE EVIDENCE THAT CERTAIN PRACTICAL ATTITUDES SERIOUSLY COMPROMISE THE FAITH. ALL THESE GROUPS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, GRADUALLY TEND TO ACCEPT THE ENTIRE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND NO LONGER WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN. THE SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS IS EVIDENT! PRACTICAL IMPRUDENCE — IN THE THINGS OF FAITH IS A COMPROMISE IN THE THINGS OF FAITH...!
7. PROOF OF THER DOCTRINAL COMPROMISE OF THE NEO-SSPX, IS FOUND IN THE DOcuмENTS PUBLICLY RELEASED IN 2012, AMONG THEM — ARE: THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION OF APRIL 15, 2012, THE GENERAL CHAPTER STATEMENT OF JULY 2012, THE SIX CONDITIONS FOR THE AGREEMENT WITH ROME AND THE INTERVIEWS WITH BP. FELLAY, FR. PFLUGER AND ETC. THE MOST SERIOUS OF THESE IS THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION, WHICH EXPRESSES ACCEPTANCE OF VATICAN II'S DOCTRINES ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, EcuмENISM, AND COLLEGIALITY, AS WELL AS ACCEPTING THE NEW MASS AND SACRAMENTS AS “LEGITIMATELY PROMULGATED", THE NEW PROFESSION OF FAITH OF 1989 AND THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW (WITH NO DISTINCTIONS).
8. DOCTRINE MORALS INFLUENCES MORALS. IF COMPROMISE THERE IS COMPROMISE IN DOCTRINE, THERE WILL NECESSARILY FOLLOW COMPROMISE IN MORALS. EVER SINCE THE NEW-SSPX HAS COMPROMISED IN DOCTRINE, THE MORAL TEACHING HAS SUFFERED COMPROMISE, AS A CONSEQUENCE. AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS THE WEAK STAND ON THE VA**+#%=NES. MANY DOCTORS AND NURSES REVEALED THEIR CONTENTS AS CONTAINING MATTER DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM CELLS OF ABORTED INFANTS, EVEN WHILE STILL ALIVE! THIS FACT ALONE, CONDEMNS ANY SORT OF PARTICIPATION IN THESE VA*#%!)*NES. LAMENTABLY, THE NEW-SSPX PUBLICLY APPROVED OF THEIR USE AND PARTICIPATION, PROVIDED ITS NON-COOPERATION PROVED TO BE A DETRIMENT TO ONE'S JOB. TWO CRIMES ARE ENCOURAGED HERE; FIRSTLY, THE INVOLVEMENT IN INDIRECT ABORTION, AND SECONDLY, DIRECT COOPERATION IN THE EUGENICS PROGRAM WHICH HAS BEEN PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED BY THE GLOBALISTS AS AN IMMORAL MEANS TO REDUCE THE WORLD POPULATION.
THE THUC LINE
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE EXPRESSED SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY AND LICITNESS OF THE THUC LINE CONSECRATIONS, ESPECIALLY THOSE LINKED TO PALMAR DE TROYA, IN SPAIN, HIS POSITION WAS TO AVOID THEM, ALTOGETHER. THERE, THEY WENT SO FAR AS TO ELECT THEIR OWN PRETEND-POPE. THERE ARE SERIOUS REASONS TO DOUBT IF SOME OF THESE THUC LINES ARE EVEN STILL INSIDE THE CHURCH. THE EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION OF A NON-CATHOLIC IS ONE OF THE SEVERAL ILLICIT ACTIONS TAKEN BY ABP. THUC, WHICH LEAVES ONE TO QUESTION IF HE WAS STILL IN HIS RIGHT MIND... (AMONG OTHER WORKS, SEE CLARENCE KELLY'S BOOK "THE SACRED AND THE PROFANE" FOR AN INDEPTH STUDY ON THIS QUESTION, DISREGARDING THE SEDEVACANTIST VIEWS EXPRESSED THEREIN).
THE PROBLEM OF THE LIBERAL SPIRIT
1. THE LIBERAL SPIRIT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS DOCTRINAL LIBERALISM, ALTHOUGH IT IS AN EMANATION OF THE LATTER.
2. THE NEW SOCIAL STATE GENERATED IN THE CATHOLIC STATES TWO CENTURIES AGO BY THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, WITH LIBERAL LAWS AND LIBERAL CULTURE HAS GIVEN BIRTH TO A NEW GENERATION OF SCHIZOPHRENIC CATHOLICS. IN A SECULAR STATE WHERE THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH LOST ITS RIGHTS AT ALL LEVELS AND WHERE ALL RELIGIONS AND DOCTRINES WERE PUT ON THE SAME LEVEL, THE SO-CALLED "CATHOLIC" LIBERALISM WAS BORN TWO CENTURIES AGO IN FRANCE. THIS "CATHOLIC" LIBERALISM WENT FROM PROMOTING PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE WITH THE ABNORMAL STATE OF SOCIETY TO ACCEPTING IT AS SUCH.
CATHOLICS WHO HAVE LIVED SINCE CHILDHOOD IN A LIBERAL SOCIETY END UP SEEING THIS SITUATION AS "NORMAL". IN TODAY'S RELATIVISTIC STATE OF SOCIETY, CATHOLICS ALMOST WITHOUT REALIZING IT HAVE GRADUALLY BECOME RELATIVISTIC THEMSELVES. THEY NO LONGER FULLY PERCEIVE THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF UNIQUENESS AND COHERENCE OF
TRUTH. THIS HAS BECOME IN THEM A SPIRIT, A STATE OF MIND, A "SENSIBILITY", A WAY OF LIFE THAT HAS ACCEPTED NOT ONLY THE PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE WITH THE MODERN SPIRIT BUT, EVEN MORE, BELIEVES THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL OR OF THE CHURCH CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE WORLD.
THE LIBERAL SPIRIT IS NOT A DOCTRINAL BUT A PRACTICAL SPIRIT THAT DOES NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINAL STABILITY OF THE CONCEPTS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH. IT IS BECAUSE THE LIBERAL SPIRIT HAS AS ITS FOUNDATION A SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST, BY NOT WANTING TO ACCEPT COMPLETELY THE EVIDENT AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TRUTH, THAT IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVERT THOSE WHO HAVE IT.
MOREOVER, THEY ARE OF SUCH A REMARKABLE TENACITY AND SO OBSTINATE THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE "MISSION" TO CONVERT DOCTRINAL CATHOLICS, AND THIS IS THE EXTENT OF THEIR BLINDNESS. THOSE WHO HAVE THE LIBERAL SPIRIT CAN TEMPORARILY ADOPT THE THESES OF DOCTRINAL CATHOLICISM BUT THEY WILL NOT PERSEVERE IN THEM BECAUSE DEEP DOWN THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEM.
3. CATHOLICS OF LIBERAL SPIRIT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE LAST TWO CENTURIES A BURDEN FOR DOCTRINAL CATHOLICS, THOSE WHO DID NOT LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT IS THE TRUE CONCEPT, FIRST THE NATURAL TRUTH AND THEN THE TRUTH OF FAITH. IN THE LAST TWO CENTURIES THE "CATHOLICS" OF LIBERAL SPIRIT WITH THEIR WORLDLY CONCEPTS OF FALSE PRUDENCE HAVE ALWAYS SABOTAGED THE EFFORTS OF DOCTRINAL CATHOLICS AND HAVE BEEN THE CAUSE OF A MULTITUDE OF DEFEATS OF CATHOLICISM, FOR EXAMPLE: THE BISHOPS WHO BETRAYED THE CRISTEROS; THE BISHOPS WHO WANTED TO RECONCILE THE CHURCH WITH THE MODERN WORLD IN THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND MORE RECENTLY FATHER SCHMIDBERGER AND BISHOP FELLAY WHO BELIEVE THEY CAN RECONCILE TRADITION WITH THE ENEMIES OF TRADITION, ETC. IT IS IN THIS SENSE THAT THE DECLARATIONS OF CARDINAL RATZINGER WERE MADE IN AN INTERVIEW HE GAVE TO THE ITALIAN MAGAZINE "JESUS": "THE CONCERN OF THE MEN OF THE CHURCH IN THE SIXTIES WAS TO RECONCILE THE CHURCH WITH TWO CENTURIES OF LIBERAL ‘CULTURE", IT COULD NOT BE SAID MORE CLEARLY!
4. THE PLAGUE OF THE LIBERAL SPIRIT, BY ITS NATURAL TENDENCY, ALWAYS AND GRADUALLY LEADS TO THE CORRUPTION OF WHAT IS TRUE CHRISTIAN PRUDENCE AND TRUE FAITH. IT IS ORIENTED TO THE PROPER DOCTRINAL LIBERALISM FROM WHICH IT ORIGINALLY EMANATED IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT THE SOCIAL KINGDOM OF CHRIST THE KING IS AT PRESENT NOT REALIZABLE.
Faced with the ongoing compromises we have no other choice but to maintain the Battle for the Holy Faith in the line of Pope St. Pius X, all the anti-Liberal Popes and of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. May Our Sorrowful Mother, who stood at the foot of the Cross, keep us faithful and give us the grace to rebuild and persevere in the integral Catholic Faith!
On the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus, we, the undersigned priests, propose the above text for the consideration of all those who love the true One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church:
Father David Hewko
Father Hugo Ruiz V.
July 1st, 2023
-
What a lame statement. These two priests are so into their minds.
The Thuc line of the Planar wouldn't exist if it weren't by the very own Abp Lefebvre who told such group to go with Bp Thuc in the first place. Canon Revaz was an Ecône professor who made the contact.
Now Bp Thuc did performed other consecrations later on like in 1981 since he was aware of the invalidity of the new rite. Abp Lefebvre back then wasn't willing to consecrate. He was busy dealing with JP2.
Now, all of this sedevacantism doesn't have a solution is another misconception. There's always a solution. If not the Church wouldn't be a perfect society. Ask the council fathers of Constance when all the three successions were put into question.
About not judging canonically it's another misconception. Canonically speaking all the usurpers of Vatican 2 have already been condemned according to Canon 188.4 and the Bull cuм Ex Appostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV. When you say Bergoglio is not a pope you're stating a fact based on reality. When you see an animal with 4 legs, barks like a dog and wags it's tail like a dog are you going to wait for a veterinarian to tell you it's perhaps a Giraffe?
Just my two cents
-
Canonically speaking all the usurpers of Vatican 2 have already been condemned according to Canon 188.4
Canonical irregularities do not invalidate a papacy.
-
Canonically speaking all the usurpers of Vatican 2 have already been condemned according to the Bull cuм Ex Appostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV.
Father Hesse:
"... They will quote Pope Paul IV... The docuмent is called cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. That's the title of the docuмent. It's a docuмent which enjoys all the infallibility it could have. It's a docuмent that uses all the legal formulas for an infallible docuмent. That means the pope says, "I, in virtue of my apostolic authority herewith declare, define and statute that and that and that and that and that and that, and that has to be held and believed by all people forever." And in that docuмent, which also rules on the election of a future pope--on the conclave, it says that no cardinal, if he is a heretic or was a heretic can be validly elected to the papacy. Many sedevacantists use this docuмent as the definite proof that John XXIII, who in their eyes was a heretic before his election, they use this as the proof that John XXIII, having been a heretic before his election, could not be validly elected. They are quite wrong on that because, again, and this is why I said you have to be careful about the distinction between matters of discipline, matters of Faith. Pope Paul [IV], with his cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, was able to bind all of his successors forever in everything that concerns moral or dogmatic teaching in this docuмent. To rule on the election of a future pope is not a moral decision. It is not a decision on moral theology. It is not a decision of Faith. It's not a matter of morals or Faith. It is the ruling of a canonical election. That means you talk about an act of administration. You talk about an administrative ruling. And that cannot, because it's mere disciplinary, cannot bind his successors, and indeed, the many successors of Paul [IV] who came up with new regulations on the conclave, including Pius X, never mentioned that paragraph again. So it's not taken up anymore. And I think if the question of a former heretic or a material heretic not being able to become pope was something that the popes cannot change, then we're probably in sedesvacancy for several centuries already. See, the present pope is not the first heretic in Church history."
-
Father Hesse:
"... One of the reasons why we cannot positively state that this pope is not pope is because first of all we need proof. We do not have this proof. Some people quote the apostolic bull of Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus against the present pope, saying that Paul IV decreed that a heretic cannot become pope. Yes, but the papal election is an act of administration, not a sacrament. It is not a theological procedure, therefore there cannot be an infallible pronouncement on it. It is an act of administration just like all elections. When in a monastery an abbot is elected, this is a canonical election. The election of the supreme pontiff among the cardinals is a canonical election. And those rules can not only be changed, but were changed a couple of dozen times over in Church history. Leo XIII changed the rules, Pius X changed the rules, Pius XI changed the rules again, Pius XII changed the rules again, Paul VI changed it, and the present pope changed it again. And none of them has ever quoted Paul IV again on this. Now the bull cuм Ex Apostolatus is an infallible bull as far as the doctrinal statements are concerned. It cannot be infallible as far as an administrative rule is concerned, saying that if a cardinal was a heretic, even if he was a heretic and converted, he cannot be validly elected pope. To be validly elected pope you need positive human law and law of administration, and that every single pope can change, much unlike the doctrinal laws, which no pope can change ever. If a pope decides on a moral issue, his successor cannot change it. Impossible. He would put himself in schism with the Church. But a rule of administration, and how it can be changed! And how! In the beginning the people of Rome elected the pope. Later on, it was the clergy of Rome, and very much later on, only 1300 years after Christ died and ressurected and founded His Church at Pentecost, cardinals were the only ones to elect the pope. So if a future pope says, "I don't want cardinals to elect the pope, but all of the bishops in the world," he's gonna make a mess but that doesn't make the election invalid. It would be horrible. I don't want to think of it. But it doesn't make the election, duly procedures required and provided, it doesn't make it invalid because it's an act of administration. And that's why I recommend the sedevacantists to be a little more careful with their judgements. The Society of Saint Pius X is not exactly composed of all idiots, and none of them nowadays consider the Apostolic See vacant. And the three priests, Fathers Sanborn, Kelly and Cekada unfortunately, because they are otherwise very good theologians, unfortunately had to be kicked out of the Society of Saint Pius X for insisting on the "fact" that we do not have a pope. To me this is a neurotic statement, too, because you put yourself in a dead end. Who's gonna elect the next pope? I leave the question to you."
-
Father Hesse:
"... Paul IV was also the one who issued the papal bull cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio that determined that a former heretic could not become pope. What I really should, for practical reasons, not passing any judgement on anyone here, but for practical purposes, I should say the '1958 sedevacantists'--those who believe that John XXIII was not pope because before he was elected he was a heretic. ... The next pope who wrote about the laws of how to elect a pope didn't even mention cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. And the papal practice was even worse. While Paul IV in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio says a former heretic cannot become pope, privately he made sure that every cardinal understood that one who was formerly suspect of heresy could not become pope. Now Leo XIII beautifully contradicted that when he made the former heretic, John Henry Newman, Cardinal John Henry Newman. So Leo XIII theoretically made a former heretic, John Henry Newman, Anglican minister who converted Catholic, became a Catholic priest, John Henry Cardinal Newman, therefore he was eligible to the papacy. Out goes cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, written by a paranoid pope anyway."
-
1. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH THAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE DURING THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS A COUNTERFEIT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS SOMETHING NEW, A NEW CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS NOT THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS A SECT. POPE FRANCIS IS AT THE SAME TIME THE HEAD OF TWO CHURCHES: OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH, IT IS IN THIS THAT THE GREAT DECEPTION, THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION OF THE HOLY PLACE CONSISTS. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS GRADUALLY ECLIPSING THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF REPLACING IT ABSOLUTELY.
2. WE CANNOT ACCEPT SEDEVACANTISM AS A “SOLUTION” TO THE CRISIS OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE DENYING THAT ALL THE LAST POPES ARE POPES TAKES AWAY FROM THE CHURCH EVEN THE VERY HOPE OF FINDING A SOLUTION AND AN FND TO THIS TREMENDOUS CRISIS. WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CANONICALLY JUDGE THESE POPES, ONLY A TRULY CATHOLIC POPE IN THE FUTURE WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT.
Why is it that they have to always toss in his crap about denouncing Sedevacantism. Sedevacantism is, as Archbishop Lefebvre stated, a real possibility. No, it's not a "solution", but it's an understanding of what's taking place here that is more Catholic than this repackaged Old Catholicism that they've gravitated towards. They continue to treat SV Catholics as if they were as much enemies of the faith as the Modernists, which is hogwash. At best, they are mistaken in their application of some theological principles to the crisis.
And what is it with the ALL CAPS? Do they have a defective keyboard? Or are they trying to make this look like some Magisterial statement?
-
Father Hesse:
"... One of the reasons why we cannot positively state that this pope is not pope is because first of all we need proof. We do not have this proof."
While this statement is strictly true, in that one cannot rule out the possibility of some unknown "Factor X", such as that Montini was being blackmailed over sodomy, and the others for other reasons, and therefore that their acts were not the free acts of Popes, and therefore lacked authority, but, absent such scenarios, we have PLENTY OF PROOF. We have rock solid theological proof. It is simply not possible for the Papacy, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, to destroy the Church, to gut the Magisterium, to destroy faith and morals, and to promulgate a Mass that displeases God, undermines the faith, and damages souls. That is all the proof we need, and it's the most certain kind of proof, theological proof.
-
Father Hesse:
"Now Leo XIII beautifully contradicted that when he made the former heretic, John Henry Newman, Cardinal John Henry Newman. So Leo XIII theoretically made a former heretic, John Henry Newman, Anglican minister who converted Catholic, became a Catholic priest, John Henry Cardinal Newman, therefore he was eligible to the papacy. Out goes cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, written by a paranoid pope anyway."
While Father Hesse is normally quite reasonable, that was really dumb. Newman converted to the Catholic Church. What Paul IV meant about someone being a Pope prior to his election means covering a time that is inclusive of the election itself. It's similar to the expression about Our Lady having been a Virgin until she gave birth to Our Lord. Father Hesse must have imbibed a little too much chardonnay before making that statement there.
-
While Father Hesse is normally quite reasonable, that was really dumb. Newman converted to the Catholic Church. What Paul IV meant about someone being a Pope prior to his election means covering a time that is inclusive of the election itself. It's similar to the expression about Our Lady having been a Virgin until she gave birth to Our Lord. Father Hesse must have imbibed a little too much chardonnay before making that statement there.
Fr. Hesse is right. cuм ex says "if ever at any time," not "during the election" - which makes no sense whatsoever....
"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...."
If in fact cuм ex is the law, then nearly all trad bishops and clergy are invalid for having been a been to whatever degree, a NOer prior to finding tradition, including even +Sanborn and the other 8 - who were all NO before Econe.
Heck, being born and raised NO before finding tradition yourself, you also would have been invalid had you gone on to get ordained - per the law of cuм ex.
-
Fr. Hesse is right. cuм ex says "if ever at any time," not "during the election" - which makes no sense whatsoever....
"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...."
If in fact cuм ex is the law, then nearly all trad bishops and clergy are invalid for having been a been to whatever degree, a NOer prior to finding tradition, including even +Sanborn and the other 8 - who were all NO before Econe.
Heck, being born and raised NO before finding tradition yourself, you also would have been invalid had you gone on to get ordained - per the law of cuм ex.
Uhm, no, that's clearly not what it means. While it's evident even in the English, it's even moreso in the Latin, that "in any time" modifies the "it shall appear" and not "has deviated from". That's surprising from Father Hesse ...
Adiicientes quod si ullo umquam tempore apparuerit aliquem Episcopum
It does not say that if it shall appear that [person] shall at any time have deviated ... which is how Fr. Hesse is reading it for some inexplicable reason.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/028/Fail-Stamp-Transparent_copy.jpg)
-
Uhm, no, that's clearly not what it means. While it's evident even in the English, it's even moreso in the Latin, that "in any time" modifies the "it shall appear" and not "has deviated from". That's surprising from Father Hesse ...
It does not say that if it shall appear that [person] shall at any time have deviated ... which is how Fr. Hesse is reading it for some inexplicable reason.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/028/Fail-Stamp-Transparent_copy.jpg)
It doesn’t matter, because the cuм ex argument has been refuted so many times here, that seeing it pop up every 30 days inspires the same fatigue as a BOD thread.
Here was +Sanborn rejecting the CEA argument (see p. 7):
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Explanation-of-the-Thesis.pdf
Invariably someone then comes along and says “but there’s a footnote on it at Can. 188.4!” as though an historic reference suggested CEA wasn’t really abrogated.
-
JOINT STATEMENT OF SSPX-MC PRIESTS: FR. D. HEWKO & Fr. H. RUIZ V.
THE SILENCE OF THE SHEPHERDS... BUT NOT OF ALL OF THEM
2. WE CANNOT ACCEPT SEDEVACANTISM AS A “SOLUTION” TO THE CRISIS OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE DENYING THAT ALL THE LAST POPES ARE POPES TAKES AWAY FROM THE CHURCH EVEN THE VERY HOPE OF FINDING A SOLUTION AND AN FND TO THIS TREMENDOUS CRISIS. WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CANONICALLY JUDGE THESE POPES, ONLY A TRULY CATHOLIC POPE IN THE FUTURE WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT.COND VATICAN COUNCIL TOGETHER WITH ALL ITS REFORMS.
Father David Hewko
Father Hugo Ruiz V.
