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

Author Topic: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V  (Read 23276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6790
  • Reputation: +3467/-2999
  • Gender: Female
Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
« Reply #195 on: August 19, 2023, 08:08:58 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • For sedevacantists it seems to be: "He who hears the laity hears God." 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #196 on: August 19, 2023, 08:12:03 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • For sedevacantists it seems to be: "He who hears the laity hears God."

    Do you actually hear and listen to Bergoglio, your pope?
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #197 on: August 19, 2023, 08:27:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #198 on: August 19, 2023, 11:15:26 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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: 
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +401/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #199 on: August 19, 2023, 12:34:32 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Meg can't wrap her head around the fact Catholics should love, respect and be of one mind with the Pope. So sad...


    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #200 on: August 19, 2023, 01:21:10 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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:
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 797
    • Reputation: +238/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #201 on: August 26, 2023, 08:01:55 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #202 on: August 27, 2023, 10:05:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "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 is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27460/-5072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #203 on: August 27, 2023, 10:38:55 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27460/-5072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #204 on: August 27, 2023, 10:53:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32698
    • Reputation: +28977/-581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #205 on: August 27, 2023, 11:43:04 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27460/-5072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #206 on: August 27, 2023, 12:08:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12116
    • Reputation: +7642/-2307
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #207 on: August 27, 2023, 03:49:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    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.



    Quote
    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.

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 797
    • Reputation: +238/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #208 on: August 27, 2023, 04:36:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 797
    • Reputation: +238/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V
    « Reply #209 on: August 27, 2023, 04:38:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.