July 1st, 2023
It is true that neither Fr. Hewko nor Fr. Ruiz has the authority to CANONICALLY judge popes. However, each may make a private judgment based on the FACT of another's public manifest formal heresy.
Using their line of thinking, who gave any of them the magisterial authority to condemn Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Rite?
-
Uhm, no, that's clearly not what it means. While it's evident even in the English, it's even moreso in the Latin, that "in any time" modifies the "it shall appear" and not "has deviated from". That's surprising from Father Hesse ...
It does not say that if it shall appear that [person] shall at any time have deviated ... which is how Fr. Hesse is reading it for some inexplicable reason.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/028/Fail-Stamp-Transparent_copy.jpg)
The translation I have says: Text translated by Mr John S. Daly a well known sede.
Who is John S. Daly (https://romeward.com/john-daly) you ask? Well click the link and you can find out about him....
"John S. Daly was born in England in 1963, educated by the Salvatorian Fathers in Harrow Weald, at Saint Dominic’s Sixth Form College, Harrow-on-the-Hill, and at Corpus Christi College in the University of Cambridge where he read Classics (i.e. studied Latin and Greek with ancient history and philosophy) and won various awards for academic excellence including two Exhibitions and a Scholarship....
He has also written or translated about a hundred articles, of which the most appreciated have included: “Essay on Heresy” by Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, “The Collapse of Luciferianism” by the Marquis de la Franquerie cuм Ex Apostolus Officio by Pope Paul IV. Daly has also written various articles and studies in French and translated Myles Keon’s Dion and the Sibyls into French..."
Therefore, it is you, not Fr. Hesse, who is once again wrong.
-
It is true that neither Fr. Hewko nor Fr. Ruiz has the authority to CANONICALLY judge popes. However, each may make a private judgment based on the FACT of another's public manifest formal heresy.
Yes, each may make a private judgement, but as you know, doing that tends to balloon out into, as Digital Logos said in his last post, sedeism "entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."
Next thing you know sedes leave established trad chapels and seminaries, open their own chapels, schools and seminaries, consecrate their own bishops, ordain their own priests etc., and it all started with a private judgement about the popes' heresies. Big deal.
It is this entire set of beliefs and practices of which DL speaks that is unique to sedeism and that has sedes making comments like this:
Using their line of thinking, who gave any of them the magisterial authority to condemn Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Rite?
-
It is true that neither Fr. Hewko nor Fr. Ruiz has the authority to CANONICALLY judge popes. However, each may make a private judgment based on the FACT of another's public manifest formal heresy.
This is circular logic because 'public, manifest heresy' are CANONICAL terms. So you're saying they don't have the authority to (publicly) judge canonically but they can do so privately. :confused:
No, that's not how catholicism works. That's not how any legal system works.
-
We've beaten the SV vs. R&R debate like a dead horse.
(https://media.tenor.com/sJeCT3uwsBEAAAAM/horse-dead.gif)
What I find objectionable is to treat the SVs as if they were as much enemies of the faith as Jorge and the Modernists, or to treat Feeneyites as being heretics on a part with Jorge and Fernandez. For some reason, they can't help themselves from calling out SVs every single time they criticize the Conciliar Church. They are "Resistance" to the orientation of the neo-SSPX and their compromises with Modernism, so stay on topic ... and unlock the Shift key.
There's a bit of an arrogance in using the all caps there, making the docuмent look like some papal bull might be printed, as if they have THE answer, and that all other answers are wrong ... by their decree.
-
This is circular logic because 'public, manifest heresy' are CANONICAL terms. So you're saying they don't have the authority to (publicly) judge canonically but they can do so privately. :confused:
No, that's not how catholicism works. That's not how any legal system works.
You should know that I was not using "public manifest heresy" in a canonical sense. We have been through this already in another thread in which you failed to provide evidence from magisterial teaching that an individual cannot judge the public sin of manifest formal heresy. Also, you did not answer my question in which I asked you that if Jorge Bergoglio were to publicly admit that he knows he teaches heresy and that if the cardinals and bishops did nothing about it, would you still accept him as pope.
-
6. MIRACLES ARE THE CREDENTIAL THAT GOD GIVES TO HIS CHURCH AS PROOF OF HIS DIVINITY. ‘THE NEW MASS CANNOT BE THE OBJECT OF DIVINE APPROVAL BY MEANS OF MIRACLES. IN THE CONCILIAR CHURCH TODAY THERE ARE SO MANY ABUSES AND ANOMALIES THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CONCILIAR CLERGY ON ALLEGED "MIRACLES" CAN DEFINITELY NOT BE TAKEN AS A GUARANTEE.
This appears to be a repudiation of Bishop Williamson's statements regarding the purported Novus Ordo "Eucharistic" "miracles".
-
7. THE PROCESS USED TODAY IN THE CANONIZATION OF THE NEW SAINTS HAS BEEN PROFOUNDLY MODIFIED BY THE NEW CHURCH, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS A DOUBT ABOUT ALL THE NEW CANONIZATIONS, BECAUSE OF A DEFECT OF FORM, ABOUT THEIR REGULARITY AND THEIR VALIDITY. THE CONCILIAR POPES, BEING MODERNISTS, NO LONGER INTEND TO DO ANYTHING ABSOLUTE AND DEFINITIVE, SINCE MODERNISM IS EVOLUTIONIST.
There's no "defect of form", since the solemn formula of canonization employed by the V2 papal claimants clearly intends to engage the infallible authority of the papacy. Defect of Process has no bearing on the protection of canonizations. That's like saying that we can reject the Dogma of the Assumption because we decided that Pius XII didn't research the question enough. God's protection of the Church's Magisterium and of canonizations does not depend on human judgment or human diligence, but is there to prevent damage being done to the Church. If some legitimate Pope failed in exerting the necessary due diligence and were on the verge of canonizing some individual who's currently in Hell, the Holy Spirit would prevent that action one way or the other.
-
4. SINCE THE NEW MASS IS AN INTRINSICALLY EVIL RITE, CATHOLICS SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN IT, NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT OFFENDS OUR FAITH, BUT ALSO BECAUSE IT IS AN ATTACK AGAINST IT, SINCE IN THE LONG RUN THE NEW MASS MAKES THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN IT ACQUIRE A PROTESTANT SPIRIT. CONSEQUENTLY, ATTENDANCE AT THE NEW MASS IS IMMORAL AND THEREFORE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO POSITIVELY ADVISE ANYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN IT. NEITHER IS IT LICIT TO RECEIVE THE HOSTS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSECRATED THERE, BECAUSE COMMUNION, BEING THE DIRECT FRUIT OF THE NEW MASS, IS THE MOST PERFECT FORM OF PARTICIPATION IN THIS MASS.
Yet another repudiation of Bishop Williamson.
-
5. ALL THE NEW SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW CONCILIAR CHURCH ARE OBJECTIVELY DOUBTFUL BECAUSE WE CAN NO LONGER BE SURE OF THE INTENTIONS OF THEIR MINISTERS. AND ALSO OF THE NEW MASS AND OF THE EUCHARIST.
So the only reason they're doubtful is due to "the intentions of the ministers"? Does this mean it's possible that they'd align with a Novus Ordo priest (without conditional ordination) if it was determined that he was ordained in the New Rite by someone who clearly had the proper intention to ordain, such as a Bishop Schneider, for instance?
-
This appears to be a repudiation of Bishop Williamson's statements regarding the purported Novus Ordo "Eucharistic" "miracles".
Yup, they’ve been saying that stupid shit for years. By arbitrarily deciding what God can do, and why He can do it, they dismiss as impossible that which is eminently plausible. The basis of their error is pretending that any such miracle must necessarily endorse the Novus Ordo (rather than promote belief in the Real Presence which that rite attacks). I say pretend, because this nonsense really began as an opportune club for an already warring Fr. Pfeiffer to beat +Williamson with. Hewko realized that he could abandon Pfeiffer, but not Pfeifferianism, if he wanted to retain any faithful (who still expect him to give Williamson the occasional wallop, to prove he’s still the last of the Mohicans, if he wants to retain them).
-
In the midst of the tragedy of the ever-increasing splintered Traditionalism movement, the historian in me finds it fascinating that we are witnessing, in real time, the re-creation of how protestantism became so splintered in such a short period. That's the only positive I can find in the present day.
Sure, there was bickering and debate in the 70s and 80s between the various Trad clerics (same as today) but they didn't have the resources/$ to properly split off from everyone and force the laity to choose. Such priests also still found a balance between serving the faithful and debating theology. They still knew and acted as if mass/sacraments > debate.
Unfortunately, now that clerics can easily find/fund any kind of building to turn into a chapel, there is no impediment to them achieving the logical conclusion of their never-ending "lines in the sand" and personal, theological, isolationist daydreams. Instead of having any kind of prudence, or discretion or moderation - the typical Trad cleric who's "in charge" of something becomes a mini-pope, a mini-hierarchy, with dreams of "saving the church" in their own way. :facepalm: Childish insanity.
-
So the only reason they're doubtful is due to "the intentions of the ministers"?
That's what bugs me about +Lefebvre, +Williamson, Hewko, Ruiz and the SSPX.
There are very objective reasons to believe that the NO sacraments are invalid, but they decide to make the basis of the doubt this subjective thing (the intention of the minister).
Even worse, they claim that the validity, say of a conferred holy order, must be assessed "case by case". What do they mean by this? Do they interrogate the bishops to see how catholic they felt the day they conferred the order?
"And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature by one cubit?" - If a man does not have the supernaturally conferred episcopacy on his soul, he can't do anything even if he's maxed out his theological virtues that day.
There was a case of +Tomás de Aquino defending some "priest" in Brazil, ordained by the Novus Ordo and NOT conditionally ordained, who I understand worked with the resistance there. There's an audio on YouTube of the bishop defending the priest but I can't seem to find it now.
-
In the midst of the tragedy of the ever-increasing splintered Traditionalism movement, the historian in me finds it fascinating that we are witnessing, in real time, the re-creation of how protestantism became so splintered in such a short period. That's the only positive I can find in the present day.
Sure, there was bickering and debate in the 70s and 80s between the various Trad clerics (same as today) but they didn't have the resources/$ to properly split off from everyone and force the laity to choose. Such priests also still found a balance between serving the faithful and debating theology. They still knew and acted as if mass/sacraments > debate.
Unfortunately, now that clerics can easily find/fund any kind of building to turn into a chapel, there is no impediment to them achieving the logical conclusion of their never-ending "lines in the sand" and personal, theological, isolationist daydreams. Instead of having any kind of prudence, or discretion or moderation - the typical Trad cleric who's "in charge" of something becomes a mini-pope, a mini-hierarchy, with dreams of "saving the church" in their own way. :facepalm: Childish insanity.
What an absolute nightmare we live in.
Every once in a while, I speak to some protestant and try to convince him of the Truth of the Catholic Faith but some of my arguments against protestantism hinge precisely on issues that today affect the Church.
-
What an absolute nightmare we live in.
Every once in a while, I speak to some protestant and try to convince him of the Truth of the Catholic Faith but some of my arguments against protestantism hinge precisely on issues that today affect the Church.
I get that as well. Traditionally, Catholic apologetics entails demonstrating the claims of the Church to be the authentic and true Church founded by Christ and a reliable guardian of Catholic doctrine. Yet we have Jorge and the problem of V2. Really, the only approach is to bluntly tell them that the Church has been infiltrated since 1958 and these men are not popes. Unfortunately Vatican II and the V2 Papal Imposters discredit the Church and the Church's claims, and in fact validate Eastern Orthodoxy and/or Old Catholicism ... if you grant that these men are real popes. That is yet another reason why SVism is the way to go.
-
I get that as well. Traditionally, Catholic apologetics entails demonstrating the claims of the Church to be the authentic and true Church founded by Christ and a reliable guardian of Catholic doctrine. Yet we have Jorge and the problem of V2. Really, the only approach is to bluntly tell them that the Church has been infiltrated since 1958 and these men are not popes. Unfortunately Vatican II and the V2 Papal Imposters discredit the Church and the Church's claims, and in fact validate Eastern Orthodoxy and/or Old Catholicism ... if you grant that these men are real popes. That is yet another reason why SVism is the way to go.
Can confirm that since abandoning Lefebvrism my debates with non-Catholics were much more effective. People would always point to Francis and I'd sound delusional explaining how it doesn't matter what he does. The funny thing is I was never comfortable with that part but now it's clear as day to me.
-
I get that as well. Traditionally, Catholic apologetics entails demonstrating the claims of the Church to be the authentic and true Church founded by Christ and a reliable guardian of Catholic doctrine. Yet we have Jorge and the problem of V2. Really, the only approach is to bluntly tell them that the Church has been infiltrated since 1958 and these men are not popes. Unfortunately Vatican II and the V2 Papal Imposters discredit the Church and the Church's claims, and in fact validate Eastern Orthodoxy and/or Old Catholicism ... if you grant that these men are real popes. That is yet another reason why SVism is the way to go.
Here's a typical problem I face:
Prot: But Francis/BXVI/JPII did/said [insert heresy/heterodoxy]...
Me: That's why we consider them anti-popes.
Prot: So each time something displeases you about a pope, you declare him an anti-pope...
I think that there are two ways of answering this:
1) Prove that there are reasons to believe that these men were never popes in the first place (BXVI known for heterodoxy since the 60s, JXXIII suspect of heresy since the 1910s, etc.)
2) Analyze their particular statement to show that it directly contradicts all previous doctrine.
The second way is tiresome and obviously I don't know all the answers nor can I cite from memory all dogmatic docuмents that are contradicted by the anti-popes. Also it could suggest that the pre VII doctrine is in some way on the same level as the post VII. "At the end of the day it's just two guys, Pius V and Paul VI, contradicting each other!" - the prot could say.
Would the answer 1) be valid?
-
#2 is less tiresome and more productive for both you (learn more church history) and the protestant. Doctrine is a much higher reference point and a more solid foundation for debating than a (so called conspiracy) theory about pope x, y or z wasn't pope. In the end, even if you could prove 100% that pope x wasn't a pope, you still have to explain doctrine vs current errors so the person could learn the Faith.
-
In the midst of the tragedy of the ever-increasing splintered Traditionalism movement, the ONE WHO WANTS TO SAVE HIS SOUL…finds it DISTRESSING that we are witnessing…the re-creation of…protestantism…”
Sure, there was bickering and debate in the 70s and 80s between the various Trad clerics,…but they didn't…split off from everyone and force the laity to choose.
:facepalm: Childish insanity.
They have created a situation wherein the faithful find themselves shut out, cancelled, cut-off from the Mass and Sacraments.
Frs. A, B, and C used to work together serving the faithful. Within five years, arguments arose over non-dogmatic (established by the Magisterium) issues, matters which no priest may justly impose on the consciences of the faithful, and sometimes, matters of personal conflict between themselves! Each priest has a group of followers from among the faithful who take his side or are attached to him by convenience or default. The groups soon become exclusive, like middle school girls’ cliques.
Just as among school children, a few of the faithful don’t fit. They recognize that the glue holding the cliques together has gone rancid. It still sticks, but it stinks. The “issues” don’t concern them. The misfits recognize the issues get in the way of their salvation.
The priests, having no superiors or fellow priests to keep them in balance, acquire one-track minds, seeing everything and everyone through the lense of his own interpretation. (Protestant way of thinking) He is usually unaware that he has gotten off track, as are his flock.
The misfits become hapless monkeys in the middle. If they attend the Mass of Fr. A, Fr. B and Fr. C won’t have them. If Fr. B, Frs. A and C, oppose them. When Frs. A and B find out they’ve gone to Fr. C, they reject them. In the end, the misfit discovers himself without a Mass to attend, unless, that is, he is willing to violate his principles, his conscience, and occasionally, to sin! One or more of the priests will only take him back after he “confesses” to receiving sacraments from the other two!
(I’m NOT saying Frs. Hewko or Ruiz do this. To my knowledge, they do NOT, lest anyone become the victim of slander or falsely accused of spiritual abuse. Unfortunately, it is easy for errors to arise in insular groups and there are priests guilty of it.)
As for the faithful, they turn into warring camps. The misfits must join one, get beat up by all of them, or go away. The priests, too, chase the misfit away. The animosity created is most uncharitable. Ironically such behavior lends legitimacy to Traditionis Custodes, creating division. It is last of the six things God hates, “him that soweth discord among brethren.” Proverbs 6:19
How is this not spiritual bullying? 🤨 👊🏼 👊🏼
Cliques exert more peer pressure than homogenized groups where differing opinions are held. Cliques almost invariably give rise to pride, a haughty attitude towards others, like the Pharisees who, thinking themselves pleasing to God, ended up crucifying Him. Yes, cliques do form in homogeneous groups, but the difference is that one needn’t join them. There are plenty of people with whom to mix, where differing ideas may be discussed and even argued without being marginalized and rejected. There is room to study, pray, and change one’s mind without worry about losing one’s spiritual director and fellow believers.
Which of these environments is more dangerous to Faith?
(Again, note, I’m not advocating attending the novus ordo, or honoring those whose sainthood is highly improbable, or believing in Eucharistic miracles just because someone said so, and certainly never yielding to sin.)
Phew! Time to get off my soapbox! 📦 💃🏼
-
Which of these environments is more dangerous to Faith?
(Again, note, I’m not advocating attending the novus ordo, or honoring those whose sainthood is highly improbable, or believing in Eucharistic miracles just because someone said so, and certainly never yielding to sin.)
What is really grave, is that Fr Hewko has given rise to a new sect: Hewkoites. These poor souls are literally being led out of the Church by Fr Hewko, cut off from all bishops and all other priests, because they do not subscribe to his new dogmas as outlined by Sean above, or more precisely, because these bishops and priests will not come out publicly and crucify Bishop Williamson for his opinions. There are truly poor souls in distant countries, some approaching the end of their earthly sojourn, who are now, on account of Fr Hewko, isolated from the Mass and sacraments and risk dying without any of the supports of Holy Mother Church. That is what is so grave. A humble apology and reconciliation would do far more for the glory of God and the salvation of souls that this pitiful attempt at self-justification.
-
we have PLENTY OF PROOF. We have rock solid theological proof. It is simply not possible for the Papacy, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, to destroy the Church, to gut the Magisterium, to destroy faith and morals, and to promulgate a Mass that displeases God, undermines the faith, and damages souls.
What is the nature of the Holy Ghost's guidance of the Papacy? There are distinctions.
The pope is infallibly prevented from making an error when pronouncing a dogma 'ex cathedra'. In no other circuмstance is the pope infallible. Neither in personal morals, nor in sermons, speeches and letters.
Surely the Holy Ghost offers graces of state to the pope, but where is the doctrine that the pope cannot refuse these graces?
If these recent popes were pronouncing their errors as dogma, then we would have our proof. Note that they consistently refrain from doing this. Only John Paul II spoke 'ex cathedra', once (and even that can be argued!), to pronounce that no woman could ever be a priest.
We have no proof. We must behave according to the presumption that they are valid popes. Presumption!--not certainty.
-
What is really grave, is that Fr Hewko has given rise to a new sect: Hewkoites. These poor souls are literally being led out of the Church by Fr Hewko, cut off from all bishops and all other priests, because they do not subscribe to his new dogmas as outlined by Sean above, or more precisely, because these bishops and priests will not come out publicly and crucify Bishop Williamson for his opinions. There are truly poor souls in distant countries, some approaching the end of their earthly sojourn, who are now, on account of Fr Hewko, isolated from the Mass and sacraments and risk dying without any of the supports of Holy Mother Church. That is what is so grave. A humble apology and reconciliation would do far more for the glory of God and the salvation of souls that this pitiful attempt at self-justification.
I’m afraid he is going the route of Fr. Joe Pfeiffer, he’s just not yet as far out on the tangent. Notice Fr. Hewko never criticizes Fr. Pfeiffer in his sermons, but he regularly rails on +Bp. Williamson rehashing the same two faults, his admitted slip up back in what was it, 2015 or 2016 when he responded to an elderly woman, not traditional, who went to a conservative daily Mass because that was all that was available to her. She was not a modernist and being raised in the pre-V2 Church, she clearly had the Faith. The bishop has admitted he should have spoken to her privately, but he didn’t. What was he going to tell her in public? “Madam, you must stop immediately and confess all your sacrilegious confessions and communions since 1969 or you’re going to Hell. If you can’t get to a Traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments, stay at home and read your missal.” As for the complaints about +Bp. W. operating in secret, that’s just not true. He has his Elieson Comments, every Sunday, his sermon is on YouTube along with interviews and conferences. If YouTube cancels him, they’re on Bitchute or another platform. For myself, I’ve never once heard him speak of modern Eucharistic miracles or actually promote the novus ordo. What he HAS said is that he hasn’t the authority to declare the novus ordo dogmatically invalid. He has also said he does NOT recommend attending it, but acknowledges there are likely still older people who attend and still have the Faith, also, that some novus ordo priests are on their spiritual journeys, en route to becoming fully traditional. So far as “failing to do his duty to establish a seminary just like Archbishop LeFebvre,” he has given it much prayer and thought, and God’s answer to him is “No.” Both Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko have repeatedly demanded he do so. Do they really think, having known him since their seminary days, that he is just being stubborn so he can have his own way, sitting on his duff and listening to classical music in Broadstairs? That he hasn’t prayed or is suddenly defying Our Lord after all these years? One other point, +Bp. W. is 83 years old. Compare his appearance five years ago to now and you will see he has noticeably aged. His hair has grown entirely white and gotten very thin, he is stooped, no longer stands erect, whatever condition he has that causes his hands to tremor has now appeared in his arms and a little in his neck. His voice has gotten weak and he speaks slowly and stumbles over words. Sometimes he has to pause and search his mind for the right word or reference. Overall, he has slowed down. Personally, I don’t think he’s physically up to starting a seminary. Aging is largely governed by one’s genes. It is not his fault that he is not as vigorous as Archbishop LeFebvre at 83. To demand he do certain things and publicly rail on him as if he were a notorious public sinner shows complete disrespect, both for his office and his person. It scandalizes the ordinary faithful, or it ought to. For those who don’t know +Bp. W, they must think of him as an ogre. One last thing; I have noticed that his sermons in the last couple of years are focused on the love of Our Lord and confidence in Our Lady and the Rosary. When he does criticize or call out another cleric by name, it is much more tempered with mercy than condemnation. I take this as a sign of being perfected in love than of going soft or colluding with Rome. He hasn’t had talks with the Vatican begged to return to the Society. To his credit, I’ve never heard him once publicly criticize Fr. Hewko or Fr. Ruiz, not even Fr. Pfeiffer since 2014. I do not agree with Bp. W. on everything, but that’s alright. He doesn’t bind the consciences of his parishioners in indefinite matters. I’m suspicious of Garabandal, I don’t find Poem of the Man God inspirational, and I’m not a fan of classical music. I don’t hate it, but a little goes a long way with me. There’s too much going on at once, and it clutters my brain like trying to listen to four conversations at once. I’ve read Dickens, of course, as a high school student. He’s depressing. Give me Shakespeare any day!
+Bp. Zendejas? Well, yes, you don’t hear from him. I have some ideas as to why, but they are just speculation, so I won’t divulge my thoughts. It’s wrong to rail on him in public and state to the lay people at Mass what he ought to do. Fr. makes it sound as if he’s up to something nefarious. Maybe he is, but since it’s secret, there is no right to call him out in a public sermon. He CAN be found, by the way! He says Mass at Matthew’s chapel. I’m not very computer proficient, but even I located his house and church on Google Earth, took a tour of his parking lot, yard, and porch!
Let’s all offer a Hail Mary for Frs. Hewko and Ruiz that they stay focused on the Essentials of the Faith and not fall into the misfortune of Fr. Pfeiffer. Running ahead of God always results in mishap and frustration.
-
I’m afraid he is going the route of Fr. Joe Pfeiffer, he’s just not yet as far out on the tangent. Notice Fr. Hewko never criticizes Fr. Pfeiffer in his sermons, but he regularly rails on +Bp. Williamson rehashing the same two faults, his admitted slip up back in what was it, 2015 or 2016 when he responded to an elderly woman, not traditional, who went to a conservative daily Mass because that was all that was available to her. She was not a modernist and being raised in the pre-V2 Church, she clearly had the Faith. The bishop has admitted he should have spoken to her privately, but he didn’t. What was he going to tell her in public? “Madam, you must stop immediately and confess all your sacrilegious confessions and communions since 1969 or you’re going to Hell. If you can’t get to a Traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments, stay at home and read your missal.” As for the complaints about +Bp. W. operating in secret, that’s just not true. He has his Elieson Comments, every Sunday, his sermon is on YouTube along with interviews and conferences. If YouTube cancels him, they’re on Bitchute or another platform. For myself, I’ve never once heard him speak of modern Eucharistic miracles or actually promote the novus ordo. What he HAS said is that he hasn’t the authority to declare the novus ordo dogmatically invalid. He has also said he does NOT recommend attending it, but acknowledges there are likely still older people who attend and still have the Faith, also, that some novus ordo priests are on their spiritual journeys, en route to becoming fully traditional. So far as “failing to do his duty to establish a seminary just like Archbishop LeFebvre,” he has given it much prayer and thought, and God’s answer to him is “No.” Both Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko have repeatedly demanded he do so. Do they really think, having known him since their seminary days, that he is just being stubborn so he can have his own way, sitting on his duff and listening to classical music in Broadstairs? That he hasn’t prayed or is suddenly defying Our Lord after all these years? One other point, +Bp. W. is 83 years old. Compare his appearance five years ago to now and you will see he has noticeably aged. His hair has grown entirely white and gotten very thin, he is stooped, no longer stands erect, whatever condition he has that causes his hands to tremor has now appeared in his arms and a little in his neck. His voice has gotten weak and he speaks slowly and stumbles over words. Sometimes he has to pause and search his mind for the right word or reference. Overall, he has slowed down. Personally, I don’t think he’s physically up to starting a seminary. Aging is largely governed by one’s genes. It is not his fault that he is not as vigorous as Archbishop LeFebvre at 83. To demand he do certain things and publicly rail on him as if he were a notorious public sinner shows complete disrespect, both for his office and his person. It scandalizes the ordinary faithful, or it ought to. For those who don’t know +Bp. W, they must think of him as an ogre. One last thing; I have noticed that his sermons in the last couple of years are focused on the love of Our Lord and confidence in Our Lady and the Rosary. When he does criticize or call out another cleric by name, it is much more tempered with mercy than condemnation. I take this as a sign of being perfected in love than of going soft or colluding with Rome. He hasn’t had talks with the Vatican begged to return to the Society. To his credit, I’ve never heard him once publicly criticize Fr. Hewko or Fr. Ruiz, not even Fr. Pfeiffer since 2014. I do not agree with Bp. W. on everything, but that’s alright. He doesn’t bind the consciences of his parishioners in indefinite matters. I’m suspicious of Garabandal, I don’t find Poem of the Man God inspirational, and I’m not a fan of classical music. I don’t hate it, but a little goes a long way with me. There’s too much going on at once, and it clutters my brain like trying to listen to four conversations at once. I’ve read Dickens, of course, as a high school student. He’s depressing. Give me Shakespeare any day!
+Bp. Zendejas? Well, yes, you don’t hear from him. I have some ideas as to why, but they are just speculation, so I won’t divulge my thoughts. It’s wrong to rail on him in public and state to the lay people at Mass what he ought to do. Fr. makes it sound as if he’s up to something nefarious. Maybe he is, but since it’s secret, there is no right to call him out in a public sermon. He CAN be found, by the way! He says Mass at Matthew’s chapel. I’m not very computer proficient, but even I located his house and church on Google Earth, took a tour of his parking lot, yard, and porch!
Let’s all offer a Hail Mary for Frs. Hewko and Ruiz that they stay focused on the Essentials of the Faith and not fall into the misfortune of Fr. Pfeiffer. Running ahead of God always results in mishap and frustration.
Fr. Hewko is building a seminary, despite alienating any bishop who could ordain his malformed candidates.
The day will come when he will have the same epiphany that Fr. Pfeiffer had:
”It must mean God wants ME to be a bishop.” Then the rest will follow.
-
Fr. Hewko is building a seminary, despite alienating any bishop who could ordain his malformed candidates.
The day will come when he will have the same epiphany that Fr. Pfeiffer had:
”It must mean God wants ME to be a bishop.” Then the rest will follow.
My fear, exactly. Right now, he’s calling it an Oratory, but wants it to become a seminary. If he does go the route of Fr. Pfeiffer, it’ll be a shame because he was a good priest. I hope I wasn’t too harsh on him, so that’s why I’m going to pray a Rosary for him tonight. Fr. Ruiz, I really don’t know. I’ve never met him and I don’t understand enough Spanish to listen to his sermons online.
-
About not judging canonically it's another misconception. Canonically speaking all the usurpers of Vatican 2 have already been condemned according to Canon 188.4.....
You make a good point here in that Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that a cleric that publicly defects from the Catholic Faith loses his office, by tacit resignation, by the very fact of his public defection. Therefore, in this sense one can canonically judge that a putative pope is actually not pope.
-
“The very act of submission to the pretended authority of an openly heretical enemy (i.e., Jorge Bergoglio) of the Catholic faith constitutes per se an objectively grave act not only of indiscreet obedience; but done in ignorance, constitutes an act of material schism as well. Thus, while the Recognize and Resist policy of Catholics towards the errant conciliar popes was morally justified from the time of the post-council up to the end of February 2013, when Pope Benedict went into what is increasingly seen to be a coerced retirement; it is no longer morally licit to adhere to it for so long as the heretical intruder (or another like him) remains in power, because it is morally wrong and schismatic to recognize and be subject to a manifestly formal heretic.”
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
-
“The very act of submission to the pretended authority of an openly heretical enemy (i.e., Jorge Bergoglio) of the Catholic faith constitutes per se an objectively grave act not only of indiscreet obedience; but done in ignorance, constitutes an act of material schism as well. Thus, while the Recognize and Resist policy of Catholics towards the errant conciliar popes was morally justified from the time of the post-council up to the end of February 2013, when Pope Benedict went into what is increasingly seen to be a coerced retirement; it is no longer morally licit to adhere to it for so long as the heretical intruder (or another like him) remains in power, because it is morally wrong and schismatic to recognize and be subject to a manifestly formal heretic.”
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
Where did you come up with this "doctrine?" It'd be pretty funny if it wasn't so wrong. Sounds as if it could be a doctrine of the "recent magisterium." :facepalm:
-
You make a good point here in that Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that a cleric that publicly defects from the Catholic Faith loses his office, by tacit resignation, by the very fact of his public defection. Therefore, in this sense one can canonically judge that a putative pope is actually not pope.
Firstly, those of the conciliar church would all say they haven't defected from the Faith; they are still catholic. They would say they are modernizing the Church but that such is allowed. So, there would have to be a case (similar to Martin Luther) to prove guilt.
Secondly, in any just legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty. You, however, are assuming guilt with no due process (even if there is some evidence). This is not only uncatholic, but unjust and you're acting no better than the famous tyrants of history. You've made yourself judge, jury and executioner. :facepalm:
It reminds me of the famous scene in the St Thomas More movie, "A Man for All Seasons", where St Thomas' son-in-law is arguing about the legal process with St Thomas.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
-
Firstly, those of the conciliar church would all say they haven't defected from the Faith; they are still catholic. They would say they are modernizing the Church but that such is allowed. So, there would have to be a case (similar to Martin Luther) to prove guilt.
Secondly, in any just legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty. You, however, are assuming guilt with no due process (even if there is some evidence). This is not only uncatholic, but unjust and you're acting no better than the famous tyrants of history. You've made yourself judge, jury and executioner. :facepalm:
It reminds me of the famous scene in the St Thomas More movie, "A Man for All Seasons", where St Thomas' son-in-law is arguing about the legal process with St Thomas.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
The public sin of manifest formal heresy is a kind of public defection from the Catholic Faith. Canon 188.4 speaks about the FACT of public defection and not the judgment of the Church for the loss of office to take place.
Once again, this goes back to your claim that one cannot judge the sin of heresy, for which claim you have refused to provide evidence.
-
Secondly, in any just legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty. You, however, are assuming guilt with no due process (even if there is some evidence). This is not only uncatholic, but unjust and you're acting no better than the famous tyrants of history. You've made yourself judge, jury and executioner. :facepalm:
Yes, it's something that they refuse to address. It's a lynch-mob mentality, which they will strongly defend.
-
Yes, it's something that they refuse to address. It's a lynch-mob mentality, which they will strongly defend.
Canon 188.4 speaks about the FACT of public defection and not the judgment of the Church for the loss of office to take place.
-
Canon 188.4 speaks about the FACT of public defection and not the judgment of the Church for the loss of office to take place.
But we do not remove them, as you have done.
-
But we do not remove them, as you have done.
Where did I write that I remove them from office?
-
Where did I write that I remove them from office?
You say that they remove themselves, But that's not true. You have removed them. You have no authority to do that.
-
#2 is less tiresome and more productive for both you (learn more church history) and the protestant. Doctrine is a much higher reference point and a more solid foundation for debating than a (so called conspiracy) theory about pope x, y or z wasn't pope. In the end, even if you could prove 100% that pope x wasn't a pope, you still have to explain doctrine vs current errors so the person could learn the Faith.
Thanks!
-
You say that they remove themselves, But that's not true. You have removed them. You have no authority to do that.
They are removed by the law itself by tacit resignation. That's what the law states. I have not removed anybody. I simply apply the law to a case.
“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
(1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188.4º)
-
The public sin of manifest formal heresy is a kind of public defection from the Catholic Faith.
That's debatable.
Canon 188.4 speaks about the FACT of public defection and not the judgment of the Church for the loss of office to take place.
:facepalm:
Person A says, (something heretical).
Person B says "Yeah, Person A publicly defected".
Person A says "No I didn't. I'm still Catholic."
Person C says, "What Person A said wasn't catholic but I don't think he meant to defect."
Catholic Knight says "We can all privately judge what Person A did."
Result - Protestant style, individualistic-minded chaos.
Once again, this goes back to your claim that one cannot judge the sin of heresy, for which claim you have refused to provide evidence.
:confused: The default position is this:
MAJOR - Canon law (i.e. Church Law) can only be administered/judged by Church authorities.
MINOR - Simple Priests and the Laity are not part of Church authority.
CONCLUSION - Simple Priests and the Laity cannot administer/judge using Canon Law.
You are the one that has to prove any catholic individual can judge heresy. The default position is a big, fat "No, you cannot." This applies to any court room, in any country, all across the globe. If you are not a lawyer, or trained in law, or a judge, you cannot take part in the legal process.
-
That's debatable.
:facepalm:
Person A says, (something heretical).
Person B says "Yeah, Person A publicly defected".
Person A says "No I didn't. I'm still Catholic."
Person C says, "What Person A said wasn't catholic but I don't think he meant to defect."
Catholic Knight says "We can all privately judge what Person A did."
Result - Protestant style, individualistic-minded chaos.
:confused: The default position is this:
MAJOR - Canon law (i.e. Church Law) can only be administered/judged by Church authorities.
MINOR - Simple Priests and the Laity are not part of Church authority.
CONCLUSION - Simple Priests and the Laity cannot administer/judge using Canon Law.
You are the one that has to prove any catholic individual can judge heresy. The default position is a big, fat "No, you cannot." This applies to any court room, in any country, all across the globe. If you are not a lawyer, or trained in law, or a judge, you cannot take part in the legal process.
The tacit resignation of office takes place automatically based upon the fact of public defection. That is what the law states. Anyone can judge it if the evidence is sufficient. If you don't agree with this, then YOU are opposing the Magisterium of the Church in her Canon Law and making Canon 188.4 on this point futile. The thing that is left to the competent authority is the ENFORCEMENT of this Canon and the effective removal of office. However, anyone can refuse to acknowledge his office from the moment of public defection.
-
However, anyone can refuse to acknowledge his office from the moment of public defection.
Do you believe that we are all obligated to acknowledge the loss of office, and if we don't acknowledge this, do you consider us heretics?
-
When I meet a new traditional priest I say, "Fr., the New Mass is a mortal sin and there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church, what other questions do you have for me?" Outside of this, there should not be any other questions. I could see if some guy is handing out Natural Family Planning literature (birth control) at the local Trad chapel, then yes, the priest might kick him out, but for the most part all these other issues are a distraction.
Even our Trad seminaries do not always focus on the foundational literature. When I was at St. Thomas Aquinas ('94-97) we should have read The Great Sacrilege, which was the first serious critique of the New Mass. I think the attitude- if I might critique the minds in control at the time, was probably- "Fr. Wathen is a Feeneyite, so therefore we cannot read his book The Great Sacrilege."
-
The tacit resignation of office takes place automatically based upon the fact of public defection. That is what the law states. Anyone can judge it if the evidence is sufficient. If you don't agree with this, then YOU are opposing the Magisterium of the Church in her Canon Law and making Canon 188.4 on this point futile. The thing that is left to the competent authority is the ENFORCEMENT of this Canon and the effective removal of office. However, anyone can refuse to acknowledge his office from the moment of public defection.
Firstly, what was the public defection?
Sounds to me like you're using private interpretation to construe facts to imply public defection, so as to argue a tacit resignation.
Pretty thin.
If I just concentrate on the bolded words (private interpretation, construe, imply, tacit), it all sounds like it is based upon a lot of flim-flam to reach the conclusion you desired.
-
The tacit resignation of office takes place automatically based upon the fact of public defection.
:jester: Church authorities are the only ones who can decide 'public defection'.
That is what the law states.
Unless you're a canon lawyer, your opinion means nothing.
Anyone can judge it if the evidence is sufficient.
Sure, but your "judgment" is meaningless and is protestant-thinking.
If you don't agree with this, then YOU are opposing the Magisterium of the Church in her Canon Law and making Canon 188.4 on this point futile
Until the Magisterium/church officials decide on the matter, and apply canon 188.4 to a particular case/person, then i'm not opposing anything. I can't oppose a judgement which hasn't taken place. ??
You are "privately interpreting" canon law just like protestants "privately interpret" Scripture. The Church decides and teaches, in both cases.
-
For myself, I’ve never once heard him [Bishop Williamson] speak of modern Eucharistic miracles or actually promote the novus ordo. What he HAS said is that he hasn’t the authority to declare the novus ordo dogmatically invalid.
Here is the video where Bishop Williamson defends the validity of the Novus Ordo Eucharist based on supposed Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracles:
https://youtu.be/casxXTtQFPs?t=5399
Listen at the precise timestamp provided in the link above. You will hear Williamson's defense of these Novus Ordo "Eucharistic miracles."
He discusses the example of the "miracle" at Sokolka, Poland. But, you need to understand, the most famous Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle was from Buenos Aires. Can you guess which Bishop approved the miracle of Buenos Aires? Yes, Bergoglio.
https://media.ascensionpress.com/2019/08/07/the-eucharistic-miracle-overseen-by-archbishop-bergoglio-pope-francis/
This tells me that the whole Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle thing is a planned deception. There is no way that Jorge Bergoglio actually believes in Eucharistic Miracles. Bergoglio is a deceiver.
-
Here is the video where Bishop Williamson defends the validity of the Novus Ordo Eucharist based on supposed Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracles:
https://youtu.be/casxXTtQFPs?t=5399
Listen at the precise timestamp provided in the link above. You will hear Williamson's defense of these Novus Ordo "Eucharistic miracles."
He discusses the example of the "miracle" at Sokolka, Poland. But, you need to understand, the most famous Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle was from Buenos Aires. Can you guess which Bishop approved the miracle of Buenos Aires? Yes, Bergoglio.
https://media.ascensionpress.com/2019/08/07/the-eucharistic-miracle-overseen-by-archbishop-bergoglio-pope-francis/
This tells me that the whole Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle thing is a planned deception. There is no way that Jorge Bergoglio actually believes in Eucharistic Miracles. Bergoglio is a deceiver.
Does Bp. Williamson talk about, and/or approve, the so-called eucharistic miracle from Buenos Aires? I don't recall him talking about that one.
-
For myself, I’ve never once heard him speak of modern Eucharistic miracles or actually promote the novus ordo. What he HAS said is that he hasn’t the authority to declare the novus ordo dogmatically invalid. He has also said he does NOT recommend attending it, but acknowledges there are likely still older people who attend and still have the Faith, also, that some novus ordo priests are on their spiritual journeys, en route to becoming fully traditional.
Here is what Bishop Williamson says, in his own words, about attending the Novus Ordo:
https://youtu.be/casxXTtQFPs?t=5761
At the timestamp provided above, Bishop Williamson is telling a young traditional Catholic that HE should not rule out attending the Novus Ordo. He says, "you don't have to stay absolutely away [from the Novus Ordo]."
-
So the only reason they're doubtful is due to "the intentions of the ministers"? Does this mean it's possible that they'd align with a Novus Ordo priest (without conditional ordination) if it was determined that he was ordained in the New Rite by someone who clearly had the proper intention to ordain, such as a Bishop Schneider, for instance?
Yes. That's what they got taught at the SSPX.
The Council of Narnia says that if the minister doesn't have a serious look on his face then we should doubt the interior intention of the minister. Since everyone now smiles for pictures after the "sacraments," we now have to determine the look on the minister's face at the moment he said the form to know if it was valid or not. I think this is seminary 202 at the SSPX. It's all about the serious look... That's how we know the interior intention of the minister. /S
-
Yes. That's what they got taught at the SSPX.
The Council of Narnia says that if the minister doesn't have a serious look on his face then we should doubt the interior intention of the minister. Since everyone now smiles for pictures after the "sacraments," we now have to determine the look on the minister's face at the moment he said the form to know if it was valid or not. I think this is seminary 202 at the SSPX. It's all about the serious look... That's how we know the interior intention of the minister. /S
:laugh2:
I think the same thing, lol
-
:jester: Church authorities are the only ones who can decide 'public defection'.
Unless you're a canon lawyer, your opinion means nothing.
Sure, but your "judgment" is meaningless and is protestant-thinking.
Until the Magisterium/church officials decide on the matter, and apply canon 188.4 to a particular case/person, then i'm not opposing anything. I can't oppose a judgement which hasn't taken place. ??
You are "privately interpreting" canon law just like protestants "privately interpret" Scripture. The Church decides and teaches, in both cases.
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
-
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
Sorry, you don't get to make this call. You don't get to privately interpret canon law. You are not the Church.
Secondly, the most important part of your sentence is "by tacit resignation", which again (for the 500th time) can only be decided by Church authorities....especially in the case where the V2 officials have. not. resigned. They are still in office, they want to be in office and they are working in their offices.
Do you know what "resign" means? It means when someone declares they are "stepping down" (explicit) or they just leave and disappear (implicit).
None of this applies to V2 officials and only your wild imagination/private interpretation thinks canon law applies here.
-
Sorry, you don't get to make this call. You don't get to privately interpret canon law. You are not the Church.
Secondly, the most important part of your sentence is "by tacit resignation", which again (for the 500th time) can only be decided by Church authorities....especially in the case where the V2 officials have. not. resigned. They are still in office, they want to be in office and they are working in their offices.
Do you know what "resign" means? It means when someone declares they are "stepping down" (explicit) or they just leave and disappear (implicit).
None of this applies to V2 officials and only your wild imagination/private interpretation thinks canon law applies here.
You're ridiculous. You are arguing a declaration is needed when it explicitly says it's not. And the canon teaches a public defection from the faith automatically removes one from office tacitly (silently).
-
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
But sedes declare it all the time.
-
But sedes declare it all the time.
:facepalm:
-
I agree ^^
-
And the canon teaches a public defection from the faith
1. Define 'public defection'.
2. How is this different from private defection?
3. What (legally) must a person do to publicly defect?
4. How is a public defection proven? What evidence is necessary?
You (or I) can't privately interpret the meaning of such an important topic. This is up to Church authorities.
-
:jester: Church authorities are the only ones who can decide 'public defection'.
Unless you're a canon lawyer, your opinion means nothing.
Sure, but your "judgment" is meaningless and is protestant-thinking.
Until the Magisterium/church officials decide on the matter, and apply canon 188.4 to a particular case/person, then i'm not opposing anything. I can't oppose a judgement which hasn't taken place. ??
You are "privately interpreting" canon law just like protestants "privately interpret" Scripture. The Church decides and teaches, in both cases.
If Jorge Bergoglio publicly admitted that he is a heretic and none of the cardinals or bishops did anything about it, would you still consider him to be pope?
-
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
Thanks. Perhaps Pax Vobis will see that this time.
-
You're ridiculous. You are arguing a declaration is needed when it explicitly says it's not. And the canon teaches a public defection from the faith automatically removes one from office tacitly (silently).
Oops. It looks like Pax Vobis missed it again.
-
But sedes declare it all the time.
Yes indeed.
And since the sedes are "the Church," they seem to believe that they have the authority to declare it and as such they can force everyone else to accept it.
-
Do you believe that we are all obligated to acknowledge the loss of office, and if we don't acknowledge this, do you consider us heretics?
Because the current situation regarding Jorge Bergoglio is such a serious matter (i.e., a matter of potential schism), you are morally obligated to investigate. If the evidence of public defection is sufficient, then you are morally obligated to acknowledge the loss of office.
Heresy, at least material, comes into play if you deny that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
-
Because the current situation regarding Jorge Bergoglio is such a serious matter (i.e., a matter of potential schism), you are morally obligated to investigate. If the evidence of public defection is sufficient, then you are morally obligated to acknowledge the loss of office.
Heresy, at least material, comes into play if you deny that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Yes, we are obligated to investigate, but we are not morally obligated to take your opinion on the matter.
We already have investigated the issue. It's not like the Crisis is something new for many of us, though maybe it's new for you.
The problem with sedevacantism is the arrogance factor. The arrogance of many sedevacantists mirrors the arrogance of the Modernists. They are like two sides of the same coin. Not that I fault anyone for taking the sede position. It's the sede occupation of trying to force others to their POV that bothers me.
-
If the evidence of public defection is sufficient
:facepalm: Only the church has the authority to investigate and decide if the evidence is sufficient.
The church is a monarchy with a hierarchical authority. It is not a democracy nor does it allow (nor has it ever allowed) the kind of Protestant-grassroots-individualistic-decision-making which you describe.
Nobody cares what you investigate, how you interpret canon law, what your conclusions are, nor any opinion you have on ANYTHING related to Catholicism. Your opinion matters 0%. If you think it does, you’re well on your way to following Martin Luther.
-
This is really a waste of time. Bellarmine vs. Cajetan will not be decided by us on this forum. What we do know is that the Holy Spirit protects the papacy from doing this kind of serious damage to the Church, so either they're not popes (for whatever reason) or they're being blackmailed or otherwise forced to act without necessary freedom. I personally hold to the Siri theory. Bottom line, however, is that they cannot be legitimate Popes acting freely. That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church.
-
What we do know is that the Holy Spirit protects the papacy from doing this kind of serious damage to the Church. Bottom line, however, is that they cannot be legitimate Popes acting freely. That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church.
What is the nature of the Holy Ghost's guidance of the Papacy? There are distinctions.
The pope is infallibly prevented from making an error when pronouncing a dogma 'ex cathedra'. In no other circuмstance is the pope infallible. Neither in personal morals, nor in sermons, speeches and letters.
Surely the Holy Ghost offers graces of state to the pope, but where is the doctrine that the pope cannot refuse these graces?
If these recent popes were pronouncing their errors as dogma, then we would have our proof. Note that they consistently refrain from doing this. Only John Paul II spoke 'ex cathedra', once (and even that can be argued!), to pronounce that no woman could ever be a priest.
We have no proof. We must behave according to the presumption that they are valid popes. Presumption!--not certainty.
-
What is the nature of the Holy Ghost's guidance of the Papacy? There are distinctions.
The pope is infallibly prevented from making an error when pronouncing a dogma 'ex cathedra'. In no other circuмstance is the pope infallible. Neither in personal morals, nor in sermons, speeches and letters.
Surely the Holy Ghost offers graces of state to the pope, but where is the doctrine that the pope cannot refuse these graces?
If these recent popes were pronouncing their errors as dogma, then we would have our proof. Note that they consistently refrain from doing this. Only John Paul II spoke 'ex cathedra', once (and even that can be argued!), to pronounce that no woman could ever be a priest.
We have no proof. We must behave according to the presumption that they are valid popes. Presumption!--not certainty.
Utter hogwash. While one might quibble about some of the details, the Pope cannot destroy the Church to this extent, cannot promulgate a Mass that displeases God and harms souls, and cannot produce thoroughly corrupted "Magisterium" for 60+ years. You types take the notion that not absolutely every act of the Pope is infallible to then conclude that everything else can become trash.
If you must behave according to the presumption that they are valid popes, then you must accept their Mass and their Magisterium, or you are in schism. Do you really believe that paying lipservice to Jorge and putting his picture up in vestibule constitutes behaving as if he were pope, you're thoroughly deluded.
If their Mass and their "Magisterium" have gotten so bad and so corrupt that Catholics can and even must in good conscience sever communion with the hierarchy, the line has been crossed and the Church would have defected.
I really have no idea what some of you people believe in, but it's not Catholicism, and there's very little if anything to distinguish you from Old Catholics or even Orthodox and Protestants.
-
What is the nature of the Holy Ghost's guidance of the Papacy? There are distinctions.
The pope is infallibly prevented from making an error when pronouncing a dogma 'ex cathedra'. In no other circuмstance is the pope infallible. Neither in personal morals, nor in sermons, speeches and letters.
Surely the Holy Ghost offers graces of state to the pope, but where is the doctrine that the pope cannot refuse these graces?
If these recent popes were pronouncing their errors as dogma, then we would have our proof. Note that they consistently refrain from doing this. Only John Paul II spoke 'ex cathedra', once (and even that can be argued!), to pronounce that no woman could ever be a priest.
We have no proof. We must behave according to the presumption that they are valid popes. Presumption!--not certainty.
This.
-
Utter hogwash. While one might quibble about some of the details, the Pope cannot destroy the Church to this extent, cannot promulgate a Mass that displeases God and harms souls, and cannot produce thoroughly corrupted "Magisterium" for 60+ years. You types take the notion that not absolutely every act of the Pope is infallible to then conclude that everything else can become trash.
No Lad, his types believe the dogma of papal infallibility as infallibly defined at V1 stating that the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra.
To believe that "not absolutely every act of the Pope is infallible to then conclude that everything else can become trash" is to believe reality - this means the conclusion that you deny, is in fact reality. We know this conclusion is true because we've been eyewitnesses to this conclusion since V2. We simply do not deny it as you and your fellow sedes do.
-
:facepalm: Only the church has the authority to investigate and decide if the evidence is sufficient.
Please provide the evidence that only the Church has the authority to investigate and decide if the evidence is sufficient. If your statement is true, then Canon 188.4º is moot because it clearly states that tacit resignation occurs by the fact and "without declaration" (you know that phrase that you continue to overlook).
-
Yes, we are obligated to investigate, but we are not morally obligated to take your opinion on the matter.
To which opinion are you referring?
-
Please provide the evidence that only the Church has the authority to investigate and decide if the evidence is sufficient.
:facepalm: It's called "canon" law. Only canons (i.e. church authorities) can interpret and apply it. The only exceptions are if a laymen get a canon law degree (but even this is a post-V2 modernization).
-
If one thinks that any non-cleric, non-church official has the ability to interpret/apply canon law (towards anyone outside of yourself), then you are making the Magisterium/Hierarchy worthless, which is protestantism and/or orthodoxy.
-
They are removed by the law itself by tacit resignation. That's what the law states. I have not removed anybody. I simply apply the law to a case.
“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
(1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188.4º)
Does the 1917 Code of Canon Law define what constitutes a public defection from the Catholic Faith? I can't find that it does. But there needs to be an authentic interpretation of what constitutes a public defection from the Catholic Faith.
1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf (restorethe54.com) (https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf)
-
If one thinks that any non-cleric, non-church official has the ability to interpret/apply canon law (towards anyone outside of yourself), then you are making the Magisterium/Hierarchy worthless, which is protestantism and/or orthodoxy.
Isn't that the whole point of R&R?
-
the Pope cannot destroy the Church to this extent, cannot promulgate a Mass that displeases God and harms souls, and cannot produce thoroughly corrupted "Magisterium" for 60+ years.
Repeating yourself does not make what you say any more accurate. I asked: where is the doctrine that says a pope cannot refuse the graces of state offered to him? Where does it say a pope cannot cause catastrophic damage with all his non-infallible power? I'll answer myself: there is no such doctrine.
Obedience cannot oblige us to sin. When the popes give bad commands, they are being schismatic, not us. If a sergeant commands a soldier to burn down the barracks, he is being treasonous, but doesn't thereby automatically cease to be a sergeant. The soldier who says, "Sir, no sir!" does not deny the sergeant's authority. He recognizes the limits of the sergeant's authority.
I could say the indefectibility of the Church is more marvelously apparent in the past few years than it perhaps ever has been. Do you realize all the battles and agony faithful priests had to go through to teach what the Church teaches in this crisis? Rome is occupied by the largest and most ravenous pack of wolves the history of the Church has ever seen. Not even they, with all their tricks and power, can stop the Holy Ghost from providing us with pastors who feed the flock true doctrine. That is indefectibility!
-
Repeating yourself does not make what you say any more accurate. I asked: where is the doctrine that says a pope cannot refuse the graces of state offered to him? Where does it say a pope cannot cause catastrophic damage with all his non-infallible power? I'll answer myself: there is no such doctrine.
The answer.
But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=3-#x)To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=4-#x)And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. 5 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=5-#x)But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers [John 10:5] (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=5#)
6 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=6-#x)This proverb Jesus spoke to them. But they understood not what he spoke to them. 7 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=7-#x)Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=8-#x)All others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not. 9 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=9-#x)I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in,
11 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=11-#x)I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. 14 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=14-#x)I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=15-#x)
16 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=16-#x)And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. 27 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=27-#x)My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.
The voice of the Catholic Church is the voice of Christ. The catholic Church can only teach truth. This truth is called Tradition. Jorge and company speak with guile. They are wolves disguised as sheep. Wolves (non-Catholics) disguised as sheep (Catholics). Matthew, 7v12-25.
-
Repeating yourself does not make what you say any more accurate. I asked: where is the doctrine that says a pope cannot refuse the graces of state offered to him? Where does it say a pope cannot cause catastrophic damage with all his non-infallible power? I'll answer myself: there is no such doctrine.
Obedience cannot oblige us to sin. When the popes give bad commands, they are being schismatic, not us. If a sergeant commands a soldier to burn down the barracks, he is being treasonous, but doesn't thereby automatically cease to be a sergeant. The soldier who says, "Sir, no sir!" does not deny the sergeant's authority. He recognizes the limits of the sergeant's authority.
I could say the indefectibility of the Church is more marvelously apparent in the past few years than it perhaps ever has been. Do you realize all the battles and agony faithful priests had to go through to teach what the Church teaches in this crisis? Rome is occupied by the largest and most ravenous pack of wolves the history of the Church has ever seen. Not even they, with all their tricks and power, can stop the Holy Ghost from providing us with pastors who feed the flock true doctrine. That is indefectibility!
(https://i.imgur.com/18Lzco5.png)
-
Repeating yourself does not make what you say any more accurate.
Only Old Catholics like yourself don't understand this. I've posted walls of text from the Popes about the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium ... which you heretically and blasphemously deny. Miser just posted one of a dozen or so that could be cited and have been cited. It's only Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants who hold that the Catholic Church can become corrupt in its Magisterium and its Public Worship. You've thrown in your lot with them than with actual Catholics.
-
Repeating yourself does not make what you say any more accurate. I asked: where is the doctrine that says a pope cannot refuse the graces of state offered to him? Where does it say a pope cannot cause catastrophic damage with all his non-infallible power? I'll answer myself: there is no such doctrine.
Obedience cannot oblige us to sin. When the popes give bad commands, they are being schismatic, not us. If a sergeant commands a soldier to burn down the barracks, he is being treasonous, but doesn't thereby automatically cease to be a sergeant. The soldier who says, "Sir, no sir!" does not deny the sergeant's authority. He recognizes the limits of the sergeant's authority.
I could say the indefectibility of the Church is more marvelously apparent in the past few years than it perhaps ever has been. Do you realize all the battles and agony faithful priests had to go through to teach what the Church teaches in this crisis? Rome is occupied by the largest and most ravenous pack of wolves the history of the Church has ever seen. Not even they, with all their tricks and power, can stop the Holy Ghost from providing us with pastors who feed the flock true doctrine. That is indefectibility!
So you are qualified to determine all of the following heresies and their logical conclusions except one?
(https://i.imgur.com/I7lS3nE.png)
Could Non-Infallible Papal Teaching be Heretical? (https://novusordowatch.org/2023/03/could-fallible-teaching-be-heretical/)
March 31, 2023
Answering a common misconception…
Could Non-Infallible Papal Teaching be Heretical?
(https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/wondering-shutterstock_1454442374_1189462978.png)
A lot of people in the theological camp we call the “recognize-and-resist” position believe that whatever teaching from the Roman Pontiff is not protected by infallibility, that is, whatever papal teaching is not divinely guaranteed to be free from all error, could for that very reason be heretical.
Consequently, they infer that for a Pope to teach heresy “non-infallibly” is entirely within the purview of what is possible in the Church, and therefore Francis’ magisterial heresies (https://novusordowatch.org/2021/02/francis-ecuмenical-martyrdom-heresy/) cannot be used as an argument that he is not a valid Pope.
Knowing to distinguish the fallible from the infallible, so these “recognize-and-resisters” reason, is the key to understanding why Francis may be a bad Pope, but certainly not a false one (https://novusordowatch.org/2019/10/bad-popes-objection/). That non-infallible teachings of the Pope are not binding, at least not if one has privately determined them to be erroneous or heretical, goes without saying for them.
Thus they go on their merry way, thinking they have avoided the “Ultramontanist” or “hyper-papalist” (https://novusordowatch.org/2021/02/ultramontanism-gallicanism-pope-pius9-semi-trads/) extreme, which effectively makes all papal teaching infallible — and the sedevacantist (https://novusordowatch.org/2020/10/why-would-anybody-be-a-sedevacantist/) extreme, which makes one reject not just papal error or heresy, but the Pope altogether. Or so they think.
Sound familiar? If you know a non-sedevacantist traditionalist, you have probably heard this line of argumentation before.
In this post, we intend to expose and refute the misconceptions that underlie this specious reasoning, by demonstrating the following:
- The mere fact that a papal teaching is not protected from all error does not necessarily mean that it could be heretical
- Catholics have an obligation to assent to all papal teaching, infallible or not
- The Pope’s teaching cannot be heretical, nor can it contain any other harmful error
- We Sedevacantists do not reject submission to the Pope, we reject someone’s claim to being the Pope
So let us proceed, step by step.
(1) The mere fact that a papal teaching is not protected from all error does not necessarily mean that it could be heretical.
Logic can be tricky. Sometimes what seems to follow at first sight, doesn’t follow at all, or at least not necessarily, upon closer examination.
Heresy is a very specific kind of error, in fact, the worst possible kind. It is not just a proposition that is false, it is a denial of what God has revealed. The 1945 Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology (https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofdogm0000pare/page/122/mode/2up) defines heresy as: “A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church” (p. 123).
For a Pope to teach heresy would mean teaching the faithful something that denies the Catholic Faith, something that contradicts what the Church has already taught infallibly in the past and requires her members to accept and profess under pain not only of mortal sin but of expulsion from her.
After all, willful assent to what one knows to be heresy makes one automatically cease to be a Catholic, at least insofar as this is manifest externally, since the Church is a visible body:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. …
Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm), nn. 22-23; underlining added.)
A statement that is heretical is obviously not protected by infallibility, else it could not contain heresy, which is an error.
At the same time, a statement that is merely erroneous (false, but not rising to the level of heresy) is also not protected by infallibility, since it too contains error.
Therefore, one cannot conclude, from the mere fact that a statement is not protected by infallibility, that it therefore could contain heresy, for this may very well be ruled out by some other stipulation.
But is there some other reason to suppose that non-infallible teachings of the Pope cannot be heretical?
As a matter of fact, there is:
(2) Catholics have an obligation to assent to all papal teaching, infallible or not.
The Pope is the Supreme Teacher in the Catholic Church. Because he teaches with the authority of Christ, all Catholics are obliged to adhere to his teaching:
We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecuмenical Councils and in the sacred canons.
(Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur Coeli; Denz. 694 (http://denzinger.patristica.net/denzinger/#n700).)
But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect, because it is enjoined by faith itself, and has this in common with faith, that it cannot be given in shreds; nay, were it not absolute and perfect in every particular, it might wear the name of obedience, but its essence would disappear….
In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htm), nn. 22, 24)
All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.
(Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15adbea.htm), n. 22)
…[T]his sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted….
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12human.htm), nn. 18, 20)
Therefore, when it is a question of instructions and propositions which the properly constituted shepherds (i.e. the Roman Pontiff for the whole Church, and the Bishops for the faithful entrusted to them) publish on matters within the natural law, the faithful must not invoke that saying (which is wont to be employed with respect to opinions of individuals): “the strength of the authority is no more than the strength of the arguments.” Hence, even though to someone, certain declarations of the Church may not seem proved by the arguments put forward, his obligation to obey still remains.
(Pope Pius XII, Allocution Magnificate Dominum (https://novusordowatch.org/pius12-magnificate-dominum/))
Here we see that infallibility is not a criterion which the Pope’s teaching must first meet before the faithful have an obligation to assent. On the contrary, that idea is clearly repudiated.
But if God constituted His Church in such a way that the faithful have an obligation to assent to what the Sovereign Pontiff teaches, by the mere fact that he, the Supreme Teacher, is exercising his magisterial office, then it stands to reason that such teaching, although not always infallible, can never contain any pernicious error; that is, it could never contain anything that could harm the souls who embrace and follow it.
This is not simply speculation by a sedevacantist writer — it is the certain and common teaching of the theologians from before Vatican II.
Fr. Joseph Fenton, one of the finest American theologians of the 20th century who received papal honors in 1954 (https://thecatholicnewsarchive.org/?a=d&d=cns19540301-01.1.65&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN--------), explains:
Despite the divergent views about the existence of the infallible pontifical teaching in the encyclical letters, there is one point on which all theologians are manifestly in agreement. They are all convinced that all Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to those doctrines which the Holy Father teaches when he speaks to the universal Church of God on earth without employing his God-given charism of infallibility. Thus, prescinding from the question as to whether any individual encyclical or group of encyclicals may be said to contain specifically infallible teaching, all theologians are in agreement that this religious assent must be accorded the teachings which the Sovereign Pontiff includes in these docuмents. This assent is due, as Lercher has noted, until the Church might choose to modify the teaching previously presented or until proportionately serious reasons for abandoning the non-infallible teaching contained in a pontifical docuмent might appear. It goes without saying that any reason which would justify the relinquishing of a position taken in a pontifical statement would have to be very serious indeed.
(Rev. Joseph Clifford Fenton, “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Part I” (https://archive.org/details/sim_american-ecclesiastical-review_1949-08_121_2/page/144/mode/2up), American Ecclesiastical Review CXXI [August, 1949], p. 144)
Notice that Fenton says nothing concerning the kind or gravity of error that might be possible. All he says is that despite the fact that the doctrine is not guaranteed to be without error, “a definite internal religious assent” must be given to what the Pope teaches in encyclicals.
Now Fenton does grant, following the theologian Fr. Ludwig Lercher, that in an exceptional situation such assent could conceivably be withheld — however, we must be careful not to jump to conclusions.
First, it is one thing to be permitted to withhold assent, and another to be required to. Heresy or some other serious error would obviously require one to withhold assent, yet, what pre-Vatican II theologian has ever taught that assent to a non-infallible papal teaching might ever have to be withheld — under pain of mortal sin and loss of Church membership?! It is an absurd idea.
Second, in his Dogmatic Theology III: The Sources of Revelation (https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1989905218/) [Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1961], Mgr. Gerard van Noort writes that suspension of internal assent to a non-infallible teaching will be “extremely rare” and would be permitted only to expert theologians who are waiting for a judgment concerning their objections from the Holy See, “meanwhile keeping a reverential silence” (n. 254, p. 275 (https://twitter.com/Vae_Victis_1958/status/1357339944155369481)). In other words, someone who is “just a dad with a webcam” wouldn’t be allowed to go on YouTube and blast his dissent all over the internet, trashing the Pope for preaching a “new religion” and encouraging everyone to join him in his “resistance”. Just saying.
The obligation to adhere to everything the Roman Pontiff teaches should really not present a problem for Catholics. The reason for this is found in our next thesis:
(3) The Pope’s teaching cannot be heretical, nor can it contain any other harmful error.
Does this seem excessive? It shouldn’t, for it simply follows from what we just saw. But there is no need to take our word for it, as Father Fenton himself draws this conclusion:
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
(Fenton, “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Part I” (https://archive.org/details/sim_american-ecclesiastical-review_1949-08_121_2/page/144/mode/2up), pp. 144-145; underlining added.)
The mere fact that a papal teaching is not protected from all error does not mean it is not protected from any error.
Heresy is clearly the kind of error from which God protects the Pope’s ordinary teaching. The Papacy, we must always keep before us, was established by God Himself as the highest teaching office in “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). If we truly believe and trust our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, who is the invisible Head of the Church and whose very Vicar the Roman Pontiff is, why should this present a problem? “O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?” (Mt 14:31).
When our Lord commissioned the 72 disciples, He did not endow them with infallibility. Nevertheless, He said to them: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” (Lk 10:16). Even though not infallible, they nonetheless preached with authority, the very authority of Christ Himself.
All this is entirely consistent with reason. It would be of no use for Catholics to have a Pope whom it would be safe to follow only when he teaches infallibly — and at all other times, not only would simple error be possible but even the most obnoxious blasphemies and most dangerous errors, not excluding heresy! What sort of a “pillar and ground of the truth” would this be? How trustworthy would such an institution be?
On what grounds could the Catholic Church credibly condemn the false doctrines of Protestant sects, which don’t claim to be infallible at any time, if she were to issue heretical declarations herself on occasion? Would it not be the height of absurdity if the Pope could, on the one hand, condemn others for teaching heresy, but then at the same time propose heretical doctrine himself — just not infallibly?
What would we think of a mother who guarantees she will never poison her children at Sunday night dinner, or on a few other special occasions, but won’t guarantee that her food is safe for the little ones at any other time of the week? And if this mother then justified herself on the grounds that at all other meals, she’s not requiring her children to eat anything but merely offering them food — what would we think of her? Would we not be aghast at such a wicked and cynical monster? Of course we would!
But is our Blessed Lord not infinitely more solicitous for His “little children” (Jn 13:33) than a mere human mother is for hers? “Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? and if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee” (Is 49:15).
No one cares more lovingly for His flock than the Good Shepherd:
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.
(John 10:11-14,4-5)
If our Blessed Lord is the Good Shepherd, so are His Vicars, and necessarily so, for He delegated to them His very own mission: “Feed my lambs… Feed my lambs… Feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15,16,17). The Popes are not guaranteed to be holy — in fact, some of them have been appallingly sinful and scandalous in their personal lives — but in the exercise of their teaching office, they are guaranteed to be entirely safe to follow:
- The “But we’ve had Bad Popes before” Objection (https://novusordowatch.org/2019/10/bad-popes-objection/)
- St. Robert Bellarmine defends Popes accused of Error (https://novusordowatch.org/2015/10/papal-error-bellarmine/)
- Do Catholics have to Assent to Non-Infallible Church Teaching? (https://novusordowatch.org/2019/03/catholics-assent-non-infallible-teaching/)
It is a most beautiful mystery, but then Christianity is a religion of mysteries.
(4) We Sedevacantists do not reject submission to the Pope, we reject someone’s claim to being the Pope.
From all the preceding it should be evident that we Sedevacantists do not, by any stretch, deny or doubt the Papacy. On the contrary, we affirm the Church’s doctrines regarding the Papacy (https://novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy/) most firmly. Unlike semi-trad Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (https://novusordowatch.org/2023/02/against-new-papacy-peter-kwasniewski/), we do not attempt to “rethink” the Papacy (https://novusordowatch.org/2023/01/rethinking-peter-kwasniewski/) to make it fit Jorge Bergoglio. If Bergoglio doesn’t fit the papal office (https://novusordowatch.org/2017/07/stumbling-block-papacy-francis-wont-fit/), the problem is not with the Papacy but with Bergoglio.
We do not reject the Pope, we reject Bergoglio’s manifestly false claim to being the Pope. And the same goes for the other five false papal claimants since the death of Pope Pius XII (https://novusordowatch.org/2018/10/sixty-years-since-death-pope-pius12/) in 1958.
How do we know they’re false popes? We know it from the fact that the assistance God has promised to His Vicars has manifestly not been operative in them. This increasingly obvious effect requires a proportionate cause to account for it, and the only cause that could possibly produce this effect — given that God is faithful to His promises and can neither lie nor be mistaken — is that they were not in fact true Popes, that is, they never received the papal authority from Christ. Even though they were ostensibly elected in their respective conclaves, for one reason or another they did not actually become Pope (some say it is because their acceptance of the office was vitiated by a contrary intention (https://novusordowatch.org/2022/03/apostolic-succession-after-pius12-catholic-hierarchy/), whereas others argue that public manifest heresy made them ineligible (http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/) to be elected validly).
But regardless of what caused the invalidity of their papacies, it is evident that they have not enjoyed the divine assistance, and so their invalidity is certain. Only because they are not actually true Popes do we have the right (and duty) to refuse them submission. After all, submission must be rendered to all true Popes as a condition for eternal salvation: “…we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm)).
The Good Shepherd rules and guides His flock: “And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice” (Jn 10:4). Our Lord does so through His visible Vicars: “…there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm), n. 40).
The sheep follow the Good Shepherd obediently and without suspicion. But a stranger, a hireling, or a wolf the sheep will not hear: “But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me” (Jn 10:4,27).
“The voice of strangers” is precisely what Catholics have been hearing from the Vatican since Cardinal Angelo Roncalli presented himself to the world as ‘Pope John XXIII’ (https://novusordowatch.org/john-xxiii/) in 1958. Never has this been more obvious than now, under the reign of (t)error of ‘Pope Francis’ (https://novusordowatch.org/francis/).
Concluding Thoughts
Obviously, we are living in extremely bizarre and confusing times. However, this does not allow us to throw traditional Catholic teaching out the window. We cannot simply declare pre-Vatican II Catholic doctrine obsolete or suspended and appeal to “diabolical disorientation” as a justification, just so we can have an incredibly visible ‘Pope’ — to whom we then refuse submission because he does not teach Catholicism but a dangerous perversion of it. Surely this is no way to ‘save the Church’ or the Faith.
As the Mystical Body of Christ, it is not surprising that the Catholic Church should emulate her Divine Head in being persecuted and ultimately suffering a mystical Passion (https://novusordowatch.org/2017/02/papacy-passion-of-church-fatima-conference-2016/) of her own. However, in such a Passion the Pope, being Christ’s Vicar, would, like the rest of the Church, be the victim, not the perpetrator.
In no wise could the Ark of Salvation suddenly turn into the Ark of Damnation. Neither could the Immaculate Bride of Christ turn away from her divine mission (https://novusordowatch.org/2021/03/deadly-defection-eric-sammons/) and become the Whore of Babylon, doing the bidding no longer of Christ but now of Antichrist:
During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly” [De Cath. Ecclesiae unitate, 6].
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11morta.htm), n. 10)
On the other hand, what is possible is that God would allow the “mystery of iniquity” to eclipse the Church for a time by removing, temporarily, His Vicar, who keeps the mystery from prevailing:
Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-11)
Cardinal Henry Manning’s lecture series given in 1871 explores the riches of Sacred Tradition concerning this passage and the frightful days that appear to be upon us now:
- The Pope and the Antichrist: The Great Apostasy foretold (https://novusordowatch.org/2015/04/the-pope-and-the-antichrist/)
Given all of the foregoing, we have seen that the semi-traditionalists cannot argue that ordinary papal teaching may be heretical, simply because it is not guaranteed to be free from all error.
Their recognize-and-resist position is a contrived human pseudo-solution that saves nothing and ultimately reduces the Church to an absurd circus, devoid of all credibility in her claim to being “the true and only Church of Christ” (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Amantissimus (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9amant2.htm), n. 3), indeed that “one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation” (Pope St. Pius V, Bull Regnans in Excelsis (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5regnans.htm)).
https://novusordowatch.org/2023/03/could-fallible-teaching-be-heretical/
-
Sedevacantism allows Francis to get away with his heresy. He doesn't have to be held accountable, since, for sedevacantists, Francis is just a guy in Rome who is pretending to be the pope. A guy who is pretending to be a pope doesn't have to be held accountable for anything.
-
All these anti-R&R discussions demonstrate is the truth of DL's (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=6797) final post (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=6797):
Anti-sede, but not anti-Catholic. I myself am growing "anti-sede" in the sense that it now entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate.
-
All these anti-R&R discussions demonstrate is the truth of DL's (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=6797) final post (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=6797):
I had wondered what happened to DL. I miss his unique perspective on things. He was originally sedevacantist, I think, and then changed his mind.
-
Only Old Catholics like yourself don't understand this. I've posted walls of text from the Popes about the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium ... which you heretically and blasphemously deny. Miser just posted one of a dozen or so that could be cited and have been cited. It's only Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants who hold that the Catholic Church can become corrupt in its Magisterium and its Public Worship. You've thrown in your lot with them than with actual Catholics.
You are trying to evade again.
Where does it say the pope cannot err in his non-infallible teaching power? Did Pope Nicholas I say that baptism "In the Name of Christ" is valid, or didn't he? Did John XXII teach the delay of eternal recompense until the Last Judgement, or not?
The Church's Magisterium is indefectible. We are discussing the non-infallible teaching of the pope.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/18Lzco5.png)
This is a gem. The great pope condemning the proto-modernists over a century before Vatican II. I recommend the study of this entire docuмent.
-
There's a lot of fluff in that article. Here are the five quotes it depends on:
1. "We likewise define that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecuмenical Councils and in the sacred canons."
(Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur Coeli; Denz. 694.)
The Council here defines the primacy. The pope has the authority to teach and rule. It doesn't say that it's impossible for him to be in error.
2. "But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See."
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, nn. 22, 24)
This is a rule, and Leo XIII doesn't have to name the exceptions every time he states a rule. For example, Pascal II ordered the bishops of Germany to surrender all their land to the emperor in 1111. The bishops refused. In 1112 Pascal rescinded the order, congratulated the bishops, and cursed the day he gave the order.
3. "All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says."
(Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, n. 22)
That is another way to formulate the rule Leo XIII was talking about.
4. "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth Me” [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine."
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, nn. 18, 20)
See below.
5. "Hence, even though to someone, certain declarations of the Church may not seem proved by the arguments put forward, his obligation to obey still remains."
(Pope Pius XII, Allocution Magnificate Dominum)
If you contradict the pope, you'd better be quoting a predecessor or a Council. You cannot contradict him simply because you feel his arguments are not convincing.
-
Another thread commandeered by the R&R vs. Sede folks!
Can you PLEASE move this topic elsewhere?
-
Sedevacantism allows Francis to get away with his heresy. He doesn't have to be held accountable, since, for sedevacantists, Francis is just a guy in Rome who is pretending to be the pope. A guy who is pretending to be a pope doesn't have to be held accountable for anything.
God will hold him accountable.
-
I had wondered what happened to DL. I miss his unique perspective on things. He was originally sedevacantist, I think, and then changed his mind.
Same here, I thought he was well spoken and I also think he was or at least firmly leaned sede, until he realized there is a lot more to it that simply a vacant chair per his last post.
-
God will hold him accountable.
Of that I have no doubt. But the Church here on earth needs a competent pope. He needs to be held accountable for not being so. Sedevacantism lets Francis off the hook.
-
You are trying to evade again.
Where does it say the pope cannot err in his non-infallible teaching power? Did Pope Nicholas I say that baptism "In the Name of Christ" is valid, or didn't he? Did John XXII teach the delay of eternal recompense until the Last Judgement, or not?
The Church's Magisterium is indefectible. We are discussing the non-infallible teaching of the pope.
No, you are the one evading. Your assertion that the Magisterium can go corrupt, that the Church can promulgate a Mass that's displeasing to God and harmful to souls, corrupting the Catholic religion to such an extent that Catholics would be justified and even required in conscience to sever communion with and submission to the hierarchy ... that's both blasphemous and heretical and its guts the indefectibility of the Church. If that isn't the definition of defection, then there's no such thing ... so long as there's a clown prancing around Rome in a white cassock. In fact, the proposition that the Rite of Mass used by the Church can be harmful to souls was anathematized by Trent.
Catholic Encyclopedia in article on "The Church" in the section on "Indefectibility":
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.
While not every papal teaching is infallible, it's not possible that pretty much the entire Magisterium outside of infallible teaching can become so corrupt as to make it unrecognizable as Catholic and an obstacle to the salvation of souls. You hide behind the idea that not all papal teaching is infallible to deny this basic truth, something the article above rightly calls "manifest", that such a degree of corruption would mean that the gates of hell had prevailed against the Church. You make the same claims about the Church having become corrupt that the Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the Protestants have.
Monsignor Fenton:
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
Papal Magisterium:
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “... the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “... only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church... from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine...”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#22), Dec. 11, 1925: “... the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: “… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”
Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”
-
While not every papal teaching is infallible, it's not possible that pretty much the entire Magisterium outside of infallible teaching can become so corrupt as to make it unrecognizable as Catholic and an obstacle to the salvation of souls.
Well, that's really your opinion because, as this crisis has proven, God has allowed evil that is beyond everyone's comprehension.
In the practical order (i.e. what we can see, hear and feel), the non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted.
Theoretically, R&R and Sedes argue away the practical corruption, and come to the same conclusion, from different angles.
R&R - The non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted but what matters is the infallible Magisterium which is still intact.
Sedes - The non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted but it was done by people who didn't have authority so it doesn't change anything.
Both sides explain away the practical evils, since there's no way to avoid them. The reality is, the practical evils remain, just as the novus ordo/V2 church remains.
1. R&R minimize the evils by saying the Infallible Magisterium is more important (which is true).
2. Sedes minimize the evils by saying the corrupted non-infallible Magisterium is illegal, null and void (which is true).
Either way, both agree that the infallible Magisterium is still pure, holy and unchanging. Either way, the corrupted, fallible Magisterium is still a problem and still causing spiritual destruction. Either way, both theories fail to fix the practical problems in the world.
-
Well, that's really your opinion because, as this crisis has proven, God has allowed evil that is beyond everyone's comprehension.
In the practical order (i.e. what we can see, hear and feel), the non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted.
Theoretically, R&R and Sedes argue away the practical corruption, and come to the same conclusion, from different angles.
R&R - The non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted but what matters is the infallible Magisterium which is still intact.
Sedes - The non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted but it was done by people who didn't have authority so it doesn't change anything.
Both sides explain away the practical evils, since there's no way to avoid them. The reality is, the practical evils remain, just as the novus ordo/V2 church remains.
1. R&R minimize the evils by saying the Infallible Magisterium is more important (which is true).
2. Sedes minimize the evils by saying the corrupted non-infallible Magisterium is illegal, null and void (which is true).
Either way, both agree that the infallible Magisterium is still pure, holy and unchanging. Either way, the corrupted, fallible Magisterium is still a problem and still causing spiritual destruction. Either way, both theories fail to fix the practical problems in the world.
So when Francis canonizes someone how is this explained? As the act of canonizing is solemn.
-
So when Francis canonizes someone how is this explained? As the act of canonizing is solemn.
Yes and no; it's more complex that you think. Look up a thread we had on canonizations a few years ago. Lots of research posted.
-
Your assertion that the Magisterium can go corrupt, that the Church can promulgate a Mass that's displeasing to God and harmful to souls, corrupting the Catholic religion to such an extent that Catholics would be justified and even required in conscience to sever communion with and submission to the hierarchy ... that's both blasphemous and heretical and its guts the indefectibility of the Church. In fact, the proposition that the Rite of Mass used by the Church can be harmful to souls was anathematized by Trent.
The ordinary magisterium of the pope can be erroneous, and has been before in history. You are still avoiding the topic of Nicholas I and John XXII teaching error. It's a historical fact.
The Church did not promulgate a Mass displeasing to God, the Congregation of Rites did. The Mass of all time is still the official rite of the Roman Church, as defined by St. Pius V. The Novus Ordo is a schismatic rite, and belongs to the sect that presently occupies Rome. No matter how officially the authorities try to make it the rite of the Roman Church, they are prevented by Trent and Quo Primum.
The doctrine of indefectibility guarantees that there will always be "Traditional Catholics". The gates of hell will not prevail. The crisis makes indefectibility easy to believe, when one sees the "remnant" miraculously preserved, despite persecution from the highest officials in the Church.
In providing all those papal quotes about the indefectibility of Church Magisterium, you demonstrate your error of equating "Church" with "Pope". Papal teaching = Church teaching only in ex cathedra pronouncements and statements that conform with papal teaching throughout history. The fact that papal teaching can contradict the Church is ancient historical fact.
-
So when Francis canonizes someone how is this explained? As the act of canonizing is solemn.
Canonizations are generally considered infallible. How then do we understand the "canonizations" of scandalous people in recent years? John Paul II changed the process of examination to a point that he vitiated his own decisions of whether or not a person could be canonized. For example, the elimination of the "devil's advocate". John Paul II would not allow testimonies against the candidates for canonization to be reviewed. Absurdity!
Sadly, the great Padre Pio was "canonized" according to the new vitiated process. That is why traditional parishes will not have public recitations of "Saint Pio, pray for us" or allow statues of him in the chapel. Obviously, the vast majority firmly believe in his sanctity.
-
Well, that's really your opinion because, as this crisis has proven, God has allowed evil that is beyond everyone's comprehension.
In the practical order (i.e. what we can see, hear and feel), the non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted.
Theoretically, R&R and Sedes argue away the practical corruption, and come to the same conclusion, from different angles.
R&R - The non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted but what matters is the infallible Magisterium which is still intact.
Sedes - The non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted but it was done by people who didn't have authority so it doesn't change anything.
Both sides explain away the practical evils, since there's no way to avoid them. The reality is, the practical evils remain, just as the novus ordo/V2 church remains.
1. R&R minimize the evils by saying the Infallible Magisterium is more important (which is true).
2. Sedes minimize the evils by saying the corrupted non-infallible Magisterium is illegal, null and void (which is true).
Either way, both agree that the infallible Magisterium is still pure, holy and unchanging. Either way, the corrupted, fallible Magisterium is still a problem and still causing spiritual destruction. Either way, both theories fail to fix the practical problems in the world.
The only practical solution to the crisis is the Consecration of Russia. But how will people have the motivation to ask the pope for it, if they are tricked into believing we don't even have a pope? The Devil has many such strategies to delay the Consecration.
-
Well, that's really your opinion because, as this crisis has proven, God has allowed evil that is beyond everyone's comprehension.
In the practical order (i.e. what we can see, hear and feel), the non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted.
Theoretically, R&R and Sedes argue away the practical corruption, and come to the same conclusion, from different angles.
R&R - The non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted but what matters is the infallible Magisterium which is still intact.
Sedes - The non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted but it was done by people who didn't have authority so it doesn't change anything.
Both sides explain away the practical evils, since there's no way to avoid them. The reality is, the practical evils remain, just as the novus ordo/V2 church remains.
1. R&R minimize the evils by saying the Infallible Magisterium is more important (which is true).
2. Sedes minimize the evils by saying the corrupted non-infallible Magisterium is illegal, null and void (which is true).
Either way, both agree that the infallible Magisterium is still pure, holy and unchanging. Either way, the corrupted, fallible Magisterium is still a problem and still causing spiritual destruction. Either way, both theories fail to fix the practical problems in the world.
I don't think R&R sees it in quite the way you describe above. Archbishop Lefebvre never described in your way. He believed that the Church is occupied. By Modernists. That's not the same thing as having a corrupt magisterium.
Let's say, for example, that a large city or a country in Europe during one of the past world wars was occupied for some years. Take, as a further example, Holland being occupied by Germans during WW11. (my husband's family was Dutch, and living in Holland at that time, so I've heard many stories of what happened). The county was still Holland during the occupation, even though there was not a Dutch leadership. The leadership was German. Of course that occupation lasted 2 or 3 years, which isn't much when compared to the occupation of the True Church by the Modernists. I believe that the invaders will be one day vanquished, but maybe not in our lifetimes.
-
I don't think R&R sees it in quite the way you describe above.
There are many flavors of R&R, just like the many flavors of Sedeism.
Archbishop Lefebvre never described in your way. He believed that the Church is occupied. By Modernists. That's not the same thing as having a corrupt magisterium.
If you're talking about people, then you mean the 'hierarchy'. The non-infallible magisterium is the collection of V2 writings, prayers, liturgy, practices, etc...not people.
-
There are many flavors of R&R, just like the many flavors of Sedeism.
If you're talking about people, then you mean the 'hierarchy'. The non-infallible magisterium is the collection of V2 writings, prayers, liturgy, practices, etc...not people.
True, there are many flavors, but I'm speaking of the most common flavor.
I'm referring the +ABL's take on the situation, which no one is required to accept. But still, he did not view the situation the way you do. That's all I'm saying.
-
True, there are many flavors, but I'm speaking of the most common flavor.
I'm referring the +ABL's take on the situation, which no one is required to accept. But still, he did not view the situation the way you do. That's all I'm saying.
Well, the problem I have is with some modern R&R distorting and misrepresenting Archbishop Lefebvre's position, which I have no issues with.
He affirms the Catholic truth that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit that that this degree of destruction caused by the Pope is not possible. He says to sedevacantists in one speech, "I agree with you there." He then states that SVism is one possible answer. He's never ruled out SVism as a possibility, but simply felt he didn't have the degree of certainty required to formally come out as an SV.
So Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the MAJOR of the SV position. He simply felt that there could be some unknown factor that could account for what's going on. He went through some possibilities, such as that the V2 papal claimants were being blackmailed, or drugged, or whatever. He said that those were not very likely, but he didn't have the certainty of faith to rule them out and conclude they weren't legitimate popes.
Modern R&R, however, claim that legitimate Popes can corrupt the Church ... and then try to pretend that +Lefebvre supported their position. He did not, except possibly for a span of time between 1980 - 1984 or so. But before then and after then, he remained very open to SVism being correct, but just wanted to defer to the Church's authority to definitely resolve the question.
-
The only practical solution to the crisis is the Consecration of Russia. But how will people have the motivation to ask the pope for it, if they are tricked into believing we don't even have a pope? The Devil has many such strategies to delay the Consecration.
Nobody's "tricked" into believing we don't have a pope, as that is in fact the truth. You are the one who's been "tricked into" having become some flavor of Old Catholic. As for not having a Pope, it's better to have no Pope than these destroyers. You have no faith whatsoever in the Catholic Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church.
Regardless of whether you're an SV or R&R, this situation is beyond human resolution. When the time comes, God will fix everything, pope or no pope. You pretend as though God can't remedy the "no pope" situation?
-
Well, the problem I have is with some modern R&R distorting and misrepresenting Archbishop Lefebvre's position, which I have no issues with.
He affirms the Catholic truth that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit that that this degree of destruction caused by the Pope is not possible. He says to sedevacantists in one speech, "I agree with you there." He then states that SVism is one possible answer. He's never ruled out SVism as a possibility, but simply felt he didn't have the degree of certainty required to formally come out as an SV.
So Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the MAJOR of the SV position. He simply felt that there could be some unknown factor that could account for what's going on. He went through some possibilities, such as that the V2 papal claimants were being blackmailed, or drugged, or whatever. He said that those were not very likely, but he didn't have the certainty of faith to rule them out and conclude they weren't legitimate popes.
Modern R&R, however, claim that legitimate Popes can corrupt the Church ... and then try to pretend that +Lefebvre supported their position. He did not, except possibly for a span of time between 1980 - 1984 or so. But before then and after then, he remained very open to SVism being correct, but just wanted to defer to the Church's authority to definitely resolve the question.
Well, the problem I see with Pro Vobis stance, is that +ABL did not discuss the "Magisterium," or whether or not is it or is not corruptible. As far as I know, it just wasn't a part of Tradition for him.
It seems to me that this issue is relatively new, and I'm not sure who invented it, maybe it was Fr. Fenton, or Fr. Cekada, or Des Lauriers. Or none of them. The term "Magisterium" is also used by advocates of VII. I know, because I used to argue with them on the old Catholic Answers forum. For them, the Church is built on Scripture, Tradition, and "the Magisterium."
The whole issue or subject of "the Magisterium" seems like a novelty to me, and +ABL wasn't really into novelties, for the most part (the BoD issue aside).
-
He affirms the Catholic truth that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit that that this degree of destruction caused by the Pope is not possible. He says to sedevacantists in one speech, "I agree with you there."
So Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the MAJOR of the SV position. He simply felt that there could be some unknown factor that could account for what's going on. He went through some possibilities, such as that the V2 papal claimants were being blackmailed, or drugged, or whatever. He said that those were not very likely, but he didn't have the certainty of faith to rule them out and conclude they weren't legitimate popes.
+Lefebvre gave zero possibility to the theories of the pope being blackmailed, drugged, etc. In the speech you refer to, he did indeed agree that this degree of destruction could not possibly be caused by a pope. He then gives possibility to the theories of the pope losing his office because of formal heresy known only to a few, or because of automatic excommunication for Masonic membership, again known only to a few.
In the very same calendar year (1976), however, he spoke on the topic again, and no longer affirmed that the pope was incapable of causing such destruction. Remember that he was almost completely alone, and at this early point in the crisis was feeling around in the dark. Just as it took time for him to realize the unacceptability of the '65 and '67 Missals, these theological questions took a few years to research and understand. As you say, these small adjustments of view are a refreshing mark of honesty and humility.
-
As for not having a Pope, it's better to have no Pope than these destroyers. You have no faith whatsoever in the Catholic Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church.
It may be better, but that has no bearing on whether it is true.
The Holy Ghost will protect the Church from complete destruction. He will also not allow Church Magisterium to be corrupted, no matter how much garbage comes from the Pope's mouth or pen. He will never abandon any soul, unless a soul abandons Him first.
-
Regardless of whether you're an SV or R&R, this situation is beyond human resolution.
As St. Ignatius says: pray as though everything depends on God, and work as though everything depends on you. God will fix this situation through His Blessed Mother, but He expects us to do our little bit. He has made it clear that the Consecration of Russia is what He wants us to pray, sacrifice and work for. It comes from the heresy of Quietism to adopt the defeatist attitude of 'we can do nothing.'
-
As St. Ignatius says: pray as though everything depends on God, and work as though everything depends on you. God will fix this situation through His Blessed Mother, but He expects us to do our little bit. He has made it clear that the Consecration of Russia is what He wants us to pray, sacrifice and work for. It comes from the heresy of Quietism to adopt the defeatist attitude of 'we can do nothing.'
Where do you read "Quietism" into the statement that the situation is beyond human resolution? We can obviously pray and make sacrifices, etc. Point was that whether you're talking about a "hierarchy" thoroughly polluted with Modernism (with the exception of perhaps a literal handful of prelates) or a vacant See, both situations are beyond our capability to fix ... in any concrete or practical way.
-
As St. Ignatius says: pray as though everything depends on God, and work as though everything depends on you. God will fix this situation through His Blessed Mother, but He expects us to do our little bit. He has made it clear that the Consecration of Russia is what He wants us to pray, sacrifice and work for. It comes from the heresy of Quietism to adopt the defeatist attitude of 'we can do nothing.'
Well said NIFH. Are you sure that is St Ignatius who said that and not St Teresa of Avilla?
-
Well said NIFH. Are you sure that is St Ignatius who said that and not St Teresa of Avilla?
Thank you. A quick search seems to show St. Ignatius was quoting St. Augustine.
-
Where do you read "Quietism" into the statement that the situation is beyond human resolution? We can obviously pray and make sacrifices, etc. Point was that whether you're talking about a "hierarchy" thoroughly polluted with Modernism (with the exception of perhaps a literal handful of prelates) or a vacant See, both situations are beyond our capability to fix ... in any concrete or practical way.
Writing letters to the authorities asking for the Consecration is a concrete and practical way to work towards the end of the crisis. There will always be something we can do.
-
:facepalm: It's called "canon" law. Only canons (i.e. church authorities) can interpret and apply it. The only exceptions are if a laymen get a canon law degree (but even this is a post-V2 modernization).
What nonsense. You continue to overlook the plain words used in Canon 188.4º. Here we go again:
“Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: A fide catholica publice defecerit.”
(1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188.4º)
“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione = upon the fact and without any declaration
A fact is perceived by the senses and apprehended by the intellect. What you are saying is that the fact of public defection can only be observed by the Church authorities. First of all, that is nonsense in and of itself because a simple layman can observe a fact. Secondly, if that were the case, the Canon would not state "upon the fact and without any declaration". It would say something like "upon the fact and declared by the competent authority". Once again, you make Canon 188.4º moot.
-
:facepalm: Only the church has the authority to investigate and decide if the evidence is sufficient.
The church is a monarchy with a hierarchical authority. It is not a democracy nor does it allow (nor has it ever allowed) the kind of Protestant-grassroots-individualistic-decision-making which you describe.
Nobody cares what you investigate, how you interpret canon law, what your conclusions are, nor any opinion you have on ANYTHING related to Catholicism. Your opinion matters 0%. If you think it does, you’re well on your way to following Martin Luther.
If Jorge Bergoglio publicly admitted that he is a heretic and none of the cardinals or bishops did anything about it, would you still consider him to be pope?
-
Does the 1917 Code of Canon Law define what constitutes a public defection from the Catholic Faith? I can't find that it does. But there needs to be an authentic interpretation of what constitutes a public defection from the Catholic Faith.
1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf (restorethe54.com) (https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf)
Is holding publicly and pertinaciously to one heresy not sufficient?
-
Can confirm that since abandoning Lefebvrism my debates with non-Catholics were much more effective. People would always point to Francis and I'd sound delusional explaining how it doesn't matter what he does. The funny thing is I was never comfortable with that part but now it's clear as day to me.
Attended a Rosary rally in Boston where our group was being constantly harangued and heckled by protestants with loudspeakers. One prot boomer targeted me as we were praying.
Although I would not engage him, he came in close and wanted me to defend Bergolio's public announcement of cancelling Hell. The conversation did not last long, but I think I satisfied him.
I told him: "Bergolio is a Jєω". He said "Oh!... okay" and walked away.
-
Is holding publicly and pertinaciously to one heresy not sufficient?
No, it is not.
-
No, it is not.
Does too. :laugh2:
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/143/597/852/original/068dac181ca307d1.png)
-
Both Pope St Pius X and Pius XII changed parts of the "cuм Ex" law to allow excommunicated individuals to both elect and be elected pope. So, to some degree, "cuм Ex" is old news...
-
If it weren't so sad, it would be hilarious that people believe heretics couldn't be popes for 400 years but the Holy Ghost decided to let non-Catholics have authority over Catholics so that they could then reject that authority.
-
1. Are you really calling a decision by Pope St Pius X "sad"?
2. Have you ever read his changes? It doesn't sound like you have.
3. Do you not understand that changes to conclave (i.e. human law) have nothing to do with infallibility?
Ultimately, the conclave changes made allow an excommunicated cardinal (i.e. which is not the same thing as a non-catholic) to vote and be elected...but...immediately after the conclave, all excommunications, sanctions, etc are re-enforced.
If anyone knew of the dangers of Modernism, and how much rome was infiltrated (already!) in the early 1900s, it was Pope St Pius X. So, in his papal wisdom, he foresaw that it was VERY probable that future "popes" would be heretics, excommuncated, etc because the infiltration and corruption was so deep. Thus, it seems he decided that if he could not prevent heretics from gaining office, at least he would (by the conclave changes) allow that the temporal/govt/visible part of the papacy be legit...and so the papacy could continue in some aspect (even if not fully). We all know the spiritual aspect of the papacy is not legit, as these people have no true spiritual authority.
This lines up 100% with Sede-privationism, Fr Chazal's impoundism, and other hybrid theories. Don't you see the wisdom in this?
-
No, it is not.
Really? How many does it take?
-
Both Pope St Pius X and Pius XII changed parts of the "cuм Ex" law to allow excommunicated individuals to both elect and be elected pope. So, to some degree, "cuм Ex" is old news...
If the individuals in question were excommunicated for reasons other than heresy, apostasy, or schism, then that is fine. However, for the public sins of heresy, apostasy, or schism, no pope has the authority allow such individuals to be papal candidates because these sins by their very nature separate the culprits from the Church.
-
If Jorge Bergoglio publicly admitted that he is a heretic and none of the cardinals or bishops did anything about it, would you still consider him to be pope?
Pax Vobis, you continue dodging this question. And I have a hunch as to why. Whether you answer "yes" or "no", you'll hang yourself. If you answer "yes", then you would be indirectly denying the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII. If you answer "no", then all the arguing you have been doing against my position will go out the window.
I will give you one more chance to prove me wrong:
If Jorge Bergoglio publicly admitted that he is a heretic and none of the cardinals or bishops did anything about it, would you still consider him to be pope?
-
Really? How many does it take?
It is not a question of "How many does it take," but it's a matter of your private interpretation of that particular code of canon law.
Why should we take your interpretation as a fact that we must all adhere to, as if you are a pope yourself?
-
If Jorge Bergoglio publicly admitted that he is a heretic and none of the cardinals or bishops did anything about it, would you still consider him to be pope?
No.
In that case, a declaration by the Church of the fact of heresy would seem unnecessary:
The purpose of the declaration by the cardinals is to announce the fact of the pope’s heresy. Therefore, he’d basically be doing that for them.
At that point, either St. Bellarmine would kick in (ie., deposition by God from the moment of the declaration), or, per Cajetan/JST et al, the deposition would occur at the moment of the second declaration (ie., of his deposition).
Either way, the only question would be the timing of the deposition (between the 1st and 2nd declaration), sede vacante either being the case, or an imminent inevitability.
-
Sean’s answer sounds reasonable. Either way, at that point, church officials would act in some manner, so my opinion would be irrelevant. That’s why I haven’t answered the question… because my opinion is irrelevant.
-
What have the last how many pages to do with Frs. Hewko and Ruiz or their “Statement?” :fryingpan:
-
Canonizations are generally considered infallible. How then do we understand the "canonizations" of scandalous people in recent years? John Paul II changed the process of examination to a point that he vitiated his own decisions of whether or not a person could be canonized. For example, the elimination of the "devil's advocate". John Paul II would not allow testimonies against the candidates for canonization to be reviewed. Absurdity!
Sadly, the great Padre Pio was "canonized" according to the new vitiated process. That is why traditional parishes will not have public recitations of "Saint Pio, pray for us" or allow statues of him in the chapel. Obviously, the vast majority firmly believe in his sanctity.
Dear NIFH,
Catholics trust canonizations not because of the "process" but because of the papal declaration.
Has the process EVER changed? Since it appears that you disagree with the process of John Paul II, are you somehow the new judge of what the process needs to be? If you're not in charge of that, who is?
-
The Novus Ordo is a schismatic rite, and belongs to the sect that presently occupies Rome.
Dear NIFH,
Do you know who is the human head of this "sect that presently occupies Rome?"
Is this the case whereby you believe that the head of a non-Catholic sect is at the very same time the head of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Bride of Christ?
Do you believe it possible to be both a non-Catholic and a Catholic at the same time?
-
Sean’s answer sounds reasonable. Either way, at that point, church officials would act in some manner, so my opinion would be irrelevant. That’s why I haven’t answered the question… because my opinion is irrelevant.
Even if the church officials would eventually act in some manner, there would still be the period of time between the moment the putative pope admits he is a heretic and the moment the church officials make a declaration. Would you still accept him as pope at the moment he admits he is a heretic?
-
It is not a question of "How many does it take," but it's a matter of your private interpretation of that particular code of canon law.
Why should we take your interpretation as a fact that we must all adhere to, as if you are a pope yourself?
You stated that holding publicly and pertinaciously to one heresy is not sufficient to constitute a public defection from the Catholic Faith. I asked you how many does it take, then, and you now respond by saying that it is not a matter of how many. Then why did you answer my question that one would not be sufficient?
-
Would you still accept him as pope at the moment he admits he is a heretic?
The church is not a democracy. It is not individualistic. Catholics don’t decide things “on our own” or by way of “personal decisions.”
Your question shows a lack of understanding of how a hierarchical organization works. The closest organization that exists similar to the church would be the military. If some General came out and said he was anti-America, the simple soldier on the ground does not have the authority to a) stop his mission, b) change his daily duties or c) lead an ιnѕυrrєcтισn against the bad general. It’s above his pay-grade. His opinion doesn’t matter. What matters are his superiors and their orders for him.
So to answer your question: whether I (personally) accept pope x as pope matters 0%. Even if pope x claims heresy. It doesn’t change my daily duties as a catholic nor do I have any authority to lead any kind of rebellion. My duties are to God not a pope. I can educate others on the heresy and tell them to pray for the papacy (in general terms), but the persons responsible for fixing the issue are a) God and b) church officials.
-
Even if the church officials would eventually act in some manner, there would still be the period of time between the moment the putative pope admits he is a heretic and the moment the church officials make a declaration. Would you still accept him as pope at the moment he admits he is a heretic?
Not really:
The pope would be a declared heretic the moment he declared himself a heretic (i.e., simultaneously).
-
You stated that holding publicly and pertinaciously to one heresy is not sufficient to constitute a public defection from the Catholic Faith. I asked you how many does it take, then, and you now respond by saying that it is not a matter of how many. Then why did you answer my question that one would not be sufficient?
The canon law on which you base your thesis doesn't say anything about heresy. It says that a public defection from the faith is required to lose an office. I don't recall that Francis or any of the conciliar popes as publicly stating or making an announcement to the whole Church that they were leaving the Catholic Church. That's what a "Public Defection" is, in the context of the canon law you cited.
-
Dear NIFH,
Catholics trust canonizations not because of the "process" but because of the papal declaration.
Has the process EVER changed? Since it appears that you disagree with the process of John Paul II, are you somehow the new judge of what the process needs to be? If you're not in charge of that, who is?
Theologians generally considered canonizations to be infallible not simply because of the papal declaration, but because veneration of the saint was placed into mandatory liturgical prayers. It would be unexplainable if the Church would impose veneration of a person in the liturgy if in fact the person was not a saint.
The pope has the power to investigate the facts of a person's life and to declare him a saint based on the findings. Now that the popes refuse to make a true investigation (by forbidding evidence against the cause to be considered) he is unable to reach a just decision.
-
Dear NIFH,
Do you know who is the human head of this "sect that presently occupies Rome?"
Is this the case whereby you believe that the head of a non-Catholic sect is at the very same time the head of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Bride of Christ?
Do you believe it possible to be both a non-Catholic and a Catholic at the same time?
There are distinctions to be made here. It is possible for a person to be a material heretic and to still be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. I think it was Tanquerey who said that most Catholics are materially semi-Pelagians, and are quite unaware of it. These people have ideas that contradict Church doctrine, but do not intend to, and would change their ideas as soon as they learned the true doctrine. There are innumerable ways to materially be a non-Catholic, and subjectively definitely still be a Catholic.
The pope is not the head of the Catholic Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church. The pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He holds the highest position of any mere human on Earth, but he is still only the vicar of the Head.
Whether or not our present pope is truly the head of the sect eclipsing the Church, he certainly seems to be at least the visible head. Just as it is possible for a local bishop to be at the same time the president of the local Socialist Club, it is possible for the pope to be at the same time the president of the 'newchurch'. All of his time and effort and dedication seems to be put to the service of his sect, rather than to his far nobler position of Christ's Vicar on Earth. Our poor Holy Father, we must pray for him, and make clear that he will have our fullest support should he accept the grace to turn around.
-
There are distinctions to be made here. It is possible for a person to be a material heretic and to still be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. I think it was Tanquerey who said that most Catholics are materially semi-Pelagians, and are quite unaware of it. These people have ideas that contradict Church doctrine, but do not intend to, and would change their ideas as soon as they learned the true doctrine. There are innumerable ways to materially be a non-Catholic, and subjectively definitely still be a Catholic.
The pope is not the head of the Catholic Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church. The pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He holds the highest position of any mere human on Earth, but he is still only the vicar of the Head.
Whether or not our present pope is truly the head of the sect eclipsing the Church, he certainly seems to be at least the visible head. Just as it is possible for a local bishop to be at the same time the president of the local Socialist Club, it is possible for the pope to be at the same time the president of the 'newchurch'. All of his time and effort and dedication seems to be put to the service of his sect, rather than to his far nobler position of Christ's Vicar on Earth. Our poor Holy Father, we must pray for him, and make clear that he will have our fullest support should he accept the grace to turn around.
Hasn't some bishops already sent Francis a letter admonishing him? Also many trads are in denial about salvation by invincible ignorance being pelagian when you show them how utter ridiculous it is, yet they double down. Are these still material heretics?
You say the Pope isn't the head but also the Pope is the visible head... Sure Christ is the real head, but the Pope is still a head, as you said, visible.
-
Hasn't some bishops already sent Francis a letter admonishing him? Also many trads are in denial about salvation by invincible ignorance being pelagian when you show them how utter ridiculous it is, yet they double down. Are these still material heretics?
You say the Pope isn't the head but also the Pope is the visible head... Sure Christ is the real head, but the Pope is still a head, as you said, visible.
The pope's mind seems to be compromised far too deeply for the admonition to be effective. Remember, contrary to how much God has blessed us, the pope and many high Church officials were fed the most criminally aberrant philosophies for years in their formative years. The effects of such mental programming is beyond what you or I have experienced or can empathize with. There's also the fact that the few admonishing voices are drowned by the overwhelming majority of bishops, to whom this pope is a hero, or perhaps even not progressive enough!
-
First time back in quite a long time....
I see the old SV vs. R&R debate is still going strong on CathInfo.
-
First time back in quite a long time....
I see the old SV vs. R&R debate is still going strong on CathInfo.
:facepalm:
-
What a lame statement. These two priests are so into their minds.
The Thuc line of the Planar wouldn't exist if it weren't by the very own Abp Lefebvre who told such group to go with Bp Thuc in the first place. Canon Revaz was an Ecône professor who made the contact.
Now Bp Thuc did performed other consecrations later on like in 1981 since he was aware of the invalidity of the new rite. Abp Lefebvre back then wasn't willing to consecrate. He was busy dealing with JP2.
Now, all of this sedevacantism doesn't have a solution is another misconception. There's always a solution. If not the Church wouldn't be a perfect society. Ask the council fathers of Constance when all the three successions were put into question.
About not judging canonically it's another misconception. Canonically speaking all the usurpers of Vatican 2 have already been condemned according to Canon 188.4 and the Bull cuм Ex Appostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV. When you say Bergoglio is not a pope you're stating a fact based on reality. When you see an animal with 4 legs, barks like a dog and wags it's tail like a dog are you going to wait for a veterinarian to tell you it's perhaps a Giraffe?
Just my two cents
.
I am proud to be the 12th person to give this a thumb's-up. I have never seen anyone get so many upvotes for one post, that I can recall offhand.
This post wins so hard that I have nothing to add, except for my upvote, which I have already done. :cowboy:
-
The church is not a democracy. It is not individualistic. Catholics don’t decide things “on our own” or by way of “personal decisions.”
Your question shows a lack of understanding of how a hierarchical organization works. The closest organization that exists similar to the church would be the military. If some General came out and said he was anti-America, the simple soldier on the ground does not have the authority to a) stop his mission, b) change his daily duties or c) lead an ιnѕυrrєcтισn against the bad general. It’s above his pay-grade. His opinion doesn’t matter. What matters are his superiors and their orders for him.
So to answer your question: whether I (personally) accept pope x as pope matters 0%. Even if pope x claims heresy. It doesn’t change my daily duties as a catholic nor do I have any authority to lead any kind of rebellion. My duties are to God not a pope. I can educate others on the heresy and tell them to pray for the papacy (in general terms), but the persons responsible for fixing the issue are a) God and b) church officials.
Bye bye.
-
Not really:
The pope would be a declared heretic the moment he declared himself a heretic (i.e., simultaneously).
In this day and age, don't be so certain about that.
-
The canon law on which you base your thesis doesn't say anything about heresy. It says that a public defection from the faith is required to lose an office. I don't recall that Francis or any of the conciliar popes as publicly stating or making an announcement to the whole Church that they were leaving the Catholic Church. That's what a "Public Defection" is, in the context of the canon law you cited.
The Canon in question does NOT state public defection from the "Church". It states public defection from the "Faith". Stop making up your own interpretation. Read it in the Latin:
“Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: A fide catholica publice defecerit.”
Leaving the Catholic Church and/or joining a sect is a TYPE of pubic defection from the Faith. Knowingly, consciously, and willingly publicly asserting a proposition that is in direct contradiction to a Church teaching that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith is another TYPE of public defection from the Faith.
-
The church is not a democracy. It is not individualistic. Catholics don’t decide things “on our own” or by way of “personal decisions.”
Your question shows a lack of understanding of how a hierarchical organization works. The closest organization that exists similar to the church would be the military. If some General came out and said he was anti-America, the simple soldier on the ground does not have the authority to a) stop his mission, b) change his daily duties or c) lead an ιnѕυrrєcтισn against the bad general. It’s above his pay-grade. His opinion doesn’t matter. What matters are his superiors and their orders for him.
So to answer your question: whether I (personally) accept pope x as pope matters 0%. Even if pope x claims heresy. It doesn’t change my daily duties as a catholic nor do I have any authority to lead any kind of rebellion. My duties are to God not a pope. I can educate others on the heresy and tell them to pray for the papacy (in general terms), but the persons responsible for fixing the issue are a) God and b) church officials.
Wrong, your “duties” are to both God AND the pope. First to God and then to the pope who IS Gods representative on Earth. You have no right to flout any of his laws or disregard the obedience due to him unless he is asking you to do something that is MANIFESTLY sinful.
-
Wrong, your “duties” are to both God AND the pope. First to God and then to the pope who IS Gods representative on Earth. You have no right to flout any of his laws or disregard the obedience due to him unless he is asking you to do something that is MANIFESTLY sinful.
Not really. Before the radio was invented, most Catholics had no interaction with the pope at all, for all of history. Their main duty was to their local priest (most people have no interaction with their diocesan Bishop, either). The parish priest was the conduit from Pope --> Bishop --> Parish Priest.
-
Not really. Before the radio was invented, most Catholics had no interaction with the pope at all, for all of history. Their main duty was to their local priest (most people have no interaction with their diocesan Bishop, either). The parish priest was the conduit from Pope --> Bishop --> Parish Priest.
What you say is not Catholic, Pax. See the bolded sections below.
Catechism of Pius X (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286)
50 Q. Who is the Pope?
A. The Pope, who is also called the Sovereign Pontiff, or the Roman Pontiff, is the Successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, and the visible Head of the Church.
51 Q. Why is the Roman Pontiff the Successor of St. Peter?
A. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of St. Peter because St. Peter united in his own person the dignity of Bishop of Rome and that of Head of the Church; by divine disposition he established his Seat at Rome, and there died; hence, whosoever is elected Bishop of Rome is also heir to all his authority.
52 Q. Why is the Roman Pontiff the Vicar of Jesus Christ?
A. The Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Jesus Christ because He represents Him on earth and acts in His stead in the government of the Church.
53 Q. Why is the Roman Pontiff the Visible Head of the Church?
A. The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church because he visibly governs her with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, who is her invisible Head.
54 Q. What, then, is the dignity of the Pope?
A. The dignity of the Pope is the greatest of all dignities on earth, and gives him supreme and immediate power over all and each of the Pastors and of the faithful.
55 Q. Can the Pope err when teaching the Church?
A. The Pope cannot err, that is, he is infallible, in definitions regarding faith and morals.
56 Q. How is it that the Pope is infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible because of the promise of Jesus Christ, and of the unfailing assistance of the Holy Ghost.
57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.
58 Q. What sin would a man commit who should refuse to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope?
A. He who refuses to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope, or who even doubts them, sins against faith; and should he remain obstinate in this unbelief, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.
59 Q.Why has God granted to the Pope the gift of infallibility?
A. God has granted the Pope the gift of infallibility in order that we all may be sure and certain of the truths which the Church teaches.
60 Q. When was it defined that the Pope is infallible?
A.That the Pope is infallible was defined by the Church in the [First] Vatican Council; and should anyone presume to contradict this definition he would be a heretic and excommunicated.
61 Q. In defining that the Pope is infallible, has the Church put forward a new truth of faith?
A.No, in defining that the Pope is infallible the Church has not put forward a new truth of faith; but to oppose new errors she has simply defined that the infallibility of the Pope, already contained in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, is a truth revealed by God, and therefore to be believed as a dogma or article of faith.
62 Q.How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?
A.Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.
-
Not really. Before the radio was invented, most Catholics had no interaction with the pope at all, for all of history. Their main duty was to their local priest (most people have no interaction with their diocesan Bishop, either). The parish priest was the conduit from Pope --> Bishop --> Parish Priest.
Please! Do you really buy what you just wrote? How does that remotely support your contention that you don’t have “duties” to the pope? No real Catholic would nor could believe such a thing. I suggest you rethink this blatantly unorthodox position.
-
Please! Do you really buy what you just wrote? How does that remotely support your contention that you don’t have “duties” to the pope? No real Catholic would nor could believe such a thing. I suggest you rethink this blatantly unorthodox position.
Well said...
-
Wrong, your “duties” are to both God AND the pope. First to God and then to the pope who IS Gods representative on Earth. You have no right to flout any of his laws or disregard the obedience due to him unless he is asking you to do something that is MANIFESTLY sinful.
What Pope do you obey, then? If our duty is to God AND the Pope, then surely there is a Pope somewhere that you obey.
-
Edit: Didn't read discussion carefully.
-
Edit: Didn't read discussion carefully.
What Pope do you obey? It is absolutely imperative that ALL Catholics submit to the Pope, correct? Why should you be off the hook?
-
What Pope do you obey, then? If our duty is to God AND the Pope, then surely there is a Pope somewhere that you obey.
If there is no visible pope then there is no pope that I can give my obedience to. Now, can you provide me with the name of the pope you obey?
-
What Pope do you obey? It is absolutely imperative that ALL Catholics submit to the Pope, correct? Why should you be off the hook?
So, do you submit to Bergoglio?
-
If there is no visible pope then there is no pope that I can give my obedience to. Now, can you provide me with the name of the pope you obey?
Well that's convenient for you, isn't it?
Since all Catholics must obey the Pope, then it's imperative that you elect one, so that you have someone to obey, since you go on so about us having to obey "our" pope.
I think it's required that you have "your" pope. You can elect anyone. How about someone at your chapel? Or maybe a family member? Then you can obey him in EVERYTHING but sin, just like you tell us that we have to do. Doesn't that sound fair?
-
Please! Do you really buy what you just wrote? How does that remotely support your contention that you don’t have “duties” to the pope? No real Catholic would nor could believe such a thing. I suggest you rethink this blatantly unorthodox position.
It depends how you define duties.
Are catholics required to pilgrimage to rome and pay homage to the pope, like the muslims at mecca? No.
Are we required to do anything to him on a personal level? Send Christmas cards? Have a photo of him in our house? Know his middle name and family history? No, no and no.
I suppose the only "duty" I could come up with is to pray for the pope...but that's not really a duty, but part of the Faith. It's part of many novenas, and the mass.
Could a catholic grow up in some poor country, and live his life only going to the dirt-floor church down the road, never leaving his tiny little village, without ever knowing the pope's title or anything about him? Yes.
So, if such a person could save their soul, what "duty" did they fulfill?
-
Well that's convenient for you, isn't it?
Since all Catholics must obey the Pope, then it's imperative that you elect one, so that you have someone to obey, since you go on so about us having to obey "our" pope.
I think it's required that you have "your" pope. You can elect anyone. How about someone at your chapel? Or maybe a family member? Then you can obey him in EVERYTHING but sin, just like you tell us that we have to do. Doesn't that sound fair?
Meg, read below the description of your Pope. And consider that last point about those that will be judged? Why will they be judged? Because they have "consented to iniquity." They will not need to actually commit the sin themselves. It will be enough for them to "consent" to the sin of "that wicked one." Do you think that by calling him "the Holy Father" you might be "consenting" to what he is doing?
8 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=60&ch=2&l=8-#x)And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,
Et tunc revelabitur ille iniquus, quem Dominus Jesus interficiet spiritu oris sui, et destruet illustratione adventus sui eum :
9 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=60&ch=2&l=9-#x)Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,
cujus est adventus secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute, et signis, et prodigiis mendacibus,
10 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=60&ch=2&l=10-#x)And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
et in omni seductione iniquitatis iis qui pereunt : eo quod caritatem veritatis non receperunt ut salvi fierent. Ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris ut credant mendacio,
11 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=60&ch=2&l=11-#x)That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
ut judicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati.
-
Meg, read below the description of your Pope. And consider that last point about those that will be judged? Why will they be judged? Because they have "consented to iniquity." They will not need to actually commit the sin themselves. It will be enough for them to "consent" to the sin of "that wicked one." Do you think that by calling him "the Holy Father" you might be "consenting" to what he is doing?
8 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=60&ch=2&l=8-#x)And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,
Et tunc revelabitur ille iniquus, quem Dominus Jesus interficiet spiritu oris sui, et destruet illustratione adventus sui eum :
9 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=60&ch=2&l=9-#x)Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,
cujus est adventus secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute, et signis, et prodigiis mendacibus,
10 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=60&ch=2&l=10-#x)And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
et in omni seductione iniquitatis iis qui pereunt : eo quod caritatem veritatis non receperunt ut salvi fierent. Ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris ut credant mendacio,
11 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=60&ch=2&l=11-#x)That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
ut judicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati.
Why haven't you elected yourself a pope?
-
Why haven't you elected yourself a pope?
The next real Pope we will see will come from the fulfillment of the Holy Pope and Great Monarch prophecy.
Most important thing is that you don't want to be the person who calls "the Antichrist" the "Holy Father." At least be on the safe side and admit that Bergoglio cannot possibly be the Pope. Papal interregna have happened throughout the history of the Church. There is nothing strange about a period of sede vacante.
-
The next real Pope we will see will come from the fulfillment of the Holy Pope and Great Monarch prophecy.
Most important thing is that you don't want to be the person who calls "the Antichrist" the "Holy Father." At least be on the safe side and admit that Bergoglio cannot possibly be the Pope. Papal interregna have happened throughout the history of the Church. There is nothing strange about a period of sede vacante.
If you get to decide who is or who isn't the Pope, then you will also have to elect a pope of your own.
-
This is just getting stupid already.
-
This is just getting stupid already.
True. But then you probably wouldn't agree that it's stupid to tell us that if we believe that Francis is the Pope, that we must obey him and be one in heart and mind with him, right? I think it's really stupid to tell us that.
-
True. But then you probably wouldn't agree that it's stupid to tell us that if we believe that Francis is the Pope, that we must obey him and be one in heart and mind with him, right? I think it's really stupid to tell us that.
Pope Pius X said it, Meg. Are you calling him stupid?
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
62 Q.How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?
A.Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.
-
True. But then you probably wouldn't agree that it's stupid to tell us that if we believe that Francis is the Pope, that we must obey him and be one in heart and mind with him, right? I think it's really stupid to tell us that.
You're right. I don't think that's stupid because that's what Catholics do with their popes. The fact that you think it's stupid is pathetic.
-
You're right. I don't think that's stupid because that's what Catholics do with their popes. The fact that you think it's stupid is pathetic.
Catholics are required to have a Pope. So when will you elect one?
-
Catholics are required to have a Pope. So when will you elect one?
Meg, there have been many periods in which Catholics had no Pope for a period of time. One of those periods was for almost 3 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1268%E2%80%931271_papal_election
-
Meg, there have been many periods in which Catholics had no Pope for a period of time. One of those periods was for almost 3 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1268%E2%80%931271_papal_election
When did the Catholic Church announce that there's currently an interregnum?
-
When did the Catholic Church announce that there's currently an interregnum?
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2022-12/pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-dies-aged-95.html
-
LOL. Anyone who continues to interact with Meg is stupid. I was stupid to even respond to her.
-
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2022-12/pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-dies-aged-95.html
I don't see anything about an interregnum in the link you provided, which I specifically asked for.
-
::) Ah, now I see we’ve devolved to name calling!
“Anyone who continues to interact with Meg is stupid.” 🤷🏼♀️
-
::) Ah, now I see we’ve devolved to name calling!
“Anyone who continues to interact with Meg is stupid.” 🤷🏼♀️
Well, she was calling herself stupid.
-
Catholics are required to have a Pope. So when will you elect one?
No, Catholics are not required to pay lip service to a "cardboard" pope while deriding him. Catholics are required to obey and submit to the Pope. But obviously there can be times when there is no pope, such as during an interregnum.
-
Well that's convenient for you, isn't it?
Since all Catholics must obey the Pope, then it's imperative that you elect one, so that you have someone to obey, since you go on so about us having to obey "our" pope.
I think it's required that you have "your" pope. You can elect anyone. How about someone at your chapel? Or maybe a family member? Then you can obey him in EVERYTHING but sin, just like you tell us that we have to do. Doesn't that sound fair?
No, it’s not convenient it’s just a fact and facts matter. If there was a true pope I would be the first to *gladly* submit to him and kiss his feet. Now, please explain why you don’t obey and submit to your pope, Bergoglio?
-
Well, she was calling herself stupid.
:confused: That’s even stupider! :jester:
-
The next real Pope we will see will come from the fulfillment of the Holy Pope and Great Monarch prophecy.
:confused: Angelus, how can you believe this, yet also believe "Francis" is the antichrist? What you said above, is 100% contradictory of the antichrist arriving in the next 40 years.
-
:confused: Angelus, how can you believe this, yet also believe "Francis" is the antichrist? What you said above, is 100% contradictory of the antichrist arriving in the next 40 years.
Maybe you can explain the contradiction that you see?
-
Because the majority of Church Fathers talk about the rise of the 3rd and Final Holy Roman Empire (i.e. Great Monarch/Holy Pope) BEFORE the coming of the antichrist. They say that the whole world will be Catholic (which has never happened before in history), and then, after the death of such holy leaders, the world is split into 10 kingdoms (which corresponds to the Apocalypse), and the antichrist arises at a young age, who wins battles between these 10 kings, and seduces 7 of them to his side.
There is no talk of a "holy monarch" in the days AFTER antichrist, or during. Because the antichrist takes all the power.
So, logically, and as many prophecies (and Church Fathers explain) such a period of renewal, where a Holy Monarch/Holy Pope would gain power is BEFORE antichrist.
-
:confused: That’s even stupider! :jester:
I see you've taken the high road there Seraphina. 😉
My original post here was to point out how stupid the whole thread was getting. It actually wasn't directed at a particular poster or particular comments. It was Meg who chose to challenge and argue with me.
Anyway, yes, continuing to "debate" with Meg *is* stupid. Like I said, I was stupid to respond to her post to me. I typically ignore her because it is never productive. It was a moment of weakness. :laugh1:
-
Because the majority of Church Fathers talk about the rise of the 3rd and Final Holy Roman Empire (i.e. Great Monarch/Holy Pope) BEFORE the coming of the antichrist. They say that the whole world will be Catholic (which has never happened before in history), and then, after the death of such holy leaders, the world is split into 10 kingdoms (which corresponds to the Apocalypse), and the antichrist arises at a young age, who wins battles between these 10 kings, and seduces 7 of them to his side.
There is no talk of a "holy monarch" in the days AFTER antichrist, or during. Because the antichrist takes all the power.
So, logically, and as many prophecies (and Church Fathers explain) such a period of renewal, where a Holy Monarch/Holy Pope would gain power is BEFORE antichrist.
Could you provide the actual source material, so that I can understand where you get your ideas. I will now try to explain what I think will happen.
Here (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~2Thess.C2.L1.n34) is what St. Thomas, following the Church Fathers, says about the final "Roman Empire" before the coming of Antichrist:
34. First comes the revolt, which is explained in many different ways in the Gloss. And first it is explained as a revolt from faith, because later the faith would be accepted by the whole world. And this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world (Matt 24:14). Therefore this comes before what according to Augustine has not yet been fulfilled, and afterwards many will depart from the faith, etc. In the last times certain men will depart from the faith (1 Tim 4:1). The love of many will grow cold (Matt 24:12).
Or a revolt from the Roman empire, to which the whole world was subject. And Augustine says that this is represented in Daniel by the statues (Dan 2:31), where four kingdoms are named after whom comes Christ, and that this was a fitting sign because the Roman empire was strengthened for this very purpose, namely that under its power the faith should be preached throughout the whole world.
35. But how can this be, since the nations have already withdrawn themselves from the Roman empire and yet the Antichrist has still not come?
The answer is that it is not over yet, but has changed from a temporal revolt into a spiritual revolt, as Pope Leo says in a sermon about the apostles. And so one should say that the revolt from the Roman empire should be understood not only as a revolt from the temporal but from the spiritual empire, namely from the catholic faith of the Roman church. And it is fitting that, as Christ came when the Roman empire held sway over all, so conversely a sign of the Antichrist is revolt against it.
Below is my interpretation. You are welcome to disagree.
This "final Roman Empire" is a spiritual empire, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, as Pope Leo says above. The revolt will be the revolt against the true Catholic doctrine. The seeds of that revolt started to grow after VII and will come to full fruition with the Synod on Synodality.
The Holy Pope and Great Monarch events (which include "the Warning" and the short period of peace) will happen in the midst of the 3.5 year period, probably after the Antichrist definitively reveals himself as such.
Prior to this definitive revelation, the person who will later be understood to be the Antichrist is an Antipope (the False Prophet) laying the groundwork for the final revolt. So Antipope/False Prophet morphs into the Antichrist. They are not two different people. It is the same person before and after the final "revolt." The model for the Antichrist is Judas Iscariot. One day he is an Apostle (a false apostle). The next day he is selling out Jesus (Antichrist).
Those who respond properly to the Warning will ultimately be saved. Those who choose to, instead, follow Antichrist, because of the "operation of error," will become little copy-cat "antichrists" and will lose their souls.
The ten horns, or kings, are simply Cardinals/Bishops of the Counterfeit Catholic Church. They are "in the Beast," according to Apoc. 17:16, and "these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire." These bishops are the people who will carry out the edicts of the Synod on Synodality and lead the Harlot (false Catholics) into the Abyss.
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/art-and-literature-for-catholics/ratton-commentary-on-apocalypse/msg888331/#msg888331
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/art-and-literature-for-catholics/ratton-commentary-on-apocalypse/msg888331/#msg888331
Yes, I'm familiar with some of those. You have to understand they are allegorical/metaphorical riddles. You cannot take them literally. Marie-Julie Jahenny (and others) discuss these same themes in much more detail.
The basic sequence remains the same: Revolt/Apostasy --> Holy Pope/Short Period of Peace --> Reign of the Antichrist
And all of that stuff is primarily concerned with things going on in the Roman Catholic Church. The Antichrist is not Putin or Chairman Xi or Obama. He is the Antipope of the Counterfeit Catholic Church.
-
And all of that stuff is primarily concerned with things going on in the Roman Catholic Church.
:jester: No.
-
What Pope do you obey, then? If our duty is to God AND the Pope, then surely there is a Pope somewhere that you obey.
....
What Pope do you obey? It is absolutely imperative that ALL Catholics submit to the Pope, correct? Why should you be off the hook?
The sede idea puts duties before obedience. You are correctly referring to obedience in this reply while sedes are talking duties. See my sig. which seems simple enough to us, but sedes can't apply the Church's highest principle to the pope, and at the same time remain sede.
Also, the dogma states that for salvation it is absolutely necessary that all humans must be *subject* to the pope, it does not say we must *submit* to him with blind obedience.
-
The sede idea puts duties before obedience. You are correctly referring to obedience in this reply while sedes are talking duties. See my sig. which seems simple enough to us, but sedes can't apply the Church's highest principle to the pope, and at the same time remain sede.
Also, the dogma states that for salvation it is absolutely necessary that all humans must be *subject* to the pope, it does not say we must *submit* to him with blind obedience.
Thank you Stubborn for your good clarification.
-
No, Catholics are not required to pay lip service to a "cardboard" pope while deriding him. Catholics are required to obey and submit to the Pope. But obviously there can be times when there is no pope, such as during an interregnum.
When has an interregnum been announced by competent Church authorities? Or is that something that the laity get to decide for themselves? See, that seems democratic to me. Just as the laity getting to decide if a Pope is really a Pope. It's as if the Pope is subject to the laity. So, with these democratic principles in mind, you should be choosing your own pope. In democracies, the PEOPLE elect their own government.
-
I guess that “He who hears you hears Me” doesn’t apply. It’s basically neo-Gallicanism. The only thing that saves them from actual schism is the fact that Bergoglio isn’t a true pope.
-
For sedevacantists it seems to be: "He who hears the laity hears God."
-
For sedevacantists it seems to be: "He who hears the laity hears God."
Do you actually hear and listen to Bergoglio, your pope?
-
Do you actually hear and listen to Bergoglio, your pope?
I do look at websites which show what he's saying and doing. It's not always bad. But often the websites I go to show the bad things he's doing. But we can't point those things out here, which is why I don't really consider this forum to be Traditional Catholic anymore, since sedevacantists have been allowed to take over. We should be able to point out what is happening in the conciliar church.
If we point out that Francis is doing something wrong, you guys will just say that we shouldn't say bad things about someone whom we believe is the Pope. But YOU guys can say bad things about Francis, because you believe he's not the pope. You can't see how ridiculous that is can you?
It reminds me of when I used to debate on the old Catholic Answers forum. Anyone of any religion could post there, and I learned a lot. Once, someone posted that Catholics didn't do enough to help the Jews in WW2. I then asked that person about why it was that more Jews did not help the Jews. And their answer was: Christians are obligated to help others. It's what they are SUPPOSED to do. But the Jews did not have to help other Jews. The sedevacantists have the same mentality.
Nowadays, not only are non-sedevacantists pressured daily to not ever say anything bad about the pope, but we also are pressured to believe that there are no true sacraments or holy orders in the conciliar church. The sedevacantists want to control everyone and everything traditional, so that we only depend on them, and no one else. And they are given a platform here to do that. It's arrogant and it's wrong.
-
Nowadays, not only are non-sedevacantists pressured daily to not ever say anything bad about the pope, but we also are pressured to believe that there are no true sacraments or holy orders in the conciliar church. The sedevacantists want to control everyone and everything traditional, so that we only depend on them, and no one else. And they are given a platform here to do that. It's arrogant and it's wrong.
So I and other sedevacantists want to control you? :jester:
-
Meg can't wrap her head around the fact Catholics should love, respect and be of one mind with the Pope. So sad...
-
Meg can't wrap her head around the fact Catholics should love, respect and be of one mind with the Pope. So sad...
It’s unfortunate that a lot of people have destroyed the doctrines regarding the papal office in order to save an heretical degenerate. :facepalm:
-
The canon law on which you base your thesis doesn't say anything about heresy. It says that a public defection from the faith is required to lose an office. I don't recall that Francis or any of the conciliar popes as publicly stating or making an announcement to the whole Church that they were leaving the Catholic Church. That's what a "Public Defection" is, in the context of the canon law you cited.
"The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac comments on Canon 2197 [of the 1917 Code] in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (pp. 349-350), that public defection from the faith means: 'Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197)'"
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)
“A formal act (i.e. a declaration that one has left the Church) is not required for the defection in canon 194 [of the 1983 Code]; the only requirement is that it be public (known or likely to become known).114 Neither is it required that the officeholder join another religion, although this could be an objective indication of defection."(John P. Beal, New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law pp. 226-7)
(Quoted in Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)
There you go, Meg. Both the 1917 Code and the 1983 Code do not require leaving the Catholic Church on the part of the heretic for a public defection of the FAITH to take place and that consequently results in the automatic loss of office. Are you now convinced that your statement above is wrong?
-
"The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac comments on Canon 2197 [of the 1917 Code] in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (pp. 349-350), that public defection from the faith means: 'Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197)'"
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)
“A formal act (i.e. a declaration that one has left the Church) is not required for the defection in canon 194 [of the 1983 Code]; the only requirement is that it be public (known or likely to become known).114 Neither is it required that the officeholder join another religion, although this could be an objective indication of defection."(John P. Beal, New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law pp. 226-7)
(Quoted in Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)
There you go, Meg. Both the 1917 Code and the 1983 Code do not require leaving the Catholic Church on the part of the heretic for a public defection of the FAITH to take place and that consequently results in the automatic loss of office. Are you now convinced that your statement above is wrong?
No, I'm not convinced. You're references above have not changed from your previous statements. They still don't work; they are just the interpretations of your friend, Fr. Kramer. I'm not obliged to accept them. No one is.
-
It’s unfortunate that a lot of people have destroyed the doctrines regarding the papal office in order to save an heretical degenerate. :facepalm:
THIS ^^^. I've honestly never understood why they would throw the entire Church and the Papacy under the bus in order to salvage Jorge the Humble Heretic. It's beyond my comprehension really. So they can put up some cardboard "pope's" picture in a vestibule and find some comfort in there being a guy walking around Rome in a white cassock? ... all the while reviling him as a degenerate. I wonder what Pope St. Pius X would say about Catholic speaking in such derogatory terms about the man they hold to be the Vicar of Christ.
They can argue about depositus this and deponendus that til the cows come home, but none of that changes the fact that they attribute corruption to the Magisterium and to the Church's Public Worship.
-
They can argue about depositus this and deponendus that til the cows come home, but none of that changes the fact that they attribute corruption to the Magisterium and to the Church's Public Worship.
They might find some who hold to the papa hereticus deponendus position, but I defy them to find or cite a single Catholic theologian who held that the Magisterium of the Church could become corrupt and that the Church could promulgate and use harmful Rite of Mass that's offensive to God. Just one. You'll find only the Protestants, Old Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox who attribute corruption to the Papal Magisterium. While certainly not every papal teaching has the notes of infallibility, to attribute a degree of corruption that requires severing Communion with the Holy See and forming a parallel (schismatic) organization is contrary to the Church's indefectibility. Sure, I might disagree with a Pope Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives or his statements about evolution, his 1955 Holy Week revision ... but none of that would come close to rising to the level of requiring that I sever communion with the Holy See and start my own Church. I would respectfully disagree with Pope Pius XII ... from within the Holy Catholic Church.
-
Sure, I might disagree with a Pope Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives or his statements about evolution, his 1955 Holy Week revision ... but none of that would come close to rising to the level of requiring that I sever communion with the Holy See and start my own Church. I would respectfully disagree with Pope Pius XII ... from within the Holy Catholic Church.
Two issues, Lad.
1. How is the thing you're attacking any different from the fundamental charter of the Traditional Movement? Namely, that we need to *de facto* go our own way, be aloof, and keep the faith in "lifeboat" chapels, basically ignoring Church Authority which has fundamentally become Modernist.
2. Yes, you make good points, but the Crisis in the Church is unprecedented, a great punishment from God, and basically a supernatural mystery.
3. With a few extreme, sad exceptions, no Trad has "started their own Church". So I take issue with that. Starting a lifeboat chapel is not the same as starting a new Church or a new religion. +Lefebvre (and his many successors) were never interested in deviating ONE IOTA from being CATHOLIC. THAT is why they did the "Traditional" thing in the first place! They wanted to stay Catholic, not become Protestant.
It's Trad 101 that we have to choose now between Truth and Authority. If you ask me, Truth comes before Authority. God only gave authority to the Pope FOR THE SAKE OF maintaining the True Religion -- not so he could do his own thing, or start his own new religion. When he does that, he does that as a PRIVATE MAN and NOT as Pope. In other words, Church Authority was set up for the sake of the Truth, and not vice-versa. Truth comes first.
4. How does your position not lead to the inevitable conclusion that we should abandon the Trad. movement and go "church shopping" for the least offensive Novus Ordo chapel? Sorry, but while plenty of men have chosen this route over the past decades, it's NOT FOR ME and I'm willing to stake my ETERNITY on that.
God gave me a brain and I've observed where the "conservative Novus Ordo" path has led. Not impressed. I'll take my chances with Tradition, with all its imperfections, infighting, limitations, warts and faults.
-
Two issues, Lad.
1. How is the thing you're attacking any different from the fundamental charter of the Traditional Movement? Namely, that we need to *de facto* go our own way, be aloof, and keep the faith in "lifeboat" chapels, basically ignoring Church Authority which has fundamentally become Modernist.
2. Yes, you make good points, but the Crisis in the Church is unprecedented, a great punishment from God, and basically a supernatural mystery.
3. With a few extreme, sad exceptions, no Trad has "started their own Church". So I take issue with that. Starting a lifeboat chapel is not the same as starting a new Church or a new religion. +Lefebvre (and his many successors) were never interested in deviating ONE IOTA from being CATHOLIC. THAT is why they did the "Traditional" thing in the first place! They wanted to stay Catholic, not become Protestant.
It's Trad 101 that we have to choose now between Truth and Authority. If you ask me, Truth comes before Authority. God only gave authority to the Pope FOR THE SAKE OF maintaining the True Religion -- not so he could do his own thing, or start his own new religion. When he does that, he does that as a PRIVATE MAN and NOT as Pope. In other words, Church Authority was set up for the sake of the Truth, and not vice-versa. Truth comes first.
4. How does your position not lead to the inevitable conclusion that we should abandon the Trad. movement and go "church shopping" for the least offensive Novus Ordo chapel? Sorry, but while plenty of men have chosen this route over the past decades, it's NOT FOR ME and I'm willing to stake my ETERNITY on that.
God gave me a brain and I've observed where the "conservative Novus Ordo" path has led. Not impressed. I'll take my chances with Tradition, with all its imperfections, infighting, limitations, warts and faults.
1) Sure, for all practical intents and purposes there's no difference between, say, a Resistance group and an SV group ... in terms of remaining aloof from the Conciliar Church. But theology and Catholic doctrine and, as Bishop Williamson always said, ideas "matter". There are huge implications in terms of Catholic ecclesiology between the Resistance view of the Church and the SV view. I see a real danger in the R&R position becoming barely distinguishable from Old Catholicism.
2) Yes, of course this is an unprecedented Crisis, the worst in Church history by far. Both Resistance and SVs agree on that. Motarians, Conciliars, and Novus Ordites do not. But, again, how one comes to terms with it can have a profound effect on one's Catholic theology and one's doctrine.
3) Well, by starting a "church", I meant setting up a parallel apostolate ... running chapels, administering Sacraments, etc. outside of the Church's jurisdiction. I tend to eschew the term "apostolate" because of how badly it's been abused by the Conciliars. For this particular point, there have been precedents, such as when St. Athanasius and the other anti-Arian bishops went around consecrating bishops to run parallel to the Arians who had usurped the Sees. But that wasn't really the point. What my point was that if we're basically forced to sever communion with the Catholic hierarchy on account of their Magisterium and their Mass, that would be tantamount to a defection of the Church.
This conflict between Truth and Authority does occur on one level. But on the higher level faith is in fact an act of obedience. There is no supernatural faith without the proper formal motive of faith. We do not believe in the Holy Trinity because we recognize its truthfulness. We submit on the authority of God revealing. So the act of faith is in fact essentially an act of obedience. This is taught clearly at Vatican I (and by all Catholic authorities).
In any case, if you consider Father Chazal to be genuine Resistance, he has articulated a view of the Crisis that does NOT do damage to the prerogatives of the Church, to the Magisterium and to the Catholic Mass. So I would urge (as I have urged in the past) for those of the Resistance to prayerfully consider his position. It's perfectly sound.
Finally, if people would stop reading things into Archbishop Lefebvre's position, the Archbishop upheld the MAJOR of the SV position, namely, that the Holy Spirit protects the Papacy and does not allow it to destroy the Church to this degree. He repeatedly affirmed that. Father Ringrose, one of the founding thought leaders in the original Resistance, posted the audio of a speech given by the Archbishop where he explicitly stated this. So, his reasons for not fully embracing an SV view were questions regarding the MINOR of the SV position. He (rightly) didn't feel that he had the certainty of faith regarding the minor to embrace it completely, leaving some room for doubt and for the mystery. But he would NEVER agree that the Papal authority could corrupt the Magisterium and the Mass to the degree that the Conciliar papal claimants have ... apart from his more conciliatory period between about 1978 and 1984. Before that and after about 1984, leading up to Assisi, he came a hair's breadth from publicly embracing SVism. In fact, shortly before Assisi, he stated that for nearly 20 years he and +de Castro Mayer "preferred to wait" to come out publicly as SVs, due to their lack of certainty, but said that he might have no choice (if Assisi were to happen ... and it did) to hold that the Holy See has been vacant. In fact, credible sources report that +de Castro Mayer did in fact become a sedevacantist from about the time of the episcopal consecrations, going around at Econe telling people "we have no pope" and continuing in that belief until his death.
-
Pt 1. There are huge implications in terms of Catholic ecclesiology between the Resistance view of the Church and the SV view. I see a real danger in the R&R position becoming barely distinguishable from Old Catholicism.
This is just part of human nature. The longer we go without a church hierarchy and structure, human nature will devolve into extremism and chaos. Yes, the R&R position is becoming indult or worse. But you could say the same thing about some sedes...the extreme chapels are becoming cults, shunning other Trads (even family and lifelong friends) who don't agree 100% with them. Each of these 2 camps are deteriorating (at least philosophically) in front our eyes. It happens faster with the added pressures of govt lockdowns, communism and social chaos. But if we are to believe that Traditionalism is the True Church, then God will miraculously prevent such from getting too off-track and at least valid sacraments will be preserved.
Pt 3. Finally, if people would stop reading things into Archbishop Lefebvre's position, the Archbishop upheld the MAJOR of the SV position, namely, that the Holy Spirit protects the Papacy and does not allow it to destroy the Church to this degree. He repeatedly affirmed that. Father Ringrose, one of the founding thought leaders in the original Resistance, posted the audio of a speech given by the Archbishop where he explicitly stated this.
Unfortunately, you're fighting the PR machine that +Fellay has been running since 2012, to condition the faithful that +ABL was anti-sede and pro-rome. It probably goes back further than this. You're also fighting all the "conservative" clerics in new-rome and all the indulters, who say the same things.
The 2 main things that the Modernists corrupted first - 1) EENS and 2) Obedience to the Magisterium. They've done a good job.
-
No, I'm not convinced. You're references above have not changed from your previous statements. They still don't work; they are just the interpretations of your friend, Fr. Kramer. I'm not obliged to accept them. No one is.
Oh, no, Meg. These are not interpretations of Fr. Kramer. Fr. Kramer just quotes the works of canonists. The following quotes of my earlier post are directly from those canonists' works. The first quote is regarding Canon 188 of the 1917 Code; the second quote is regarding Canon 194 of the 1983 Code. Both canons deal with the automatic loss of office due to public defection from the Catholic Faith.
"Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197)"
(Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac)
"A formal act (i.e. a declaration that one has left the Church) is not required for the defection in canon 194; the only requirement is that it be public (known or likely to become known). Neither is it required that the officeholder join another religion, although this could be an objective indication of defection."
(John P. Beal)
Will you now admit, Meg, that you are wrong that leaving the Church is required for a public defection from the Catholic Faith to take place?
-
Yes, the R&R position is becoming indult or worse.
The R&R position is extinct. We cannot recognize one as pope who has manifestly shown himself to a public formal heretic.
-
The R&R position is extinct. We cannot recognize one as pope who has manifestly shown himself to a public formal heretic.
Then how do you recognize that Ratzinger was the pope?
-
Then how do you recognize that Ratzinger was the pope?
I do not hold that Benedict XVI was a pubic manifest formal heretic.
-
Oh, no, Meg. These are not interpretations of Fr. Kramer. Fr. Kramer just quotes the works of canonists. The following quotes of my earlier post are directly from those canonists' works. The first quote is regarding Canon 188 of the 1917 Code; the second quote is regarding Canon 194 of the 1983 Code. Both canons deal with the automatic loss of office due to public defection from the Catholic Faith.
"Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197)"
(Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac)
"A formal act (i.e. a declaration that one has left the Church) is not required for the defection in canon 194; the only requirement is that it be public (known or likely to become known). Neither is it required that the officeholder join another religion, although this could be an objective indication of defection."
(John P. Beal)
Will you now admit, Meg, that you are wrong that leaving the Church is required for a public defection from the Catholic Faith to take place?
Fr. Kramer is applying the words of the canonists to use for his interpretation of a particular canon law which they (canonists) were not actually addressing. That's what Benevacantists do. They, and you, have to do that, since canon does not stipulate what you say it does. Benevacantists, like their cousins the regular sedevacantists, don't have a leg to stand on, when it comes to explicit canon law saying what they (you) say that it means. You have to find a roundabout way to try to prove your case. It doesn't work.
-
Fr. Kramer is applying the words of the canonists to use for his interpretation of canon law. That's what Benevacantists do. They, and you, have to do that, since canon does not stipulate what you say it does. Benevacantists, like their cousins the regular sedevacantists, don't have a leg to stand on, when it comes to explicit canon law saying what they (you) say that it means. You have to find a roundabout way to try to prove your case. It doesn't work.
Meg, I have presented to you black and white evidence from canonists that the public defection of the Catholic Faith in Canon Law does not exclusively mean leaving the Catholic Church and you continue rambling on denying that evidence. If I said that 2+2=4, you would say that you don't agree with my interpretation of the formula. I will no longer waste my time with you in this discussion. Bye bye, Meg.
-
Then how do you recognize that Ratzinger was the pope?
In regards to Cardinal Siri being pope, I agree with Fr. Paul Kramer:
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Screenshot-2021-11-06-181138.png)
https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/4911014222277283
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2023-08-27_180738.png)
(https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/4911014222277283)https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/5268829783162390 (https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/5268829783162390)
-
Catholic Knight, in 2 posts, you have shown the exact problem and limitation of your private-interpretation theology. 1) You chastise Meg because she doesn’t see the clear evidence that Francis is a manifest heretic. 2). Many of us say that Benedict was a manifest heretic, but you disagree.
:laugh1: Oh the irony.
-
Catholic Knight, in 2 posts, you have shown the exact problem and limitation of your private-interpretation theology. 1) You chastise Meg because she doesn’t see the clear evidence that Francis is a manifest heretic. 2). Many of us say that Benedict was a manifest heretic, but you disagree.
:laugh1: Oh the irony.
In which post did I chastise Meg because she doesn't see the clear evidence that Francis is a manifest heretic?
-
the Archbishop upheld the MAJOR of the SV position, namely, that the Holy Spirit protects the Papacy and does not allow it to destroy the Church to this degree. He repeatedly affirmed that. Father Ringrose, one of the founding thought leaders in the original Resistance, posted the audio of a speech given by the Archbishop where he explicitly stated this.
Repeatedly? I have never found a second record of that statement. In that speech, he did indeed agree with the proposition. His ears were still ringing from the crisis blowing like a bombshell in front of his face. He was groping for an understanding, mostly by instinct at that point, and almost entirely alone. On the contrary, before 1976 was even over, he spoke on that proposition again, and did not say he agreed with it.
-
Catholic Knight, in 2 posts, you have shown the exact problem and limitation of your private-interpretation theology. 1) You chastise Meg because she doesn’t see the clear evidence that Francis is a manifest heretic. 2). Many of us say that Benedict was a manifest heretic, but you disagree.
:laugh1: Oh the irony.
I ask you again: in which post did I chastise Meg because she doesn't see the clear evidence that Francis is a manifest heretic?
You accused me of something, so please back it up. Or are you going to be deaf and dumb as you were with the other question that you refused to directly answer?
-
I do not hold that Benedict XVI was a public manifest formal heretic.
Can you be specific as to why Bergoglio is and why Ratzinger is not? What is the specific difference between them in your opinion?
-
Can you be specific as to why Bergoglio is and why Ratzinger is not? What is the specific difference between them in your opinion?
One of the big points is that Pope Benedict XVI held to his notion of "hermeneutic of continuity", which tried (but failed) to interpret Vatican II in the light of Tradition. This is a strong sign that he did not want to teach heresy.
-
Can you be specific as to why Bergoglio is and why Ratzinger is not? What is the specific difference between them in your opinion?
2Vermont, the answer is simple. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has never officially taught something that contradicts a de fide doctrine of the Catholic faith. Bergoglio has officially taught such, in Amoris Laetitia, and has obstinately refused to correct his error when confronted with the Dubia.
-
Yup, they’ve been saying that stupid shit for years. By arbitrarily deciding what God can do, and why He can do it, they dismiss as impossible that which is eminently plausible. The basis of their error is pretending that any such miracle must necessarily endorse the Novus Ordo (rather than promote belief in the Real Presence which that rite attacks). I say pretend, because this nonsense really began as an opportune club for an already warring Fr. Pfeiffer to beat +Williamson with. Hewko realized that he could abandon Pfeiffer, but not Pfeifferianism, if he wanted to retain any faithful (who still expect him to give Williamson the occasional wallop, to prove he’s still the last of the Mohicans, if he wants to retain them).
Cursing like a demon with this seethe & cope.
-
Cursing like a demon with this seethe & cope.
Good grief, Hewkonian, what's the matter with you man?
-
Good grief, Hewkonian, what's the matter with you man?
Huh?
-
Did you ask your husband if you could come online and interact on a forum with other men?
I was just informed that Emile is a man’s name, my mistake.
-
I was just informed that Emile is a man’s name, my mistake.
What else did your voices tell you? :cowboy: :popcorn: