Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Unbrandable on May 04, 2014, 04:19:23 PM
-
-
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
-
Just out of curiosity, where does Fr Pfeiffer stand with regards to the validity of the canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II? Does Fr Pfeiffer recognize their validity?
-
Outstandingly what? Poor, contradictory, long, divisive?
-
Outstandingly what? Poor, contradictory, long, divisive?
out·stand·ing
/ˌoutˈstandiNG,ˈout-/
adjective
adjective: outstanding
1.exceptionally good.
"the team's outstanding performance"
synonyms: excellent, marvelous, magnificent, superb, fine, wonderful, superlative, exceptional, first-class, first-rate;
-
Too bad for the bad reviews. I very much enjoyed and agreed with this sermon.
-
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, but I notice that it's only the women who took anything away from this.
Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.
Now, I don't know what the situation on Quebec is besides what Graham has relayed, but there are plenty of men guilty of this too. Mired in the SSPX for however many years, they have an emotional (and probably financial, too) investment in this position. They just want to hear it affirmed. That is all they're looking for. I mentioned women because this is a characteristic which one could reasonably expect from the average woman; for men to involve themselves in these antics is much more abhorrent.
Men are leaders and as such need to make sound judgements, when those judgements relate to the Catholic faith they must be informed by the Catholic faith as taught by those who were sent to teach it (the saints, popes, theologians, etc.) and reason.
Just look at the arguments against the canonizations: faithful accepting the word of Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfeiffer over St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Benedict XIV, the list goes on. This is not good. Besides the immediate problem of denying the common (at least common if not certain) opinion of the theologians on canonizations, there is the much deeper set and more egregious error viz. the way the Church teaches about her own infallability and authority, and her very essence.
If a true Catholic pope isn't infallible when he says: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own... we declare and define [such and such] .... established for the whole Church" then there is simply no such thing as infallibility. I know, I know, "the process" has been altered so the definition is meaningless. WRONG. The definition is literally all that matters. The pope, though he would sin against prudence in doing so, could wake up and declare something on his breakfast napkin and it would be infallible given the proper requisites, requisites which do not include a specific "process." The Holy Ghost guides the Church in it's ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, not human diligence.
Suddenly, according to this novel theology, the Holy Ghost guides each individual Church member in discerning what is infallible, rather than guiding the Church to infallibly teach each individual Church member. What a wicked inversion of the natural and supernatural order. This is going to cause a lot of problems. There is literally NO reason why a R&R Catholic could not, under this insidious way of believing, deny that a given solemn definition (forget about the ordinary magisterium which is habitually thrown in the dustbin by this group of Catholics) is infallible.
I am very disappointed right now. The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn. It does not differ substantially at all from the NSSPX from which it fled and demanded the faithful to free from. It is marginally better in the practical order because it claims to want no business with heretics. That is all. So long as it clings to this despicable preversion of Church teaching on infallibility and authority, it can hardly puff it's chest out the way it is wont to do as a guardian of the traditional faith. It butchers the traditional faith and undermines it's own mission. What authority does Fr. Pfeiffer have, why should I listen to HIM if I can't trust the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas or any of the others? What a joke, what hubris. If I can't trust the Church to teach me the faith, I can't trust anyone to. Certainly not Fr. Pfeiffer.
-
Of course it affirmed what I already believed but I somehow had to get to what I already believed in the first place. Kind of a superfluous "observation". If a sermon came out affirming what you believe, you'd be in the exact same boat, taking something away from a sermon that affirmed what you believe lol. (And then I could use the exact same "weakness" against you. Especially if I'm looking to believe you're bad-willed, stupid or want to be patronized.). Though that may be a general weakness of women, I don't think it fits here. You're really stretching it.
I hope that hanging out over there you doesn't put you in that habit of turning everything into male/female combats. I understand generalities but I don't know how some people can live with distilling EVERYthing down to that. Even down to how men respond to the Crisis. That's what it's going to come down to for you? The men are being womanish and needy and want to be patronized? That's it?
As an aside, in response to your affirmation theory, don't forget that intuition works in the same way. Intuition hits, a woman *knows* something and she has to work backwards to figure out the reason behind it. When that happens, she is miles ahead of man and has to backtrack to try and get him caught up. (I wouldn't trust this to determine doctrine or where to stand in the Crisis but since you mention it, generally speaking...) There is both a weakness and a strength to the characteristic of being "unreasonable", in the sense of not reasoning things out in the same way as men. (Angels are also "unreasonable" in that sense.)
The same goes for men, there are weaknesses and strengths associated with the way they depend on reason. The whole enlightenment is based on an adoration of reason. Where did that get us? I understand that you are simply calling on people to reason their way through the Crisis and I can't argue that. What I'm arguing is the attitude that those who disagree with you are not using their reasons. You may believe their reasons are wrong or misled but to act as if they simply aren't using them displays its own bit of hubris.
The Resistance was MEANT to be like the SSPX, in that it is modeled after the ways of the original SSPX. You've been following this closely from the beginning, this can't be a new realization to you. Did you have other hopes? That all these people who took the R&R position *for a reason* would suddenly slide into sedevacantism?
If that's the case, I am not sorry that you are disappointed.
-
I made this comment in the thread on Archbishop Lefebvre forums about this sermon...
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, but I notice that it's only the women who took anything away from this.
Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.
Now, I don't know what the situation on Quebec is besides what Graham has relayed, but there are plenty of men guilty of this too. Mired in the SSPX for however many years, they have an emotional (and probably financial, too) investment in this position. They just want to hear it affirmed. That is all they're looking for. I mentioned women because this is a characteristic which one could reasonably expect from the average woman; for men to involve themselves in these antics is much more abhorrent.
Men are leaders and as such need to make sound judgements, when those judgements relate to the Catholic faith they must be informed by the Catholic faith as taught by those who were sent to teach it (the saints, popes, theologians, etc.) and reason.
Just look at the arguments against the canonizations: faithful accepting the word of Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfeiffer over St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Benedict XIV, the list goes on. This is not good. Besides the immediate problem of denying the common (at least common if not certain) opinion of the theologians on canonizations, there is the much deeper set and more egregious error viz. the way the Church teaches about her own infallability and authority, and her very essence.
If a true Catholic pope isn't infallible when he says: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own... we declare and define [such and such] .... established for the whole Church" then there is simply no such thing as infallibility. I know, I know, "the process" has been altered so the definition is meaningless. WRONG. The definition is literally all that matters. The pope, though he would sin against prudence in doing so, could wake up and declare something on his breakfast napkin and it would be infallible given the proper requisites, requisites which do not include a specific "process." The Holy Ghost guides the Church in it's ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, not human diligence.
Suddenly, according to this novel theology, the Holy Ghost guides each individual Church member in discerning what is infallible, rather than guiding the Church to infallibly teach each individual Church member. What a wicked inversion of the natural and supernatural order. This is going to cause a lot of problems. There is literally NO reason why a R&R Catholic could not, under this insidious way of believing, deny that a given solemn definition (forget about the ordinary magisterium which is habitually thrown in the dustbin by this group of Catholics) is infallible.
I am very disappointed right now. The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn. It does not differ substantially at all from the NSSPX from which it fled and demanded the faithful to free from. It is marginally better in the practical order because it claims to want no business with heretics. That is all. So long as it clings to this despicable preversion of Church teaching on infallibility and authority, it can hardly puff it's chest out the way it is wont to do as a guardian of the traditional faith. It butchers the traditional faith and undermines it's own mission. What authority does Fr. Pfeiffer have, why should I listen to HIM if I can't trust the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas or any of the others? What a joke, what hubris. If I can't trust the Church to teach me the faith, I can't trust anyone to. Certainly not Fr. Pfeiffer.
Excellent Post! :applause:
-
Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.
Really? Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.
How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish? Many, including yours truly! They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.
I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.
Ugh - cheque, please!
:judge:
-
Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.
Really? Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.
How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish? Many, including yours truly! They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.
I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.
Ugh - cheque, please!
:judge:
I'm not making an argument, but an observation. Fr Pfeiffer was sent up to Quebec because there are some sedevacantists, or at least some sedevacantist sympathizers up there. So he went up there and spun a bunch of rhetoric to reinforce those who have been raised to believe that sedevacantism is false in their predetermined position, and to try to lure those who aren't constrained by that sort of cultish brainwashing into the former camp.
Whether or not these men are popes is a matter of fact. A matter of fact is either true or false. Fr. Pfeiffer did not address a matter of fact, he tried to quell what he views as a rebellion (ironic, I know) by resorting to the tired polemics of the post-ABL SSPX.
-
Post ABL SSPX? ABL knew for a fact that these were not Popes?
-
Post ABL SSPX? ABL knew for a fact that these were not Popes?
I mean the SSPX no longer under the influence of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was justified in his resistance because of his doubts about these men's papacies.
One who is certain that X is the pope, if guided by the Catholic rule of faith, cannot allow for X to teach all manner of error and use his papal infallibility to declare a falsehood or something harmful to the faith. This is a radical departure from the traditional understanding of teaching and authority.
Personally, I do not think that any traditionalist has moral certainty about these papacies. But when they claim and act as if they do, it is hard to not rebuke them. If they really are certain, they are certainly schismatic. I don't like to think they're schismatic, so I say in most cases, their hubris aside, they doubt these papacies.
-
And Wallflower, you're right about one thing; I probably expected too much from the Resistance*. My disappointment in them stems from believing that they cared about truth before anything else. Alas, they're not really any better than +Fellay, who twists the faith to fit into his program.
There is a marginal practical difference in that the Resistance apparently does not wish to reconcile with the New Church, but that is a small consolation when they are destroying the dogma of infallibility and completely disregarding the traditional ways of understanding the nature of the Church and its teaching authority, expecting the faithful to learn from them rather than the popes, saints and theologians. If I cannot trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, if I cannot trust the warnings of Bendict XIV or St. Thomas Aquinas or any other teacher given me by the Church to learn the Holy Faith, where on earth does Fr. Pfeiffer get off thinking I should trust him? Anyone who is contradicting the mind of the Church as expressed by the theologians, saints and popes on this issue and choosing to follow Fr. Pfeiffer should be asking the same question. It has a cultish effect. Don't trust the Church, don't trust the popes, don't trust the saints, don't trust the theologians... trust me.
*I do realize that the Resistance is world-wide, and that just because Fr. Pfeiffer says it doesn't mean "the Resistance" throughout the world believes it, but it practically does at least in North America.
-
Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.
Really? Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.
How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish? Many, including yours truly! They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.
I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.
Ugh - cheque, please!
:judge:
This supports your point nicely, Mithrandylan.
-
Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.
Really? Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.
How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish? Many, including yours truly! They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.
I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.
Ugh - cheque, please!
:judge:
This supports your point nicely, Mithrandylan.
Explain yourself, Mabel. You can't just make a statement without explaining your position or providing some sort of example to back-up your statement. You have proven nothing such a simple, silly, statement. You are free to have your beliefs affirmed by Mithrandylan, first, of course, but put it in writing.
-
And Wallflower, you're right about one thing; I probably expected too much from the Resistance*. My disappointment in them stems from believing that they cared about truth before anything else. Alas, they're not really any better than +Fellay, who twists the faith to fit into his program.
There is a marginal practical difference in that the Resistance apparently does not wish to reconcile with the New Church, but that is a small consolation when they are destroying the dogma of infallibility and completely disregarding the traditional ways of understanding the nature of the Church and its teaching authority, expecting the faithful to learn from them rather than the popes, saints and theologians. If I cannot trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, if I cannot trust the warnings of Bendict XIV or St. Thomas Aquinas or any other teacher given me by the Church to learn the Holy Faith, where on earth does Fr. Pfeiffer get off thinking I should trust him? Anyone who is contradicting the mind of the Church as expressed by the theologians, saints and popes on this issue and choosing to follow Fr. Pfeiffer should be asking the same question. It has a cultish effect. Don't trust the Church, don't trust the popes, don't trust the saints, don't trust the theologians... trust me.
*I do realize that the Resistance is world-wide, and that just because Fr. Pfeiffer says it doesn't mean "the Resistance" throughout the world believes it, but it practically does at least in North America.
dogma of infallibility? Do you believe that the Pope as a person is infallible? Is this a blanket concept for you?
-
Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.
Really? Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.
How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish? Many, including yours truly! They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.
I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.
Ugh - cheque, please!
:judge:
I'm not making an argument, but an observation. Fr Pfeiffer was sent up to Quebec because there are some sedevacantists, or at least some sedevacantist sympathizers up there. So he went up there and spun a bunch of rhetoric to reinforce those who have been raised to believe that sedevacantism is false in their predetermined position, and to try to lure those who aren't constrained by that sort of cultish brainwashing into the former camp.
Whether or not these men are popes is a matter of fact. A matter of fact is either true or false. Fr. Pfeiffer did not address a matter of fact, he tried to quell what he views as a rebellion (ironic, I know) by resorting to the tired polemics of the post-ABL SSPX.
Father Pfeiffer acknowledged the crisis of the Church. His life has been dedicated to fighting the errors of Modernism.
Also, Father P. distinguished between the Pope and his Papacy. Are you united to Pope Francis - yes. Are you united to his Papacy - no.
Father P. also refers to the issue of scandal being allowed in order to test our Faith.
Don't you think that our Lady would have warned us if the Chair of Peter was to be vacant for such a long period of time at Fatima, LaSalette . . .
-
Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.
Really? Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.
How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish? Many, including yours truly! They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.
I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.
Ugh - cheque, please!
:judge:
To those who have given this post a thumbs-down, this speaks well of the women in your life - all feature heads, I suppose. You don't even follow the example of our Lord in the Gospels - He spoke to women as persons, not as brainless phantoms. Perhaps, you should try another religion, like Islam!
-
And Wallflower, you're right about one thing; I probably expected too much from the Resistance*. My disappointment in them stems from believing that they cared about truth before anything else. Alas, they're not really any better than +Fellay, who twists the faith to fit into his program.
There is a marginal practical difference in that the Resistance apparently does not wish to reconcile with the New Church, but that is a small consolation when they are destroying the dogma of infallibility and completely disregarding the traditional ways of understanding the nature of the Church and its teaching authority, expecting the faithful to learn from them rather than the popes, saints and theologians. If I cannot trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, if I cannot trust the warnings of Bendict XIV or St. Thomas Aquinas or any other teacher given me by the Church to learn the Holy Faith, where on earth does Fr. Pfeiffer get off thinking I should trust him? Anyone who is contradicting the mind of the Church as expressed by the theologians, saints and popes on this issue and choosing to follow Fr. Pfeiffer should be asking the same question. It has a cultish effect. Don't trust the Church, don't trust the popes, don't trust the saints, don't trust the theologians... trust me.
*I do realize that the Resistance is world-wide, and that just because Fr. Pfeiffer says it doesn't mean "the Resistance" throughout the world believes it, but it practically does at least in North America.
dogma of infallibility? Do you believe that the Pope as a person is infallible? Is this a blanket concept for you?
There is nothing within the quoted material that could lead someone to think that. You have been trained very well with these canned responses.
That the pope is infallible when defining for the whole Church a matter of faith and morals with his authority is a dogma of the faith. Are you familiar with Vatican I?
Your reaction is protestant. When hearing the term "dogma of infallibility" a Catholic's reaction should not be the one you gave, mischaracterizing the doctrine and making a caricature out of it.
Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.
Really? Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.
How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish? Many, including yours truly! They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.
I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.
Ugh - cheque, please!
:judge:
I'm not making an argument, but an observation. Fr Pfeiffer was sent up to Quebec because there are some sedevacantists, or at least some sedevacantist sympathizers up there. So he went up there and spun a bunch of rhetoric to reinforce those who have been raised to believe that sedevacantism is false in their predetermined position, and to try to lure those who aren't constrained by that sort of cultish brainwashing into the former camp.
Whether or not these men are popes is a matter of fact. A matter of fact is either true or false. Fr. Pfeiffer did not address a matter of fact, he tried to quell what he views as a rebellion (ironic, I know) by resorting to the tired polemics of the post-ABL SSPX.
Father Pfeiffer acknowledged the crisis of the Church. His life has been dedicated to fighting the errors of Modernism.
I don't care. He's leading the faithful into error. He's employing novelty himself in his explanations, which is why you nor any of his followers can every quote anyone but Fr. Pfeiffer or some other SSPX "theologian" when trying to make your case.
Also, Father P. distinguished between the Pope and his Papacy. Are you united to Pope Francis - yes. Are you united to his Papacy - no.[/i]
*sigh*
This is just ridiculous. Next time you find Fr. P, ask him to show you where he learned this idea of being united to the pope but not the papacy. Fr. P has divorced the pope from the papacy, so that nothing the pope does has anything to do with the Church or the papacy (including a solemn definition, as was witnessed last Sunday).
If he's united in any way at all to a heretic, I don't want anything to do with him and neither should you. He literally has no idea what he's talking about. If he was united to Frank the Prank he wouldn't have given the sermon in question. It's utter and complete novelty.
Father P. also refers to the issue of scandal being allowed in order to test our Faith.
No, he refers to the issue of scandal in being allowed in order to test our resolve in the R&R position. You are being tested in your resolve in maintaining mutually exclusive propositions.
Don't you think that our Lady would have warned us if the Chair of Peter was to be vacant for such a long period of time at Fatima, LaSalette . . .[/b]
In the first place, private revelation is not what guides a discussion like this. Relevant Catholic principles (nature of the Church and membership, authority, infallibility, etc.) do.
In the second place, there is hardly any conflict between Fatima or La Salette and an extended interregnum. In fact, the dire warnings given at those apparitions are perfectly compatible with our present situation.
-
Black Irish,
I posted what I did on two resistance forums. You're the only woman so far that's taken offense to it. All the other ones understood that I was observing a typical feminine vice in this situation which absolutely does not belong.
The fact that you now want to make this a personal issue only makes you look worse.
-
Post ABL SSPX? ABL knew for a fact that these were not Popes?
I mean the SSPX no longer under the influence of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was justified in his resistance because of his doubts about these men's papacies.
One who is certain that X is the pope, if guided by the Catholic rule of faith, cannot allow for X to teach all manner of error and use his papal infallibility to declare a falsehood or something harmful to the faith. This is a radical departure from the traditional understanding of teaching and authority.
Personally, I do not think that any traditionalist has moral certainty about these papacies. But when they claim and act as if they do, it is hard to not rebuke them. If they really are certain, they are certainly schismatic. I don't like to think they're schismatic, so I say in most cases, their hubris aside, they doubt these papacies.
That's where we disagree. I do not believe that they are using papal infallibility to teach error. I find it telling that they purposely DON'T use papal infallibility and it's a wonder of the protection of the Holy Ghost. But you've heard the arguments before...I know the intent isn't to get into them again.
The thing about doubt is that it's fine to have in theory but you have to act on something concrete. Will you pray for the Pope or not? This is a big question. And there are only two possibilities. Yes or no. ABL may have had doubts but in action he still leaned towards them being Popes. It's no surprise that the SSPX continues that example. People who choose the SSPX or the Resistance do so because they choose to lean that way as well.
I don't think it is just at all to say that such people (as Fr Pfeiffer) are telling people to follow ME. I've seen enough rounds between R&R and sedes to know, as you do, that both sides have a lot of points and evidence on their side. This issue is not clear and each side can pull out Church teachings, theologians, saints, Popes and general examples to bolster their side. You may disagree with the conclusions of R&R but it is rather false and perhaps malicious to claim they stand solely on their own words and do not refer to a higher authority to guide them.
-
Wallflower,
Have you read the canonization formula?
"In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God's assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define [name] to be a saint [or "to be blessed"], and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the saints. In the name ofthe Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
Please explain how that is NOT an exercise of papal infallibility.
-
Black Irish,
I posted what I did on two resistance forums. You're the only woman so far that's taken offense to it. All the other ones understood that I was observing a typical feminine vice in this situation which absolutely does not belong.
The fact that you now want to make this a personal issue only makes you look worse.
vice/weakness - they are all the same thing! You jumped from one point to the next within your original post, but the logic did not follow. Is that a sede vice?
Is the Resistance movement akin to the feminine in your reasoning and thereby in need of constant affirmation? From where does this affirmation come en masse?
-
Black Irish,
I posted what I did on two resistance forums. You're the only woman so far that's taken offense to it. All the other ones understood that I was observing a typical feminine vice in this situation which absolutely does not belong.
The fact that you now want to make this a personal issue only makes you look worse.
vice/weakness - they are all the same thing! You jumped from one point to the next within your original post, but the logic did not follow. Is that a sede vice?
Is the Resistance movement akin to the feminine in your reasoning and thereby in need of constant affirmation? From where does this affirmation come en masse?
I have nothing more to say to you on this issue. If something is unclear, it's because you didn't read what I wrote. I wrote what I wrote and I mean it, and only it.
-
Black Irish,
I posted what I did on two resistance forums. You're the only woman so far that's taken offense to it. All the other ones understood that I was observing a typical feminine vice in this situation which absolutely does not belong.
The fact that you now want to make this a personal issue only makes you look worse.
vice/weakness - they are all the same thing! You jumped from one point to the next within your original post, but the logic did not follow. Is that a sede vice?
Is the Resistance movement akin to the feminine in your reasoning and thereby in need of constant affirmation? From where does this affirmation come en masse?
I have nothing more to say to you on this issue. If something is unclear, it's because you didn't read what I wrote. I wrote what I wrote and I mean it, and only it.
My, my aren't we a bit touchy . . .
Well, okay, have it your way, Mr. Anti-Logic. Saves me time in responding to your other litany of illogic. Oh, heck, I must persevere - don't you agree? Be a dear gent and affirm this for me, will ya? I'll just take more time in tackling that one, now.
-
Mithrandylan:
That the pope is infallible when defining for the whole Church a matter of faith and morals with his authority is a dogma of the faith. Are you familiar with Vatican I?
Do canonisations count as Faith and Morals? Can the sainthood of this or that person be said to be "Catholic teaching"? Does one fall into heresy for not regarding this or that person as a saint...?
-
Mithrandylan:
That the pope is infallible when defining for the whole Church a matter of faith and morals with his authority is a dogma of the faith. Are you familiar with Vatican I?
Do canonisations count as Faith and Morals? Can the sainthood of this or that person be said to be "Catholic teaching"? Does one fall into heresy for not regarding this or that person as a saint...?
Canonizations would at least fall under morals if not faith. We are bound to honor the saints, and to refuse to honor a saint would be a sin against charity at least. Saints are also incorporated into the liturgical life of the universal Church, and the Church cannot incorporate something unholy into the liturgy. Combined with the language used in these canonizations, I think they fall under the heading of papal infallibility, yes.
But even if they didn't fall strictly under papal infallibility, canonizations are regarded as infallible by theologians under the Church's infallibility:
The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.
Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; (20) a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.
Proof:
1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”
2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? (117-18, emphases added)
Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.
As to your question if denying this makes you a heretic, it depends on who you ask.
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”
If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.
Such a denial would accompanied by mortal sin according to Pope Benedict and others. Even if it is not necessarily heresy (and they do not rule out the possibility that it is) it still gets you to the hot place.
-
I am very disappointed right now. The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn.
At the risk of offending most of this discussion board:
1) What purpose does the Resistance serve within the overall traditionalist movement?
2) How well does the Resistance serve this purpose?
-
Outstandingly what? Poor, contradictory, long, divisive?
And this was affirmed by whom? :rolleyes:
-
That all these people who took the R&R position *for a reason* would suddenly slide into sedevacantism?
That outcome, I believe, is inevitable. Give it another five years.
-
I am very disappointed right now. The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn.
At the risk of offending most of this discussion board:
1) What purpose does the Resistance serve within the overall traditionalist movement?
2) How well does the Resistance serve this purpose?
Really, this should not have to be stated, but okay . . .
It exists to counter the ever growing errors of Modernism and many of its proponents, such as Masonic influences.
-
It exists to counter the ever growing errors of Modernism and many of its proponents, such as Masonic influences.[/color][/b]
And the Order of Alhambra fits into this how?
-
It exists to counter the ever growing errors of Modernism and many of its proponents, such as Masonic influences.[/color][/b]
And the Order of Alhambra fits into this how?
For starters . . . symbolism!
-
And Wallflower, you're right about one thing; I probably expected too much from the Resistance*. My disappointment in them stems from believing that they cared about truth before anything else. Alas, they're not really any better than +Fellay, who twists the faith to fit into his program.
There is a marginal practical difference in that the Resistance apparently does not wish to reconcile with the New Church, but that is a small consolation when they are destroying the dogma of infallibility and completely disregarding the traditional ways of understanding the nature of the Church and its teaching authority, expecting the faithful to learn from them rather than the popes, saints and theologians. If I cannot trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, if I cannot trust the warnings of Bendict XIV or St. Thomas Aquinas or any other teacher given me by the Church to learn the Holy Faith, where on earth does Fr. Pfeiffer get off thinking I should trust him? Anyone who is contradicting the mind of the Church as expressed by the theologians, saints and popes on this issue and choosing to follow Fr. Pfeiffer should be asking the same question. It has a cultish effect. Don't trust the Church, don't trust the popes, don't trust the saints, don't trust the theologians... trust me.
*I do realize that the Resistance is world-wide, and that just because Fr. Pfeiffer says it doesn't mean "the Resistance" throughout the world believes it, but it practically does at least in North America.
dogma of infallibility? Do you believe that the Pope as a person is infallible? Is this a blanket concept for you?
There is nothing within the quoted material that could lead someone to think that. You have been trained very well with these canned responses.
That the pope is infallible when defining for the whole Church a matter of faith and morals with his authority is a dogma of the faith. Are you familiar with Vatican I?
You refer to destroying the dogma of infallibility . . . where has Francis assumed the dogma of ex cathedra to his person or where has anyone thought that of him?
-
That all these people who took the R&R position *for a reason* would suddenly slide into sedevacantism?
That outcome, I believe, is inevitable. Give it another five years.
Oh now you have done it, expect a flurry of downthumbs now for posting this here in the resistance subforum. Comments such as this ought to be limited to the crisis forum, where sedes roam free :laugh1:
I do agree with your comment, but probably coming from a viewpoint on the crisis entirely the opposite of yours.
-
That all these people who took the R&R position *for a reason* would suddenly slide into sedevacantism?
That outcome, I believe, is inevitable. Give it another five years.
Oh now you have done it, expect a flurry of downthumbs now for posting this here in the resistance subforum. Comments such as this ought to be limited to the crisis forum, where sedes roam free :laugh1:
I do agree with your comment, but probably coming from a viewpoint on the crisis entirely the opposite of yours.
Seems to be more downthumbs for the Resistance than the Sede position. Is this truly a site in favour of the Resistance? :confused1:
Saint Alphonsus Liguori did not believe that God would ever permit a Pope to become a heretic, even as a private person: "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."
>>>>Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri (Turin, 1848), vol. VIII, p. 720.
-
And Wallflower, you're right about one thing; I probably expected too much from the Resistance*. My disappointment in them stems from believing that they cared about truth before anything else. Alas, they're not really any better than +Fellay, who twists the faith to fit into his program.
There is a marginal practical difference in that the Resistance apparently does not wish to reconcile with the New Church, but that is a small consolation when they are destroying the dogma of infallibility and completely disregarding the traditional ways of understanding the nature of the Church and its teaching authority, expecting the faithful to learn from them rather than the popes, saints and theologians. If I cannot trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, if I cannot trust the warnings of Bendict XIV or St. Thomas Aquinas or any other teacher given me by the Church to learn the Holy Faith, where on earth does Fr. Pfeiffer get off thinking I should trust him? Anyone who is contradicting the mind of the Church as expressed by the theologians, saints and popes on this issue and choosing to follow Fr. Pfeiffer should be asking the same question. It has a cultish effect. Don't trust the Church, don't trust the popes, don't trust the saints, don't trust the theologians... trust me.
*I do realize that the Resistance is world-wide, and that just because Fr. Pfeiffer says it doesn't mean "the Resistance" throughout the world believes it, but it practically does at least in North America.
dogma of infallibility? Do you believe that the Pope as a person is infallible? Is this a blanket concept for you?
There is nothing within the quoted material that could lead someone to think that. You have been trained very well with these canned responses.
That the pope is infallible when defining for the whole Church a matter of faith and morals with his authority is a dogma of the faith. Are you familiar with Vatican I?
You refer to destroying the dogma of infallibility . . . where has Francis assumed the dogma of ex cathedra to his person or where has anyone thought that of him?
I don't even know what you're trying to ask.
But this might answer your question. This is what Francis said when he canonized JPII and John XXIII:
“In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God's assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII to be saints, and we enroll them in the Catalogue of the saints, and we establish that in the whole Church they should be devoutly honored among the saints. In the name ofthe Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
This fulfills all of the prerequisites for papal infallibility according to Vatican I.
Even if it didn't, popes, saints and theologians teach that canonizations are infallible anyways because of the Church's infallibility as regards moral precepts and secondary objects. Quotes have been provided to a great extent here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Vatican-Admits-Canonizations-are-Bogus
-
And Wallflower, you're right about one thing; I probably expected too much from the Resistance*.
Father Pfeiffer acknowledged the crisis of the Church. His life has been dedicated to fighting the errors of Modernism.
I don't care. He's leading the faithful into error. He's employing novelty himself in his explanations, which is why you nor any of his followers can every quote anyone but Fr. Pfeiffer or some other SSPX "theologian" when trying to make your case.
Also, Father P. distinguished between the Pope and his Papacy. Are you united to Pope Francis - yes. Are you united to his Papacy - no.[/i]
*sigh*
This is just ridiculous. Next time you find Fr. P, ask him to show you where he learned this idea of being united to the pope but not the papacy. Fr. P has divorced the pope from the papacy, so that nothing the pope does has anything to do with the Church or the papacy (including a solemn definition, as was witnessed last Sunday).
If he's united in any way at all to a heretic, I don't want anything to do with him and neither should you. He literally has no idea what he's talking about. If he was united to Frank the Prank he wouldn't have given the sermon in question. It's utter and complete novelty.
The visible Roman representative vs the person.
-
And Wallflower, you're right about one thing; I probably expected too much from the Resistance*. My disappointment in them stems from believing that they cared about truth before anything else. Alas, they're not really any better than +Fellay, who twists the faith to fit into his program.
There is a marginal practical difference in that the Resistance apparently does not wish to reconcile with the New Church, but that is a small consolation when they are destroying the dogma of infallibility and completely disregarding the traditional ways of understanding the nature of the Church and its teaching authority, expecting the faithful to learn from them rather than the popes, saints and theologians. If I cannot trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, if I cannot trust the warnings of Bendict XIV or St. Thomas Aquinas or any other teacher given me by the Church to learn the Holy Faith, where on earth does Fr. Pfeiffer get off thinking I should trust him? Anyone who is contradicting the mind of the Church as expressed by the theologians, saints and popes on this issue and choosing to follow Fr. Pfeiffer should be asking the same question. It has a cultish effect. Don't trust the Church, don't trust the popes, don't trust the saints, don't trust the theologians... trust me.
*I do realize that the Resistance is world-wide, and that just because Fr. Pfeiffer says it doesn't mean "the Resistance" throughout the world believes it, but it practically does at least in North America.
dogma of infallibility? Do you believe that the Pope as a person is infallible? Is this a blanket concept for you?
There is nothing within the quoted material that could lead someone to think that. You have been trained very well with these canned responses.
That the pope is infallible when defining for the whole Church a matter of faith and morals with his authority is a dogma of the faith. Are you familiar with Vatican I?
Your reaction is protestant. When hearing the term "dogma of infallibility" a Catholic's reaction should not be the one you gave, mischaracterizing the doctrine and making a caricature out of it.
Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.
Really? Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.
How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish? Many, including yours truly! They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.
I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.
Ugh - cheque, please!
:judge:
I'm not making an argument, but an observation. Fr Pfeiffer was sent up to Quebec because there are some sedevacantists, or at least some sedevacantist sympathizers up there. So he went up there and spun a bunch of rhetoric to reinforce those who have been raised to believe that sedevacantism is false in their predetermined position, and to try to lure those who aren't constrained by that sort of cultish brainwashing into the former camp.
Whether or not these men are popes is a matter of fact. A matter of fact is either true or false. Fr. Pfeiffer did not address a matter of fact, he tried to quell what he views as a rebellion (ironic, I know) by resorting to the tired polemics of the post-ABL SSPX.
Father Pfeiffer acknowledged the crisis of the Church. His life has been dedicated to fighting the errors of Modernism.
I don't care. He's leading the faithful into error. He's employing novelty himself in his explanations, which is why you nor any of his followers can every quote anyone but Fr. Pfeiffer or some other SSPX "theologian" when trying to make your case.
Also, Father P. distinguished between the Pope and his Papacy. Are you united to Pope Francis - yes. Are you united to his Papacy - no.[/i]
*sigh*
This is just ridiculous. Next time you find Fr. P, ask him to show you where he learned this idea of being united to the pope but not the papacy. Fr. P has divorced the pope from the papacy, so that nothing the pope does has anything to do with the Church or the papacy (including a solemn definition, as was witnessed last Sunday).
If he's united in any way at all to a heretic, I don't want anything to do with him and neither should you. He literally has no idea what he's talking about. If he was united to Frank the Prank he wouldn't have given the sermon in question. It's utter and complete novelty.
Father P. also refers to the issue of scandal being allowed in order to test our Faith.
No, he refers to the issue of scandal in being allowed in order to test our resolve in the R&R position. You are being tested in your resolve in maintaining mutually exclusive propositions.
Don't you think that our Lady would have warned us if the Chair of Peter was to be vacant for such a long period of time at Fatima, LaSalette . . .[/b]
In the first place, private revelation is not what guides a discussion like this. Relevant Catholic principles (nature of the Church and membership, authority, infallibility, etc.) do.
In the second place, there is hardly any conflict between Fatima or La Salette and an extended interregnum. In fact, the dire warnings given at those apparitions are perfectly compatible with our present situation.
Both Fatima and LaSalette have been affirmed by the Church and therefore move beyond mere private revelation!
-
Black Irish,
None of the last two posts you've made (the first which wasn't even a sentence in the English speaking world) have addressed any of the relevant issues.
-
It exists to counter the ever growing errors of Modernism and many of its proponents, such as Masonic influences.[/color][/b]
And the Order of Alhambra fits into this how?
For starters . . . symbolism!
Okay, so a couple more questions:
1 - How does the Order of Alhambra, a spin-off of the Knights of Columbus founded and approved by the Catholic Church around 50 years before Vatican II to raise funds for the mentally and cognitively challenged, as well as promote devotion to St Francis of Assisi and to Our Lady of Knock, symbolize masonry?
2 - Why didn't anyone tell Cardinal Spellman?
-
Black Irish,
None of the last two posts you've made (the first which wasn't even a sentence in the English speaking world) have addressed any of the relevant issues.
Dear Pope Mithrandylan:
It seems that even if I were to give the most detailed refutation of the sede position, that you and your obviously numerous cronies would prefer your brand of Protestantism - to be your own Pope. I did not realize that this site was infested with anti-Roman cyber-termites. :shocked:
Saint Alphonsus Liguori did not believe that God would ever permit a Pope to become a heretic, even as a private person: "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."
>>>>Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri (Turin, 1848), vol. VIII, p. 720.
-
Both Fatima and LaSalette have been affirmed by the Church and therefore move beyond mere private revelation!
:shocked:
-
It exists to counter the ever growing errors of Modernism and many of its proponents, such as Masonic influences.[/color][/b]
And the Order of Alhambra fits into this how?
For starters . . . symbolism!
Okay, so a couple more questions:
1 - How does the Order of Alhambra, a spin-off of the Knights of Columbus founded and approved by the Catholic Church around 50 years before Vatican II to raise funds for the mentally and cognitively challenged, as well as promote devotion to St Francis of Assisi and to Our Lady of Knock, symbolize masonry?
2 - Why didn't anyone tell Cardinal Spellman?
Evil deeds are often veiled by good deeds.
Question to you:
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church?
-
Black Irish said:
Dear Pope Mithrandylan:
It seems that even if I were to give the most detailed refutation of the sede position, that you and your obviously numerous cronies would prefer your brand of Protestantism - to be your own Pope. I did not realize that this site was infested with anti-Roman cyber-termites. :shocked:
Black Irish, who is the anti-roman? The ones who defend the dogma of papal infallibility and the Popes from saint Peter to Pius XII, or the ones (like Father Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson and you) that propagate the lies and false theology of the schismatic Greeks, the Protestants, the Jansenists, the liberals, the anti-infallibilists and the modernists? All those lies were already refuted and condemn in the XIXth Century before and after the (First) Vatican Council.
-
Both Fatima and LaSalette have been affirmed by the Church and therefore move beyond mere private revelation!
:shocked:
By your icon are you indicating that Fatima and LaSalette are merely private revelation and not the affirmed words of our Lady to warn the faithful as a whole?
-
I am very disappointed right now. The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn.
At the risk of offending most of this discussion board:
1) What purpose does the Resistance serve within the overall traditionalist movement?
2) How well does the Resistance serve this purpose?
1. I try to separate the laity from the priests in the Resistance.
As for the priests, the Resistance has been, in my view, their way out of the SSPX. Many priests have left the SSPX over the years for various reasons. I won't evaluate the reasons but this has been one of the more vocal departures, which accounts for why people know more about it.
Judging what I know about most of these situations, this is how many independent chapels develop. When the dust settles, we will probably see most in a permanent location, operating a chapel alone.
As for the laity, some are just following the movement for the time. Others have seen the SSPX at it's best and highest standards, they want a return to those standards. Still some want to preserve the status quo where they are independent of the man they call Pope. Many felt betrayed by Fellay and want the SSPX to return to it's former status and standards. In essence they are resisting the auto-demolition of the SSPX, it isn't coming back. Those who are invested in SSPX are trying to create a replacement or at least contribute to one.
2. The Resistance is trying to preserve the Faith, they love the Church and want to save their souls. The problem is that they can't recreate the SSPX, the other problem is they don't have justification to keep resisting "Rome." They are trying to reconcile contradictory positions, this leads to instability and hurts some of their efforts.
-
Both Fatima and LaSalette have been affirmed by the Church and therefore move beyond mere private revelation!
:shocked:
By your icon are you indicating that Fatima and LaSalette are merely private revelation and not the affirmed words of our Lady to warn the faithful as a whole?
:facepalm:
-
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]
Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...
-
Black Irish said:
Dear Pope Mithrandylan:
It seems that even if I were to give the most detailed refutation of the sede position, that you and your obviously numerous cronies would prefer your brand of Protestantism - to be your own Pope. I did not realize that this site was infested with anti-Roman cyber-termites. :shocked:
Black Irish, who is the anti-roman? The ones who defend the dogma of papal infallibility and the Popes from saint Peter to Pius XII, or the ones (like Father Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson and you) that propagate the lies and false theology of the schismatic Greeks, the Protestants, the Jansenists, the liberals, the anti-infallibilists and the modernists? All those lies were already refuted and condemn in the XIXth Century before and after the (First) Vatican Council.
Proof for all of these accusations?: . . . Father Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson and you . . . propagate the lies and false theology of the schismatic Greeks, the Protestants, the Jansenists, the liberals, the anti-infallibilists and the modernists
Wow . . . I'm in the same sentence as Father Pheiffer and Bishop Williamson - what an honour! Thank you.
-
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]
Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...
Begin by giving proof of their membership. That is was a true and active membership and not an honourary membership. Also, docuмents where they recognized this organization and approved of it.
-
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]
Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...
Begin by giving proof of their membership. That is was a true and active membership and not an honourary membership. Also, docuмents where they recognized this organization and approved of it.
In light of some of the other conversations taking place on this thread, that I find of more immediate interest, I will pass on your above invitation. But thank-you anyway for your sincere concern in extending it.
-
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]
Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...
Begin by giving proof of their membership. That is was a true and active membership and not an honourary membership. Also, docuмents where they recognized this organization and approved of it.
In light of some of the other conversations taking place on this thread, that I find of more immediate interest, I will pass on your above invitation. But thank-you anyway for your sincere concern in extending it.
Shucks, and you're a member of this proto-masonic organization and you're not able to fill such a simple request? Hmmm . . .
-
1. I try to separate the laity from the priests in the Resistance.
Fair enough. I think one could go even further in separating the simple priests of the Resistance from its one bishop.
Judging what I know about most of these situations, this is how many independent chapels develop. When the dust settles, we will probably see most in a permanent location, operating a chapel alone.
Interesting.
Not to put words in your mouth, but do you foresee more a Mgr Williamson model of "loose association" between local groups than an internationally-organized worldwide apostolate that mimics the early SSPX?
As for the laity, some are just following the movement for the time. Others have seen the SSPX at it's best and highest standards, they want a return to those standards. Still some want to preserve the status quo where they are independent of the man they call Pope. Many felt betrayed by Fellay and want the SSPX to return to it's former status and standards. In essence they are resisting the auto-demolition of the SSPX, it isn't coming back. Those who are invested in SSPX are trying to create a replacement or at least contribute to one.
2. The Resistance is trying to preserve the Faith, they love the Church and want to save their souls. The problem is that they can't recreate the SSPX, the other problem is they don't have justification to keep resisting "Rome." They are trying to reconcile contradictory positions, this leads to instability and hurts some of their efforts.
So is the Resistance a permanent option, or is it a gateway to sedevacantism? If the former, how does the Resistance in North America compete with a group like the CMRI that is better organized, more stable, and has wider reach?
-
Just out of curiosity, where does Fr Pfeiffer stand with regards to the validity of the canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II? Does Fr Pfeiffer recognize their validity?
He makes excuses why they don't matter.
Interesting.
Given that Pope St John XXIII summoned the Council, and Pope St John Paul II did more than any other individual to implement the Council, what exactly is the Resistance resisting if these two canonizations do not matter?
-
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]
Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...
Begin by giving proof of their membership. That is was a true and active membership and not an honourary membership. Also, docuмents where they recognized this organization and approved of it.
What evidence do you have against this group that they are anything other than a Catholic fraternal group?
From my reading about them, they were formed in 1904 with Church approval and resemble the Knights of Columbus.
I would not want any part of any group affiliated with the Conciliar church, but that is a lot different than calling them (or even insinuating) that they are Masonic. The men in this group have a right to their good names and not to be calumniated.
-
1. I try to separate the laity from the priests in the Resistance.
Fair enough. I think one could go even further in separating the simple priests of the Resistance from its one bishop.
Judging what I know about most of these situations, this is how many independent chapels develop. When the dust settles, we will probably see most in a permanent location, operating a chapel alone.
Interesting.
Not to put words in your mouth, but do you foresee more a Mgr Williamson model of "loose association" between local groups than an internationally-organized worldwide apostolate that mimics the early SSPX?
As for the laity, some are just following the movement for the time. Others have seen the SSPX at it's best and highest standards, they want a return to those standards. Still some want to preserve the status quo where they are independent of the man they call Pope. Many felt betrayed by Fellay and want the SSPX to return to it's former status and standards. In essence they are resisting the auto-demolition of the SSPX, it isn't coming back. Those who are invested in SSPX are trying to create a replacement or at least contribute to one.
2. The Resistance is trying to preserve the Faith, they love the Church and want to save their souls. The problem is that they can't recreate the SSPX, the other problem is they don't have justification to keep resisting "Rome." They are trying to reconcile contradictory positions, this leads to instability and hurts some of their efforts.
So is the Resistance a permanent option, or is it a gateway to sedevacantism? If the former, how does the Resistance in North America compete with a group like the CMRI that is better organized, more stable, and has wider reach?
The Resistance priests who maintain a good relationship with Bp. Williamson will likely use him to confirm, much like other independents do with the various traditional bishops. I do not know how closely they will work together in the future or if regular ordinations will be a part of that. They still have growing pains and I think that as they develop their theological positions (or the more the talk) there is potential for division, scandal, and alienation of themselves and laity. I can already see that it is not going to work out for them to cover for one another in all cases due to the intricacies of those developing theological positions.
In short, I don't think anything grandiose is on the horizon. In fact, I think the opposite will happen.
Resistance a gateway to sedevacantism? Not directly. That is mostly dependent on what comes out of Rome, as far as the fence sitters. The former Society priests, that I know, who have embraced sedevacantism, did so over the course of many years and it was a gradual realization. Most priests who have left the Society go in the opposite direction.
Nobody wins when it turns into a competition. There is no need for CMRI and the Resistance to compete or to be enemies. The open hostilities do no good. Signing statements against other Catholics is a serious symptom of a problem as are inflammatory sermons. I do worry that the Resistance position will cause others not to mass or confession just because it is "sedevacantist." They don't have to hold joint chapel barbecues, but they can peacefully exist in the same area.
Personally, I think an amicable relationship is the best course between all Catholics and groups.
-
Resistance a gateway to sedevacantism? Not directly. That is mostly dependent on what comes out of Rome, as far as the fence sitters. The former Society priests, that I know, who have embraced sedevacantism, did so over the course of many years and it was a gradual realization. Most priests who have left the Society go in the opposite direction.
Granted, many who leave the SSPX and the Resistance will find their way back to diocesan-sponsored TLM communities. But among those who remain committed to resistance - and here I am thinking more in terms of laity than of priests - is the Resistance a gateway to sedevacantist chapels?
I am thinking primarily in terms of availability, stability and convenience.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer is a good man and a kind hearted priest but I don't think he really appreciates the magnitude of the crisis. He is blind and I believe instinctually refuses to see the crisis for what it is. There is a BIG difference between a Pope who is mistaken, misguided, wrong, etc. and a HERETICAL man claiming or being elected to the Papacy.
Big difference! There are sincerely WRONG and MISGUIDED people in the world from the average layman all the way up to the Popes of history. You CAN be wrong and NOT be heretical. You cannot be HERETICAL and not be wrong. The R&R position is a novelty and is in no way a Catholic response to the Crisis in the Church. The response of the Church to a heretical man assuming (claiming, stealing, etc.) the Papacy is well docuмented by the theologians and Doctors of Holy Church. There is NO such teaching of "R&R" in the Church teaching, doctrine, or tradition when it comes to the Papacy. "R&R" has no theological or rational position within the Church. Sedevacantism does.
-
I like Fr. Pfeiffer's Catechism audios on the St. Isadore website...I don't really have anything to contribute to the conversation but I thought I'd mention it :dancing-banana:
-
Resistance a gateway to sedevacantism? Not directly. That is mostly dependent on what comes out of Rome, as far as the fence sitters. The former Society priests, that I know, who have embraced sedevacantism, did so over the course of many years and it was a gradual realization. Most priests who have left the Society go in the opposite direction.
Granted, many who leave the SSPX and the Resistance will find their way back to diocesan-sponsored TLM communities. But among those who remain committed to resistance - and here I am thinking more in terms of laity than of priests - is the Resistance a gateway to sedevacantist chapels?
I am thinking primarily in terms of availability, stability and convenience.
That depends on a few things. There are little tiffs within the Resistance that might make certain sedevacantist chapels appealing, I don't know if they will fizzle out or ever become a major factor--I'm thinking mostly of the Holy Week issue here.
The biggest factor would probably be the individual, does he care about the truth of the matter, or does he want to tow the party line? Has he been exposed to anti-sedevacantism and does he believe those arguments without question? What does he believe the status of sedevacantists to be, are they Catholic or not? Is he willing to change based on new evidence, in the form of Bergoglio's actions or Catholic sources?
I don't think I've been anywhere yet since the Resistance began that has reported an influx of SSPX refugees. If they aren't going to the SSPX and are waiting for that annual mass, while CMRI or other options are available, they are probably staying home.
I find this so ironic because most sedevacantists who deal with irregular mass availability have no problem with SSPX or even Resistance masses. You do not see this the other way around, old habits die hard. Though, as a sedevacantist, I would be concerned now of being denied Holy Communion at Fr.Pfieffer's masses in the future. That, and his outstanding sermons (I definitely wouldn't want my children to hear some of the content) would keep me away.
-
There is NO such teaching of "R&R" in the Church teaching, doctrine, or tradition when it comes to the Papacy. "R&R" has no theological or rational position within the Church. Sedevacantism does.
Interesting comment in light of the most recent posts in the online debate between John Lane and RJS:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1606&sid=524be5f6b166bb6a6a88fd4d5bf0fc2e&start=60
-
Careful, Mabel-- someone's liable to tag you a eccuмentalist! :furtive: :)
-
Careful, Mabel-- someone's liable to tag you a eccuмentalist! :furtive: :)
If they do, it says more about them than me. :cool:
If we are to persevere in this crisis we must be careful to maintain unity with our fellow Catholics. I'd would rather be called a made-up word that appears in nowhere in Catholic theology than a schismatic! Yikes!
:heretic:
:cheers:
-
There was a thread not too long ago about Black Irish being a troll.
I didn't pay much attention to the thread, but it seems evident that she is, and a truly tremendous one.
Unfortunately, if this thread had any promise, she killed it with her obnoxious and brainwashed pre-programmed responses.
-
There was a thread not too long ago about Black Irish being a troll.
I didn't pay much attention to the thread, but it seems evident that she is, and a truly tremendous one.
Unfortunately, if this thread had any promise, she killed it with her obnoxious and brainwashed pre-programmed responses.
Interesting, oh most Pope-ish Mithrandylan . . . different strokes for different folks. Better to be a troll than a sad sede.
-
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]
Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...
Begin by giving proof of their membership. That is was a true and active membership and not an honourary membership. Also, docuмents where they recognized this organization and approved of it.
What evidence do you have against this group that they are anything other than a Catholic fraternal group?
From my reading about them, they were formed in 1904 with Church approval and resemble the Knights of Columbus.
I would not want any part of any group affiliated with the Conciliar church, but that is a lot different than calling them (or even insinuating) that they are Masonic. The men in this group have a right to their good names and not to be calumniated.
Give me a second Tyler Ambrose, I have to put my black, pointy hat aside . . .
Well, perhaps, it's just a bit too close for comfort:
http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/obscure2/cath.html
http://www.alhambralodge.com/category/lodge-gallery/
Cyber huggs & kisses,
The Troll
-
I didn't have the patience nor the time to keep going through these posts, so I finally listened to the sermon of Father Pfeiffer 's featured in the original post.
I don't have time right now to go through all the errors and problems with this "excellent sermon on SedeVantism." Suffice if to say right now, however, it is far from excellent. If the worldwide resistance movement against the sspx' slide into modernism is based on the theological thinking in this sermon, they are wasting their time. Fellay, Pflugger, Rostand could have written this stuff (well, okay, Rostand could not have even thought it, let alone write it).
The most glaring error is equating Our Lord Jesus Christ as a jew like Caiphas and Judas. Our Lord Jesus Christ was an Israelite, born of the House of David, as the scriptures said He would be. He had no relationship to the Babylonian jews who returned intermixed with the tribes of Israelites from the captivity. These leeches have been forever sucking off of the Israelites. Christ our God said to their very face "you don't hear me because you are not of My Father--if you were of My Father, you would here my
words," Christ explained that He had been sent to redeem the lost "sheep of the House of Israel"--not the jews.
The Jєωιѕн people today have no connection to the House of Israel, or to the Israelites-- this is a myth bandied about to con the Israelites into selling away their birthright. The consequences of this faulty thinking is that "jews are our elder brothers" ( Ratzinger, Brogoglio, Fellay and Pfeiffer), and, "they are justified in awaiting the Messiah" (Ratzinger, Brogoglio, Fellay?, Pfeiffer?).
Only after one buys this falsehood can one then accept the notion that Almighty God selected a communist, atheidtic, socialistic, heretic as the Vicar of Jesus Christ-- to lead the sheep of the Catholic Church. Why, praytell, wouldn't He have just put the wolves in charge in the desert, and just annihiliatef the whole lot of His people right there--right then-- instead of preserving them for the Promised Land?
-
Why adopt garb that even remotely resembles that of professed enemies of the Roman Catholic Church? [/color][/size]
Given that both Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were members, as were numerous American cardinals before the Second Vatican Council, I am not sure where to even begin an answer to your question...
Begin by giving proof of their membership. That is was a true and active membership and not an honourary membership. Also, docuмents where they recognized this organization and approved of it.
What evidence do you have against this group that they are anything other than a Catholic fraternal group?
From my reading about them, they were formed in 1904 with Church approval and resemble the Knights of Columbus.
I would not want any part of any group affiliated with the Conciliar church, but that is a lot different than calling them (or even insinuating) that they are Masonic. The men in this group have a right to their good names and not to be calumniated.
Give me a second Tyler Ambrose, I have to put my black, pointy hat aside . . .
Well, perhaps, it's just a bit too close for comfort:
http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/obscure2/cath.html
http://www.alhambralodge.com/category/lodge-gallery/
Cyber huggs & kisses,
The Troll
I read your links, the first proves nothing, the second has nothing to do with the topic.
You should be careful, to allege that this group is Masonic is to harm the reputations of all members since it was founded in 1904. It doesn't seem that you have done any serious research into this and are relying on rash judgment.
-
As one who has been (in the past) not hesitant in advancing my thoughts on Father Pfeiffer's qualifications for a pointed hat (just look through my posts) I must say that this time I did find his sermon to be EXACTLY what the Archbishop would have said and EXACTLY what the church teaches on the questions he raised.
I am not, however, surprised that the bitterness of the attacks the talk and this thread has engendered are not the direct consequence of the complete collapse in other areas of ecclesiology.
First, the combative tones used here demonstrate the reality of the dictum of what happens when the "shepherd is struck"... armchair theology holds sway.
Second, Francis' confusing activities have driven more sensitive types directly into the arms of the sedevacantists with their (on the face of it) plausible theological arguments but upon careful comparison with ALL the magisterial teachings clearly problematic opinions.
Mr Arent (above) for example is a classic case of one who in the first fervor of the resistance fled to the sede refuge of Bishop Sanborn and now quite readily parrots lines from Vatican I that seem to "prove" ole' Frankie ain't what they think he is.
However, the same Council infallibly teaches a perpetual succession in the primacy until the end of time. Frankie isn't the only fly in the ointment if that teaching is to be held of faith (which it is) so where does that leave the Church since 1958 ? Bp. Sanborn officially (now) holds there hasn't been a Pope since 1958, though for the first year of his priesthood he mentioned Paul VI in the Canon of the Mass.
Clearly inquiring minds are just that INQUIRING and if sedes think they can magisterially bamboozle us into holding opinions upon which they have themselves changed (and continue to change) they are quite mistaken.
Bp. Williamson is quite correct to repeatedly say :"we live in confusing times" which means we are all confused because of these events but the Lord God is quite in control of the matter so why worry ?
-
I have never seen him before, I surprised by the obesity.
Carry on.
-
St. Paul cautioned Timothy to stay clear of those who make pretense of religion but mitigate his power, and who are "always learning but never able to reach a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 3: 5-7).
He also predicted "the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but following their own desires, will surround themselves with teachers who tickle their ears. They will stop listening to the truth and will wander off to fables".
God has not failed in His promise to be with His Church. Modernism is not the first battle the Church has defeated not will be the last one. There is a purpose to heresies. They must exist until the end of time as a testing factor, as st..Paul states.
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
Sounds similar to the real reason the FSSP was created.
-
The SSPX has valid priests. The FSSP does not. All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops. They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.
SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.
-
The SSPX has valid priests. The FSSP does not. All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops. They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.
SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.
Agreed. It just reminded me of when the FSSP was created. "Don't have anything to do with that nasty SSPX! See, we can offer a Latin Mass, too! We'll even give you a bishop!" It kept dollars in the Conciliar Church, but where's that promised bishop?
-
Mithrandylan,
Just because a Pope (or priest for that matter) says the words to confect a sacrament, does not always mean that the sacrament takes place. Not only must the words be correct, but so must be the matter.
I know that canonizations are not sacraments, but they most certainly follow a formula. Francis may have said the words at the canonizations, but the "Matter" in which they were pronounced over was highly deficient.
Heck, even the New York Times posted an article with the heading "A Saint He Aint".
-
Mithrandylan,
Just because a Pope (or priest for that matter) says the words to confect a sacrament, does not always mean that the sacrament takes place. Not only must the words be correct, but so must be the matter.
I know that canonizations are not sacraments, but they most certainly follow a formula. Francis may have said the words at the canonizations, but the "Matter" in which they were pronounced over was highly deficient.
Heck, even the New York Times posted an article with the heading "A Saint He Aint".
The "matter" for canonizations is a dead person. The infallibility of the Church protects a non-saint dead person from being canonized. What you are arguing is just another procedural argument, which has already been debunked. Undue process led to deficient matter slipping through the procedural cracks and onto the canonization assembly line.
It is not so. Besides the fact that the Church's infallibility in secondary objects covers canonizations, at least in this particular instance you actually have an ex cathedra definition. If Francis is a true pope, he is exercising his authority as the head of the Church to define/declare a matter and binding the whole Church to it. Per Vatican I, these pre-requisites guarantee infallibility, which is an impossibility of error-- that is, it is not possible that he could be wrong. This is dogma, by the way.
This idea has been circulating on another forum. See here: http://abple febvref orums./t hread/2238/canoniza tions-infalible-judgement -church?page=9
(remove spaces)
-
Look, obviously JPII is not a saint. The problem is in how people are arriving at that conclusion. The sedevacantists say that it is because Francis is not the pope, and cannot bind anyone to anything anymore than the mailman can.
The non-sedevacantists are arguing a whole host of erroneous ideas. They deny the existence of secondary objects of infallibility or they add conditions to papal infallibility or disregard it all together, preferring an understanding of infallibility that amounts to "the Church is infallible when it's right" or "the pope is infallible when he's right."
These are serious errors, not only opposed to the opinions of the saints, popes and theologians, but even opposed to dogmatically defined truths.
-
Mithrandylan,
Just because a Pope (or priest for that matter) says the words to confect a sacrament, does not always mean that the sacrament takes place. Not only must the words be correct, but so must be the matter.
I know that canonizations are not sacraments, but they most certainly follow a formula. Francis may have said the words at the canonizations, but the "Matter" in which they were pronounced over was highly deficient.
Heck, even the New York Times posted an article with the heading "A Saint He Aint".
The "matter" for canonizations is a dead person. The infallibility of the Church protects a non-saint dead person from being canonized. What you are arguing is just another procedural argument, which has already been debunked. Undue process led to deficient matter slipping through the procedural cracks and onto the canonization assembly line.
It is not so. Besides the fact that the Church's infallibility in secondary objects covers canonizations, at least in this particular instance you actually have an ex cathedra definition. If Francis is a true pope, he is exercising his authority as the head of the Church to define/declare a matter and binding the whole Church to it. Per Vatican I, these pre-requisites guarantee infallibility, which is an impossibility of error-- that is, it is not possible that he could be wrong. This is dogma, by the way.
This idea has been circulating on another forum. See here: http://abple febvref orums./t hread/2238/canoniza tions-infalible-judgement -church?page=9
(remove spaces)
Would sacramental theology even apply in this case?
-
I am very disappointed right now. The Resistance, inasmuch as it is the product of Fr. Pfeiffer, is stillborn.
At the risk of offending most of this discussion board:
1) What purpose does the Resistance serve within the overall traditionalist movement?
2) How well does the Resistance serve this purpose?
This isn't offensive. It's a perfectly legitimate question.
We need to ask the hard questions if we want to truly leave no stone unturned.
-
Mithrandylan,
Just because a Pope (or priest for that matter) says the words to confect a sacrament, does not always mean that the sacrament takes place. Not only must the words be correct, but so must be the matter.
I know that canonizations are not sacraments, but they most certainly follow a formula. Francis may have said the words at the canonizations, but the "Matter" in which they were pronounced over was highly deficient.
Heck, even the New York Times posted an article with the heading "A Saint He Aint".
The "matter" for canonizations is a dead person. The infallibility of the Church protects a non-saint dead person from being canonized. What you are arguing is just another procedural argument, which has already been debunked. Undue process led to deficient matter slipping through the procedural cracks and onto the canonization assembly line.
It is not so. Besides the fact that the Church's infallibility in secondary objects covers canonizations, at least in this particular instance you actually have an ex cathedra definition. If Francis is a true pope, he is exercising his authority as the head of the Church to define/declare a matter and binding the whole Church to it. Per Vatican I, these pre-requisites guarantee infallibility, which is an impossibility of error-- that is, it is not possible that he could be wrong. This is dogma, by the way.
This idea has been circulating on another forum. See here: http://abple febvref orums./t hread/2238/canoniza tions-infalible-judgement -church?page=9
(remove spaces)
Would sacramental theology even apply in this case?
No, it wouldn't. The whole "dead person" matter was rather tongue in cheek. I just simply meant that the only thing theoretically preventing a person from being considered for canonization is that they're still living. Naturally there are other pre-requisites for a canonized saint, but the case cannot even be presented if the person is still living.
There are seven sacraments-- canonization is not one of them. Matter, form and intent are used to determine the validity of the sacraments. Vatican I determined the conditions for papal infallibility, and they are met; end of story. One cannot argue against this without applying abhorrent and incessant novelty to the very clear dogma of papal infallibility, a dogma which is extraordinarily clear.
It's very ironic, considering how a long-standing charge against sedevacantists is an exaggeration of papal infallibility-- this is manifestly false, since to date, none of the main arguments for sedevacantism have dealt with papal infallibility (rather the focus was on the Church's infallibility, which is the same as the pope's though exercised in a different way). For years sedevacantists have heard that none of the post-conciliar popes have taught anything that met the criteria for ex cathedra papal infallibility (to this I agree) but now we actually have an instance where those conditions are met, and I suppose we should expect that, as usual, the rebuttals (if you can call them that) rely on either outright denying papal infallibility, or adding conditions to it that simply don't exist.
-
Charlemagne, perhaps you overlooked my comment " I know canonizations are not a sacrament".
Thanks for your comments Mithrandylan, much appreciated. I do understand your point. Whatever a Pope declares in Excathedra must be believed by all. But there must be room for "Matter". If Pius XII declared a bologna sandwich a saint, this would not be valid. What object being declared must weigh into the equation.
-
Charlemagne, perhaps you overlooked my comment " I know canonizations are not a sacrament".
Thanks for your comments Mithrandylan, much appreciated. I do understand your point. Whatever a Pope declares in Excathedra must be believed by all. But there must be room for "Matter". If Pius XII declared a bologna sandwich a saint, this would not be valid. What object being declared must weigh into the equation.
Ekim,
The entire point of infallibility is that there is not a possibility of error.
It's not a promise against actual error, but a promise against even the possibility of error. In other words, with the pre-requisite conditions being met, it is not even possible that the pope could err in such a definition/declaration.
So, as to your question about Pius XII and a bologna sandwhich, the proper answer is simply that such an instance is impossible for a real pope.
Fake popes do not enjoy infallibility, though.
-
The SSPX has valid priests. The FSSP does not. All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops. They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.
SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.
Armchair theology in action ?
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?
-
The SSPX has valid priests. The FSSP does not. All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops. They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.
SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.
Armchair theology in action ?
Emerentiana may have given you the Reader's Digest version of the situation but she isn't making any claims of being a theologian.
Can you tell me how one becomes a legitimate theologian and who is a living theologian that you would recommend we approach?
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?
It's strange that you have that image? Are you familiar with CMRI? I have witnessed:
A mix of big beautiful churches and smaller chapels.
60 mass centers in the United States alone, with new chapels opening constantly.
Churches and chapels run by CMRI or who work with CMRI all across the world, Australia, Philippines, New Zealand, South America, Russia, Europe, etc.
2 seminaries, a major and a minor.
3 different orders of nuns, operating numerous grade schools and high schools.
Priests who sacrifice themselves for God by traveling all over to say Mass, hear confessions and visit the sick.
I could go on....
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?
As a "sede" ie: A CATHOLIC, I would kneel in the mud while Holy Mass is offered by a true CATHOLIC priest on the hood of a jeep rather than commit sacrilege by attending a "mass" in union with a heretic in a bejeweled and golden gilt chapel:
(http://ogpdn1wn2d93vut8u40tokx1dl7.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/thumbRNSWWIIEXHIBITS5-240x240.jpg)
So much for your "garage chapel" theory/slam.
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?
It's strange that you have that image? Are you familiar with CMRI? I have witnessed:
A mix of big beautiful churches and smaller chapels.
60 mass centers in the United States alone, with new chapels opening constantly.
Churches and chapels run by CMRI or who work with CMRI all across the world, Australia, Philippines, New Zealand, South America, Russia, Europe, etc.
2 seminaries, a major and a minor.
3 different orders of nuns, operating numerous grade schools and high schools.
Priests who sacrifice themselves for God by traveling all over to say Mass, hear confessions and visit the sick.
I could go on....
I wouldn't get me started on that topic - been there done that in every sense of the words. The externals are one thing - the interior is something else altogether. I would stick with the resistance !
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?
As a "sede" ie: A CATHOLIC, I would kneel in the mud while Holy Mass is offered by a true CATHOLIC priest on the hood of a jeep rather than commit sacrilege by attending a "mass" in union with a heretic in a bejeweled and golden gilt chapel:
(http://ogpdn1wn2d93vut8u40tokx1dl7.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/thumbRNSWWIIEXHIBITS5-240x240.jpg)
So much for your "garage chapel" theory/slam.
Yes but that WAS the church - now we have people PLAYING at church based upon private judgment in opposition to the real Magisterium. Remember this all started as an attack on Fr. Pfeiffer. I believe this forum calls itself the home of the resistance not of the sedes. I'm only sticking up for Fr. P.
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?
It's strange that you have that image? Are you familiar with CMRI? I have witnessed:
A mix of big beautiful churches and smaller chapels.
60 mass centers in the United States alone, with new chapels opening constantly.
Churches and chapels run by CMRI or who work with CMRI all across the world, Australia, Philippines, New Zealand, South America, Russia, Europe, etc.
2 seminaries, a major and a minor.
3 different orders of nuns, operating numerous grade schools and high schools.
Priests who sacrifice themselves for God by traveling all over to say Mass, hear confessions and visit the sick.
I could go on....
I wouldn't get me started on that topic - been there done that in every sense of the words. The externals are one thing - the interior is something else altogether. I would stick with the resistance !
I was answering your assertion, which was focused in externals.
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?
As a "sede" ie: A CATHOLIC, I would kneel in the mud while Holy Mass is offered by a true CATHOLIC priest on the hood of a jeep rather than commit sacrilege by attending a "mass" in union with a heretic in a bejeweled and golden gilt chapel:
(http://ogpdn1wn2d93vut8u40tokx1dl7.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/thumbRNSWWIIEXHIBITS5-240x240.jpg)
So much for your "garage chapel" theory/slam.
I agree, and I would kneel in the mud at the true Mass, rather than go to the churches under control of the Novus Ordo traitors.
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?
Curious... Agreed, Trad... :scratchchin:
-
The SSPX has valid priests. The FSSP does not. All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops. They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.
SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.
Armchair theology in action ?
Emerentiana may have given you the Reader's Digest version of the situation but she isn't making any claims of being a theologian.
Can you tell me how one becomes a legitimate theologian and who is a living theologian that you would recommend we approach?
Now that's a loaded question if ever I saw one. The first answer is that the Church is in crisis and therefore a state of confusion. Secondly, the normal way a theologian became one was to study the disciplines and obtain doctorates from Catholic universities. Not one Trad cleric falls into this category - and by definition neither do lay people with a keyboard in front of them. All I can recommend is that we study the manualists from before the time of the confusion (bearing in mind that no theologian every could have imagined the confusion that reigns today.)
The resistance priests are offering an attempt to reject the excesses of a sell-out by the neo-SSPX but they hold fast to the position of the Archbishop which was always reject the modernism, respect the authority which sometimes requires us refusing the authority (not reject) in order to reject the modernism. It's a way of greater subtlety which as a young fellow I could not accept from Bp. Williamson. Now I am older I know he is absolutely right.
That said, it is quite obvious that the so-called resistance Fora (forums) have been flooded of late with pro-sede types and I'm here to firmly defend the resistance which is the only logical position that I can see -it is the heir to that position of the Archbishop which saner minds once accepted as the middle (and a fortiori the safer) course.
That said - it's just my opinion - not a dogma.
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?
It's strange that you have that image? Are you familiar with CMRI? I have witnessed:
A mix of big beautiful churches and smaller chapels.
60 mass centers in the United States alone, with new chapels opening constantly.
Churches and chapels run by CMRI or who work with CMRI all across the world, Australia, Philippines, New Zealand, South America, Russia, Europe, etc.
2 seminaries, a major and a minor.
3 different orders of nuns, operating numerous grade schools and high schools.
Priests who sacrifice themselves for God by traveling all over to say Mass, hear confessions and visit the sick.
I could go on....
I wouldn't get me started on that topic - been there done that in every sense of the words. The externals are one thing - the interior is something else altogether. I would stick with the resistance !
I was answering your assertion, which was focused in externals.
Yes the statistics are of interest - but are you aware of the "formation" of the priests and religious ? An old time priest once told me (who knew the community intimately) that he considered the priests to be "Baltimore 3 Catholics" I'll leave you to figure out what he meant.
-
So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.
Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals
How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.
The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.
:applause: :applause:
Perfectly said. The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo. They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis. Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence. Less funds will result.
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?
What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?
As a "sede" ie: A CATHOLIC, I would kneel in the mud while Holy Mass is offered by a true CATHOLIC priest on the hood of a jeep rather than commit sacrilege by attending a "mass" in union with a heretic in a bejeweled and golden gilt chapel:
(http://ogpdn1wn2d93vut8u40tokx1dl7.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/thumbRNSWWIIEXHIBITS5-240x240.jpg)
So much for your "garage chapel" theory/slam.
I agree, and I would kneel in the mud at the true Mass, rather than go to the churches under control of the Novus Ordo traitors.
I agree with that sentiment absolutely !
-
The SSPX has valid priests. The FSSP does not. All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops. They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.
SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.
Armchair theology in action ?
Emerentiana may have given you the Reader's Digest version of the situation but she isn't making any claims of being a theologian.
Can you tell me how one becomes a legitimate theologian and who is a living theologian that you would recommend we approach?
Now that's a loaded question if ever I saw one. The first answer is that the Church is in crisis and therefore a state of confusion. Secondly, the normal way a theologian became one was to study the disciplines and obtain doctorates from Catholic universities. Not one Trad cleric falls into this category - and by definition neither do lay people with a keyboard in front of them. All I can recommend is that we study the manualists from before the time of the confusion (bearing in mind that no theologian every could have imagined the confusion that reigns today.)
The resistance priests are offering an attempt to reject the excesses of a sell-out by the neo-SSPX but they hold fast to the position of the Archbishop which was always reject the modernism, respect the authority which sometimes requires us refusing the authority (not reject) in order to reject the modernism. It's a way of greater subtlety which as a young fellow I could not accept from Bp. Williamson. Now I am older I know he is absolutely right.
That said, it is quite obvious that the so-called resistance Fora (forums) have been flooded of late with pro-sede types and I'm here to firmly defend the resistance which is the only logical position that I can see -it is the heir to that position of the Archbishop which saner minds once accepted as the middle (and a fortiori the safer) course.
That said - it's just my opinion - not a dogma.
Except they are not advocating the position of the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre which was open to the sedevacantist position, and one that could be determined through public evidence. They are advocating post-Lefebvre SSPX anti-sedevacatism.
Archbishop Lefebvre taught:
Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.
I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods.
What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.
-
We are not schismatics! If an excommunication was pronounced against the bishops of China, who separated themselves from Rome and put themselves under the Chinese government, one very easily understands why Pope Pius XII excommunicated them. There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. They have even elected a pope, formed a college of cardinals... It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought to separate ourselves from Rome!
On the contrary, it is in order to manifest our attachment to Rome that we are performing this ceremony. It is in order to manifest our attachment to the Eternal Rome, to the Pope, and to all those who have preceded these last Popes who, unfortunately since the Second Vatican Council, have thought it their duty to adhere to grievous errors which are demolishing the Church and the Catholic Priesthood.
[...]
This is why we do this ceremony. Far be it from me to set myself up as pope! I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: "Tradidi quod et accepi-I have transmitted to you what I have received," nothing else. I am just the postman bringing you a letter. I did not write the letter, the message, this Word of God. God Himself wrote it; Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave it to us. As for us, we just handed it down, through these dear priests here present and through all those who have chosen to resist this wave of apostasy in the Church, by keeping the Eternal Faith and giving it to the faithful. We are just carriers of this Good News, of this Gospel which Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to us, as well as of the means of sanctification: the Holy Mass, the true Holy Mass, the true Sacraments which truly give the spiritual life.
It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these Popes - since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII - telling us: "Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our predications, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from this earth? Please, please, continue to keep this treasure which we have given you. Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the Church! Continue the Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism., Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism. All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church. Is it possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we have given to you, all of it shall disappear. Souls shall be lost."
Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecuмenism and all these errors, this collegiality - all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is .in the process of destroying the Church.
This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying the call of these Popes and as a consequence the call of God, since they represent Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Church.
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
-
Mithrandolyn, so your point is, that a "real " pope would have not even allowed these clowns (bologna sandwiches) to even be considered for canonisation? I.e. would have never accepted the new process for sainthood?
-
The SSPX has valid priests. The FSSP does not. All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops. They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.
SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.
Armchair theology in action ?
Emerentiana may have given you the Reader's Digest version of the situation but she isn't making any claims of being a theologian.
Can you tell me how one becomes a legitimate theologian and who is a living theologian that you would recommend we approach?
Now that's a loaded question if ever I saw one. The first answer is that the Church is in crisis and therefore a state of confusion. Secondly, the normal way a theologian became one was to study the disciplines and obtain doctorates from Catholic universities. Not one Trad cleric falls into this category - and by definition neither do lay people with a keyboard in front of them. All I can recommend is that we study the manualists from before the time of the confusion (bearing in mind that no theologian every could have imagined the confusion that reigns today.)
The resistance priests are offering an attempt to reject the excesses of a sell-out by the neo-SSPX but they hold fast to the position of the Archbishop which was always reject the modernism, respect the authority which sometimes requires us refusing the authority (not reject) in order to reject the modernism. It's a way of greater subtlety which as a young fellow I could not accept from Bp. Williamson. Now I am older I know he is absolutely right.
That said, it is quite obvious that the so-called resistance Fora (forums) have been flooded of late with pro-sede types and I'm here to firmly defend the resistance which is the only logical position that I can see -it is the heir to that position of the Archbishop which saner minds once accepted as the middle (and a fortiori the safer) course.
That said - it's just my opinion - not a dogma.
I agree with most of what you have stated.
So what is the difference between a priest who gives a poorly organized sermon, filled with error, void of proof and an armchair theologian?
Neither have permission from the Church to write or speak on matters of Faith. One is ordained and one is not.
No one is allowed to criticize this provocation inserted into the mass, of all places?
What makes one traditionalist priest always right over another? I hold that we should accept the truth even if we don't like the messenger. You might like much of what any priest says, and so might I, but it does not mean they are always right or justified in every matter.
The whole point is that the attack on sedevacantists by Fr.Pfieffer was unnecessary, illogical, and should not have been done during mass, if at all. If this is the product of Society training, it isn't in conformity with the SSPX standards under Lefevbre.
Now, we have Catholics signing docuмents against other Catholics as result and it furthers an "us against them" mentality. Sedevacantists are not the enemy.
I'd rather kneel in actual mud for mass that kneel at a mass where mud has been slung. Poor sermons such as these have no place at mass--whether we agree theologically with the speaker or not.
-
That said, it is quite obvious that the so-called resistance Fora (forums) have been flooded of late with pro-sede types and I'm here to firmly defend the resistance which is the only logical position that I can see -it is the heir to that position of the Archbishop which saner minds once accepted as the middle (and a fortiori the safer) course.
If the position of the Archbishop is so logical, why is the R&R unable to hold itself together? Why is it splitting between those seeking to recognize (Mgr Fellay) and those pushing to resist further (Mgr Williamson)?
Additionally, why is the retention rate among the SSPX so low, with a steady stream of its priests leaving for diocesan or Ecclesia Dei structures, or sedevacantism?
Additionally, which position of the Archbishop are we talking about? The "recognize" that signed the 1988 protocol agreement with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, or the "resist" that shortly after signing the protocol withdrew his signature and consecrated four bishops without papal mandate?
As others have pointed out, emotion and the politics of believing that the nature of his resistance was temporary - rather than rigorous theological logic - seems to have been the basis for the Archbishop's actions and positions.
-
Read with humility...
Jus Canonicuм by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII
De Summo Pontifice
translated by J.S. Daly
[The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases...]
453. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.
A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church...
The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be "extremely improbable".
The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. "Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible" as Bellarmine teaches.
Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.
Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...
Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.
-
Mithrandolyn, so your point is, that a "real " pope would have not even allowed these clowns (bologna sandwiches) to even be considered for canonisation? I.e. would have never accepted the new process for sainthood?
I wouldn't go so far to contend that a real pope wouldn't entertain the notion, but we can know with a certainty of faith that a real pope would not meet the required conditions of infallibility and define a falsehood. That is impossible, and it's precisely what Vatican I protected against.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
-
Read with humility...
Jus Canonicuм by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII
De Summo Pontifice
translated by J.S. Daly
[The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases...]
453. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.
A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church...
The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be "extremely improbable".
The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. "Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible" as Bellarmine teaches.
Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.
Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...
Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.
I agree - just who gets to say that "X" falls into the category of so-called "self-deposed Pope" ?
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
-
The SSPX has valid priests. The FSSP does not. All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops. They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.
SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.
Armchair theology in action ?
Emerentiana may have given you the Reader's Digest version of the situation but she isn't making any claims of being a theologian.
Can you tell me how one becomes a legitimate theologian and who is a living theologian that you would recommend we approach?
Now that's a loaded question if ever I saw one. The first answer is that the Church is in crisis and therefore a state of confusion. Secondly, the normal way a theologian became one was to study the disciplines and obtain doctorates from Catholic universities. Not one Trad cleric falls into this category - and by definition neither do lay people with a keyboard in front of them. All I can recommend is that we study the manualists from before the time of the confusion (bearing in mind that no theologian every could have imagined the confusion that reigns today.)
The resistance priests are offering an attempt to reject the excesses of a sell-out by the neo-SSPX but they hold fast to the position of the Archbishop which was always reject the modernism, respect the authority which sometimes requires us refusing the authority (not reject) in order to reject the modernism. It's a way of greater subtlety which as a young fellow I could not accept from Bp. Williamson. Now I am older I know he is absolutely right.
That said, it is quite obvious that the so-called resistance Fora (forums) have been flooded of late with pro-sede types and I'm here to firmly defend the resistance which is the only logical position that I can see -it is the heir to that position of the Archbishop which saner minds once accepted as the middle (and a fortiori the safer) course.
That said - it's just my opinion - not a dogma.
I agree with most of what you have stated.
So what is the difference between a priest who gives a poorly organized sermon, filled with error, void of proof and an armchair theologian?
Neither have permission from the Church to write or speak on matters of Faith. One is ordained and one is not.
No one is allowed to criticize this provocation inserted into the mass, of all places?
What makes one traditionalist priest always right over another? I hold that we should accept the truth even if we don't like the messenger. You might like much of what any priest says, and so might I, but it does not mean they are always right or justified in every matter.
The whole point is that the attack on sedevacantists by Fr.Pfieffer was unnecessary, illogical, and should not have been done during mass, if at all. If this is the product of Society training, it isn't in conformity with the SSPX standards under Lefevbre.
Now, we have Catholics signing docuмents against other Catholics as result and it furthers an "us against them" mentality. Sedevacantists are not the enemy.
I'd rather kneel in actual mud for mass that kneel at a mass where mud has been slung. Poor sermons such as these have no place at mass--whether we agree theologically with the speaker or not.
Well if you had been there you could always have left. The rest is your subjective opinion as to the "quality" of the sermon.
-
That said, it is quite obvious that the so-called resistance Fora (forums) have been flooded of late with pro-sede types and I'm here to firmly defend the resistance which is the only logical position that I can see -it is the heir to that position of the Archbishop which saner minds once accepted as the middle (and a fortiori the safer) course.
If the position of the Archbishop is so logical, why is the R&R unable to hold itself together? Why is it splitting between those seeking to recognize (Mgr Fellay) and those pushing to resist further (Mgr Williamson)?
Additionally, why is the retention rate among the SSPX so low, with a steady stream of its priests leaving for diocesan or Ecclesia Dei structures, or sedevacantism?
Additionally, which position of the Archbishop are we talking about? The "recognize" that signed the 1988 protocol agreement with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, or the "resist" that shortly after signing the protocol withdrew his signature and consecrated four bishops without papal mandate?
As others have pointed out, emotion and the politics of believing that the nature of his resistance was temporary - rather than rigorous theological logic - seems to have been the basis for the Archbishop's actions and positions.
This post (above) is perhaps the most important in this whole thread / forum !!!
Attrition rate: Precisely because the Pope is the center of authority and not even the Archbishop could supply that.
Two minds of the Archbishop: That's obvious. Some say he spoke to the gallery (depending upon his audience) some say he had to be pushed into his most strident condemnations e.g. Lille.
My take has been that the Archbishop was dealing with 2 contradictory tendencies:
1/ As a man of faith: Reject modernism - resist the authority
2/ As a man of the church (Archbishop, Superior General, Apostolic delegate): love the authority (pope and hierarchy) - reject their actions (Vatican II & New Mass)
It's the same tight rope we all walk in this forum to some degree or other - the argument is only over the degree not that we have to walk a tight rope.
-
Curioustrad wrote:
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
I never said he was a sedevacatist, but there is no doubt that the principles that he explicitly taught are the same as the "sedevacatists".
We rely on the public evidence of heresy, the same principle that Archbishop Lefebvre taught that must be used to make the determination. The fact that he did not in the end state that John Paul II was not a Pope, does not mean that he denied the principles taught by St. Robert Bellarmine and the 1917 Code which are used to make this determination.
The principles that Archbishop Lefebvre taught in 1986 are the same principles that we use to determine that Francis is not a Pope.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Archbishop-Lefebvre-1986-Address-to-Seminarians
-
Mithrandolyn, so your point is, that a "real " pope would have not even allowed these clowns (bologna sandwiches) to even be considered for canonisation? I.e. would have never accepted the new process for sainthood?
Dear Ekim, it is not about the process... it is about the Indefectibility of the Church.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
-
Curioustrad wrote:
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
I never said he was a sedevacatist, but there is no doubt that the principles that he explicitly taught are the same as the "sedevacatists".
We rely on the public evidence of heresy, the same principle that Archbishop Lefebvre taught that must be used to make the determination. The fact that he did not in the end state that John Paul II was not a Pope, does not mean that he denied the principles taught by St. Robert Bellarmine and the 1917 Code which are used to make this determination.
The principles that Archbishop Lefebvre taught in 1986 are the same principles that we use to determine that Francis is not a Pope.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Archbishop-Lefebvre-1986-Address-to-Seminarians
Yes I just answered that point in a previous post:
Two minds of the Archbishop: That's obvious. Some say he spoke to the gallery (depending upon his audience) some say he had to be pushed into his most strident condemnations e.g. Lille.
My take has been that the Archbishop was dealing with 2 contradictory tendencies:
1/ As a man of faith: Reject modernism - resist the authority
2/ As a man of the church (Archbishop, Superior General, Apostolic delegate): love the authority (pope and hierarchy) - reject their actions (Vatican II & New Mass)
It's the same tight rope we all walk in this forum to some degree or other - the argument is only over the degree not that we have to walk a tight rope.
The Archbishop never said that we have the authority to depose a Pope, but in the practical order we may and must have to disobey and refuse.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Nothing at all - we have his own words which I just quoted in the sermon affirming he was not making himself a pope, making a church or creating a parallel hierarchy. The last point viz: not creating a parallel hierarchy clearly shows a refusal to declare a vacancy.
We also have Rome's reaction which didn't accuse the Archbishop of rejecting John Paul II just of an act favoring schism - refusal of obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff and those bishops in communion with him - he did reject a formal command not to consecrate the bishops - but he didn't reject the legitimacy of John Paul II.
-
Curioustrad wrote:
The Archbishop never said that we have the authority to depose a Pope, but in the practical order we may and must have to disobey and refuse.
No, the speech is clear, he was not saying that he lacked the authority, his concern was whether or not there was sufficient evidence to make the judgment. Over and over again, he states that the time was not "yet," as the evidence was not yet clear enough for him to have certainty.
His words are clear, however that he knew that we may be obliged to make the determination that John Paul II was a heretic and not a Pope, but he must be certain about the fact that he was a heretic and wanted more evidence.
Please read the following sections that I have boldfaced.
Archbishop Lefebvre taught:
Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.
I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods.
What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.
For twenty years, Msgr. de Castro-Mayer and I preferred to wait; we said it was more prudent and more in conformity with Providence to wait because it is so important, so tragic, when it is not just a bishop, archbishop or cardinal, but the man in the chair of Peter. It is so important, so grave, so sad, that we prefer to wait until Providence gives us such evidence, that it is no longer possible to refuse to say that the Pope is a heretic. So, to say that I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it! Maybe war will break out, and here I take the opportunity to congratulate America and its President on their resolute action in Libya against an enemy of all civilization. In Europe they are all afraid, afraid, afraid of the Communists. Why? Until the Communists occupy all Europe. But President Reagan's action may have delayed war by making the Communists afraid; we don't know, because they are fanatics and could start war any time just to take power.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre says sedevacantism is schismatic:
English Language Sermons (available from STAS.org)
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.
"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.
"We are the Catholic Church.
"I don't say that.
"I don't accept that.
"That is schism.
"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?
"Where?
"Where is the authority of the Church?
"Where is our leader in the Church?
"We can't know where we are going.
"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.
"We must pray for this pope.
"But don't say that he is not the pope."
There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Nothing at all - we have his own words which I just quoted in the sermon affirming he was not making himself a pope, making a church or creating a parallel hierarchy. The last point viz: not creating a parallel hierarchy clearly shows a refusal to declare a vacancy.
We also have Rome's reaction which didn't accuse the Archbishop of rejecting John Paul II just of an act favoring schism - refusal of obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff and those bishops in communion with him - he did reject a formal command not to consecrate the bishops - but he didn't reject the legitimacy of John Paul II.
So the Archbishop's actions in this situation were meaningless? That is, it makes no difference that the Archbishop co-consecrated four candidates to the episcopate with, and offered Mass with, a bishop who had just declared, publicly, in the Archbishop's presence and that of several laymen and clergy, that there was no pope in Rome?
Remember the consecrations took place almost a decade after the expulsion of the Sedevacantist Nine. So if Archbishop Lefebvre showed no public sign of being bothered by Bishop Castro de Meyer's public declaration of sedevacante, by are Resistance priests and apologists today so bothered by sedevacantism?
-
Archbishop Lefebvre says sedevacantism is schismatic:
English Language Sermons (available from STAS.org)
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.
"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.
"We are the Catholic Church.
"I don't say that.
"I don't accept that.
"That is schism.
"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?
"Where?
"Where is the authority of the Church?
"Where is our leader in the Church?
"We can't know where we are going.
"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.
"We must pray for this pope.
"But don't say that he is not the pope."
There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.
Did you read what I posted. We have discussed this before. The Archbishop grew in his thinking about the crisis. I posted his thinking in 1986. Please tell the forum the dates of your quotes.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
Ambrose-
Bishop Williamson knew CDM personally, and met him many times.
You only know him from the internet.
Given that, I am more inclined to accept Bishop Williamson's take.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
:applause:Once again... Ambrose is right on the money.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Nothing at all - we have his own words which I just quoted in the sermon affirming he was not making himself a pope, making a church or creating a parallel hierarchy. The last point viz: not creating a parallel hierarchy clearly shows a refusal to declare a vacancy.
We also have Rome's reaction which didn't accuse the Archbishop of rejecting John Paul II just of an act favoring schism - refusal of obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff and those bishops in communion with him - he did reject a formal command not to consecrate the bishops - but he didn't reject the legitimacy of John Paul II.
So the Archbishop's actions in this situation were meaningless? That is, it makes no difference that the Archbishop co-consecrated four candidates to the episcopate with, and offered Mass with, a bishop who had just declared, publicly, in the Archbishop's presence and that of several laymen and clergy, that there was no pope in Rome?
Remember the consecrations took place almost a decade after the expulsion of the Sedevacantist Nine. So if Archbishop Lefebvre showed no public sign of being bothered by Bishop Castro de Meyer's public declaration of sedevacante, by are Resistance priests and apologists today so bothered by sedevacantism?
5 years, anyway.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre says sedevacantism is schismatic:
English Language Sermons (available from STAS.org)
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.
"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.
"We are the Catholic Church.
"I don't say that.
"I don't accept that.
"That is schism.
"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?
"Where?
"Where is the authority of the Church?
"Where is our leader in the Church?
"We can't know where we are going.
"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.
"We must pray for this pope.
"But don't say that he is not the pope."
There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.
Did you read what I posted. We have discussed this before. The Archbishop grew in his thinking about the crisis. I posted his thinking in 1986. Please tell the forum the dates of your quotes.
Yes, I understand the sedevacantist mythology that pretends to this "growth" in the position of ABL.
Problem: Why was he negotiating with people he beleived were not members of the Church?
A bit incongruent, don't you think?
-
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
Ambrose, let us assume - for the sake of the argument - that Sean's (really Mgr Williamson's) interpretation of subsequent events concerning Campos are correct. It still does not address my original question.
Namely, Bishop Castro de Mayer was heard by several witnesses, in the presence of Archbishop Lefebvre, publicly proclaiming at the beginning of the consecration liturgy a state of sedevacante.
What does this say about Archbishop Lefebvre that he proceeded with Bishop CdM as his co-consecrator anyway? If the Archbishop was that rigid in his opposition to sedevacantism, why did he proceed with Bishop CdM as his co-consecrator?
-
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
Ambrose, let us assume - for the sake of the argument - that Sean's (really Mgr Williamson's) interpretation of subsequent events concerning Campos are correct. It still does not address my original question.
Namely, Bishop Castro de Mayer was heard by several witnesses, in the presence of Archbishop Lefebvre, publicly proclaiming at the beginning of the consecration liturgy a state of sedevacante.
What does this say about Archbishop Lefebvre that he proceeded with Bishop CdM as his co-consecrator anyway? If the Archbishop was that rigid in his opposition to sedevacantism, why did he proceed with Bishop CdM as his co-consecrator?
Would you have had him pack CDM back on a plane and send him back to Brazil?
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
Ambrose-
Bishop Williamson knew CDM personally, and met him many times.
You only know him from the internet.
Given that, I am more inclined to accept Bishop Williamson's take.
I've known Bishop Williamson personally for decades... and met him many times.
Given that I am more inclined to accept Ambrose's take (who I only know from the internet).
-
Namely, Bishop Castro de Mayer was heard by several witnesses, in the presence of Archbishop Lefebvre, publicly proclaiming at the beginning of the consecration liturgy a state of sedevacante.
What does this say about Archbishop Lefebvre that he proceeded with Bishop CdM as his co-consecrator anyway? If the Archbishop was that rigid in his opposition to sedevacantism, why did he proceed with Bishop CdM as his co-consecrator?
Would you have had him pack CDM back on a plane and send him back to Brazil?
What if it had been the Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow who showed up? Or a validly-ordained bishop of the Polish National Catholic Church? Would Archbishop Lefebvre have allowed them to co-consecrate out of politeness?
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
Ambrose-
Bishop Williamson knew CDM personally, and met him many times.
You only know him from the internet.
Given that, I am more inclined to accept Bishop Williamson's take.
I have been a "traditionalist" for many years, before the internet was around, back in the days when had to rely on mailings, private letters (through something called the Post Office) Catholic newspapers and conversations. So, I do not rely on the internet, but it has sped up the exchange of information.
Opinions must be grounded in facts if they are to be taken seriously. What facts can you present to support your ideas on Campos?
I have followed the events of Campos, and from all of my reading, Bp. Rifan and those who followed him sought a deal as they wanted to place themselves under the "Pope."
Once Catholics realize the truth, that submission to the Pope is necessary, and that Catholics have no good reason to resist the approved liturgies of the Church, the universal laws of the Church, canonizations, and authoritative teaching, that if they wish to be logical, they must make a choice: be a sedevacantist or place yourself under the man who you call Pope as his laws, authoritative teaching, approved liturgies, and canonizations cannot be evil or harmful.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
Ambrose-
Bishop Williamson knew CDM personally, and met him many times.
You only know him from the internet.
Given that, I am more inclined to accept Bishop Williamson's take.
I've known Bishop Williamson personally for decades... and met him many times.
Given that I am more inclined to accept Ambrose's take (who I only know from the internet).
Then you are pretty gullible.
-
Namely, Bishop Castro de Mayer was heard by several witnesses, in the presence of Archbishop Lefebvre, publicly proclaiming at the beginning of the consecration liturgy a state of sedevacante.
What does this say about Archbishop Lefebvre that he proceeded with Bishop CdM as his co-consecrator anyway? If the Archbishop was that rigid in his opposition to sedevacantism, why did he proceed with Bishop CdM as his co-consecrator?
Would you have had him pack CDM back on a plane and send him back to Brazil?
What if it had been the Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow who showed up? Or a validly-ordained bishop of the Polish National Catholic Church? Would Archbishop Lefebvre have allowed them to co-consecrate out of politeness?
I think you are missing a pretty important point:
If CDM was a sede, then it becomes difficult to understand why he held onto his diocese until 1981.
In other words, the same pope he was incommunion with until then was the same pope in 1988.
But leaving that aside, you aren't the least bit suspicious of the alleged "several witnesses?"
:cool:
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
Ambrose-
Bishop Williamson knew CDM personally, and met him many times.
You only know him from the internet.
Given that, I am more inclined to accept Bishop Williamson's take.
I have been a "traditionalist" for many years, before the internet was around, back in the days when had to rely on mailings, private letters (through something called the Post Office) Catholic newspapers and conversations. So, I do not rely on the internet, but it has sped up the exchange of information.
Opinions must be grounded in facts if they are to be taken seriously. What facts can you present to support your ideas on Campos?
I have followed the events of Campos, and from all of my reading, Bp. Rifan and those who followed him sought a deal as they wanted to place themselves under the "Pope."
Once Catholics realize the truth, that submission to the Pope is necessary, and that Catholics have no good reason to resist the approved liturgies of the Church, the universal laws of the Church, canonizations, and authoritative teaching, that if they wish to be logical, they must make a choice: be a sedevacantist or place yourself under the man who you call Pope as his laws, authoritative teaching, approved liturgies, and canonizations cannot be evil or harmful.
How many conversations have you had with Bishop CDM?
0?
How many do you think Bishop Williamson had?
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
Ambrose-
Bishop Williamson knew CDM personally, and met him many times.
You only know him from the internet.
Given that, I am more inclined to accept Bishop Williamson's take.
I've known Bishop Williamson personally for decades... and met him many times.
Given that I am more inclined to accept Ambrose's take (who I only know from the internet).
Then you are pretty gullible.
While disagreeing with their sedevacantist stand, I have to agree with Ambrose and Ferdinand over Mgr Williamson when it comes to Archbishop Lefebvre's evolving tolerance toward sedevacantism. Otherwise it makes no sense that His Grace would continue the consecrations with a co-consecrator who had just publicly and in his presence declared a state of sedevacante.
Did Mgr Williamson ever touch upon why Mgr Lefebvre continued the consecrations with Mgr CdM as co-consecrator, despite Mgr CdM's public declaration of sedevacante during the entrance procession?
Come to think of it, why did Mgr Williamson agree to continue as a candidate for consecration if at the time he was so principled in his stand against sedevacantism?
-
Pete-
You are usually much sharper than this!
If you are prepared to believe "several witnesses" who say they heard CDM say something, and form a solid conviction based on that rumor, then you haven't learned the lesson everyone eventually learns on Cathinfo:
Don't listen to anything someone else says they have on reliable authority!
And even if we pretend/concede it WAS true, it would still not overcome Bishop Williamson's account that ABL often had to remind CDM of his legalism, and walk him back from the precipice.
Is there some reason he couldn't have done that at the consecrations?
Or is there some reason he couldn't just deal with CDM again afterwards?
The whole thing is fluff, and not much to hang your hat on whether it happened or not.
-
Sermon for the 1988 consecrations
"Loins de moi , loins de moi de m'eriger en Pape !" - the very words of the Archbishop - and so many today want him to be a sedevacantist !
"Est-ce possible ?" A question, you will note the Archbishop does not answer because he has not the authority.
And the words of Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, the Archbishop's co-consecrator, at the beginning of the same liturgy?
Which is to say... he didn't make himself the Pope either, did he ?
No, because he never believed himself pope. But nor did he believe John Paul II to be pope when he co-consecrated with the Archbishop.
True - but that was his opinion but not Lefebvre's clearly although some might say that canonically CdM's position was on a firmer footing than Lefebvre's.
Okay, so the Bishop, who was standing next to (and certainly within earshot of) the Archbishop, was heard by numerous witnesses during public entrance procession to the 1988 episcopal consecration, declaring a state of sedevacante.
What does this indicate with regards to the Archbishop's position toward sedevacantism?
Per Bishop Williamson, it was Archbishop Lefebvre that had to keep him grounded, and talked him back from sedevacantism.
Matthew was there in the seminary after the collapse of Campos when BW told us this.
He also said the simplistic legalism of CDM was what caused Campos to weaken and become suceptible to Rome after he died (i.e., They inherited his legalism and bought into the "if he is Pope, we must obey" mantra).
No, that is a twisted interpretation. Bp. Castro de Mayer was a sedevacatist. The campos clergy reunited with Rome because they either were either not sedevacatists or had changed their opinion.
If someone correctly understands the position of "sedevacante," he does not rejoin the den of heretics and usurpers.
Ambrose-
Bishop Williamson knew CDM personally, and met him many times.
You only know him from the internet.
Given that, I am more inclined to accept Bishop Williamson's take.
I've known Bishop Williamson personally for decades... and met him many times.
Given that I am more inclined to accept Ambrose's take (who I only know from the internet).
Then you are pretty gullible.
While disagreeing with their sedevacantist stand, I have to agree with Ambrose and Ferdinand over Mgr Williamson when it comes to Archbishop Lefebvre's evolving tolerance toward sedevacantism. Otherwise it makes no sense that His Grace would continue the consecrations with a co-consecrator who had just publicly and in his presence declared a state of sedevacante.
Did Mgr Williamson ever touch upon why Mgr Lefebvre continued the consecrations with Mgr CdM as co-consecrator, despite Mgr CdM's public declaration of sedevacante during the entrance procession?
Come to think of it, why did Mgr Williamson agree to continue as a candidate for consecration if at the time he was so principled in his stand against sedevacantism?
Then you are not embracing a very well founded position.
Choosing the construct of two internet jockeys over a bishop who CDM consecrated, and knew him for 10 years is not where the smart money would be played, but if it helps you grind your axe with the SSPX, be my guest.
-
If CDM was a sede, then it becomes difficult to understand why he held onto his diocese until 1981.
In other words, the same pope he was incommunion with until then was the same pope in 1988.
This is a red herring.
The 1988 consecrations took place seven years AFTER the events of Campos in 1981. At the very least, seven years was plenty of time for Mgr CdM's position to evolve as well.
But leaving that aside, you aren't the least bit suspicious of the alleged "several witnesses?"
No, I interviewed some of them in the past, independent of each other. Their stories were consistent. They heard Mgr CdM declare "There is no pope."
I have also spoken with many R&R behind-the-scenes who have admitted to me privately this was the case, but continued to deny it publicly until after 2001 when Campos reconciled. At which point Mgr Williamson admitted it publicly.
-
Then you are not embracing a very well founded position.
Choosing the construct of two internet jockeys over a bishop who CDM consecrated, and knew him for 10 years is not where the smart money would be played, but if it helps you grind your axe with the SSPX, be my guest.
Here is what you are forgetting, Sean. These are the same R&R folk who for a decade denied to me that Bishop CdM was sedevacantist, or had sedevacantist leanings, whenever I raised the questions or the testimony of witnesses. They assured me the Archbishop was principled in his stand against sedevacantism and would never tolerate a sede in his midst, especially not as co-consecrator.
Only AFTER Campos was reconciled with Rome, did these same R&R leaders -- and quite swiftly, I might add -- admit publicly that there was more than mere rumour to Bishop CdM's sedevacantism.
So yes, I am inclined to believe those who told me from the get-go what turned out to be true, over those who changed their story when the old story was no longer politically expedient to maintain.
-
If CDM was a sede, then it becomes difficult to understand why he held onto his diocese until 1981.
In other words, the same pope he was incommunion with until then was the same pope in 1988.
This is a red herring.
The 1988 consecrations took place seven years AFTER the events of Campos in 1981. At the very least, seven years was plenty of time for Mgr CdM's position to evolve as well.
But leaving that aside, you aren't the least bit suspicious of the alleged "several witnesses?"
No, I interviewed some of them in the past, independent of each other. Their stories were consistent. They heard Mgr CdM declare "There is no pope."
I have also spoken with many R&R behind-the-scenes who have admitted to me privately this was the case, but continued to deny it publicly until after 2001 when Campos reconciled. At which point Mgr Williamson admitted it publicly.
As I said, EVEN IF I were to pretend such post-h0Ɩ0cαųst war crime survivors were telling the truth:
Where does it get you in light of this?
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Catholic%20Tradition/Feature%20-%20Archbishop%20Lefebvre%20and%20Sedevacantism.pdf
Whatever quotes the sedes can pull to show sympathy to their position, nothing can overcome the fact that even after Assissi, ABL continued to recognize JPII, and never endorsed their position.
Conversely, the sedes try to use those seemingly sympathetic quotes as ENDORSEMENTS, which they were clearly not.
If the sedes were correct about ABL's alleged evolution to the brink og accepting their position, then we have a very convoluted history of the SSPX:
1) Expulsions in 1983 (and sermons which make it clear -such as the one I just quoted a few pages back- that sedevacantism was the basis of the expulsions, whatever Cekada, et al want to pretend the real causes were);
2) Yet somehow, he was on the brink of that position himself by 1988?
3) But continued not only recognizing JPII after that;
4) Made no attempt at rapproachment with the sedes he expelled only 5 years earlier;
5) And after his death, the entire SSPX is so indoctrinated against sedevcantism, it can't even be whispered in their chapels.....yet somehow they all missed that ABL himself was allegedly quite sympathetic to the cause???
-
Then you are not embracing a very well founded position.
Choosing the construct of two internet jockeys over a bishop who CDM consecrated, and knew him for 10 years is not where the smart money would be played, but if it helps you grind your axe with the SSPX, be my guest.
Here is what you are forgetting, Sean. These are the same R&R folk who for a decade denied to me that Bishop CdM was sedevacantist, or had sedevacantist leanings, whenever I raised the questions or the testimony of witnesses. They assured me the Archbishop was principled in his stand against sedevacantism and would never tolerate a sede in his midst, especially not as co-consecrator.
Only AFTER Campos was reconciled with Rome, did these same R&R leaders -- and quite swiftly, I might add -- admit publicly that there was more than mere rumour to Bishop CdM's sedevacantism.
So yes, I am inclined to believe those who told me from the get-go what turned out to be true, over those who changed their story when the old story was no longer politically expedient to maintain.
Pete-
Bishop CDM WASNT a sedevacantist!
The best evidence of that would be the people of the Diocese of Campos.
They did not reject the papacy of JPII.
None of the Campos priests were sedevacantist.......did they just all ignore their bishop, whom they greatly revered?
Did CDM make no effort to teach to his priests the alleged sedevacantism you think him to have harbored?
If because of his legalism he was haunted by the issue, and at moments of great scandal or resistance was tempted to buy into it, he never held that thought consistently, and certainly never taught that position to his priests (though they too suffered from the same legalism as their spiritual father).
-
Then you are not embracing a very well founded position.
Choosing the construct of two internet jockeys over a bishop who CDM consecrated, and knew him for 10 years is not where the smart money would be played, but if it helps you grind your axe with the SSPX, be my guest.
Here is what you are forgetting, Sean. These are the same R&R folk who for a decade denied to me that Bishop CdM was sedevacantist, or had sedevacantist leanings, whenever I raised the questions or the testimony of witnesses. They assured me the Archbishop was principled in his stand against sedevacantism and would never tolerate a sede in his midst, especially not as co-consecrator.
Only AFTER Campos was reconciled with Rome, did these same R&R leaders -- and quite swiftly, I might add -- admit publicly that there was more than mere rumour to Bishop CdM's sedevacantism.
So yes, I am inclined to believe those who told me from the get-go what turned out to be true, over those who changed their story when the old story was no longer politically expedient to maintain.
Pete-
Bishop CDM WASNT a sedevacantist!
The best evidence of that would be the people of the Diocese of Campos.
They did not reject the papacy of JPII.
And it was never the teaching of CDM that JPII was not the Pope (regardless of what he may or may not have said at the Consecrations).
If because of his legalism he was haunted by the issue, and at moments of great scandal or resistance was tempted to buy into it, he never held that thought consistently, and certainly never taught that position to his priests (though they too suffered from the same legalism as their spiritual father).
And also this: Bishop CdM not sedevacantist (http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B137_ConfirmationLefebvre.html)
-
2) Yet somehow, he was on the brink of that position himself by 1988?
Whether Mgr Lefebvre was or was not on the brink of sedevacantism in 1998, is a debate between today's R&R and sedes, in which I take no side since I have no opinion on the matter.
That being said, the Archbishop's actions at the 1988 consecration reveal that he was at least sede tolerant, given that his co-consecrator had declared a state of sedevacante at the consecrations both publicly and in the presence of the Archbishop and several witnesses.
5) And after his death, the entire SSPX is so indoctrinated against sedevcantism, it can't even be whispered in their chapels.....yet somehow they all missed that ABL himself was allegedly quite sympathetic to the cause???
And why would the SSPX be this paranoid about sedevacantism?
-
Then you are not embracing a very well founded position.
Choosing the construct of two internet jockeys over a bishop who CDM consecrated, and knew him for 10 years is not where the smart money would be played, but if it helps you grind your axe with the SSPX, be my guest.
Here is what you are forgetting, Sean. These are the same R&R folk who for a decade denied to me that Bishop CdM was sedevacantist, or had sedevacantist leanings, whenever I raised the questions or the testimony of witnesses. They assured me the Archbishop was principled in his stand against sedevacantism and would never tolerate a sede in his midst, especially not as co-consecrator.
Only AFTER Campos was reconciled with Rome, did these same R&R leaders -- and quite swiftly, I might add -- admit publicly that there was more than mere rumour to Bishop CdM's sedevacantism.
So yes, I am inclined to believe those who told me from the get-go what turned out to be true, over those who changed their story when the old story was no longer politically expedient to maintain.
Pete-
Bishop CDM WASNT a sedevacantist!
The best evidence of that would be the people of the Diocese of Campos.
They did not reject the papacy of JPII.
And it was never the teaching of CDM that JPII was not the Pope (regardless of what he may or may not have said at the Consecrations).
If because of his legalism he was haunted by the issue, and at moments of great scandal or resistance was tempted to buy into it, he never held that thought consistently, and certainly never taught that position to his priests (though they too suffered from the same legalism as their spiritual father).
And also this: Bishop CdM not sedevacantist (http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B137_ConfirmationLefebvre.html)
Excerpt:
"It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
-
2) Yet somehow, he was on the brink of that position himself by 1988?
Whether Mgr Lefebvre was or was not on the brink of sedevacantism in 1998, is a debate between today's R&R and sedes, in which I take no side since I have no opinion on the matter.
That being said, the Archbishop's actions at the 1988 consecration reveal that he was at least sede tolerant, given that his co-consecrator had declared a state of sedevacante at the consecrations both publicly and in the presence of the Archbishop and several witnesses.
5) And after his death, the entire SSPX is so indoctrinated against sedevcantism, it can't even be whispered in their chapels.....yet somehow they all missed that ABL himself was allegedly quite sympathetic to the cause???
And why would the SSPX be this paranoid about sedevacantism?
This bogus myth is exploded here (In the link just provided by Curioustrad):
"It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
It would be quite the oddity for the speech published in Catholic to have incontrovertible proof of Bishop CDM saying things that prove he was no sede, yet according to the h0Ɩ0cαųst witnesses, only moments before or after that incontrovertible proof, he was saying the opposite.
Not buying it.
Next step: Who has a copy of the speech CDM gave at Econe, and which was published in Catholic?
-
How many pages do I have to go back to find out why we're abbreviating Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer as CdM?
-
This bogus myth is exploded here (In the link just provided by Curioustrad):
If it is bogus, then what did Mgr Williamson admit to with regards to Bishop dCM and sedevacantism?
-
This bogus myth is exploded here (In the link just provided by Curioustrad):
If it is bogus, then what did Mgr Williamson admit to with regards to Bishop dCM and sedevacantism?
If it is true, then how come none of CDM's priests ever knew anything about it?
-
Tomorrow I will try to find the Catholic transcription of the speech Bishop CDM gave at Econe...or get the recording from TIA.
Either way, we will soon put this matter to bed permanently.
-
Tomorrow I will try to find the Catholic transcription of the speech Bishop CDM gave at Econe...or get the recording from TIA.
Either way, we will soon put this matter to bed permanently.
It may or it may not.
Bishop dCM was not alleged to have declared a state of sedevacante during his speech, but during the entrance procession.
-
I've been trying to find it also - I watched the video and CdM clearly states (in Portuguese) that he is present to manifest his attachment to the position of the Arch. who was no Sede !
-
It is believable that de Castro Meyer was a sedevacantist, even if it can be proven that he wasn't (and I doubt it can, but naturally I am willing to accept proof of it). I also have heard how he said "we have no pope" in 1988, and also that, being the "legalist" that he was, he would not go ahead with consecrations without a papal mandate unless there was no pope.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist, but that statement is a little misleading. To borrow an analogy, if you arrange all living things into those who have hair and those who don't, you'll find yourself alarmingly similar to a kangaroo.
Neither men, in examining their body of work, could be said to have been against sedevacantism with any serious conviction.
The Archbishop actually said that if the apostasy continues, we may be obliged to say "the pope is not the pope." He said that in 1986. He seemed to have been initially fond of JPII (I do not say that he was without apprehension, but just that he was optimistic at least for a time) so it seems like the early eighties have less sede vacante speculation. But also in the late seventies, he speculated publicly on the issue as well.
The salient point is that the Holy Archbishop doubted the legitimacy of these popes. He did not reach moral certainty that they were non-popes, but he was hardly the variety of anti-sedevacantist that you find in your typical SSPX-party line chapel. That simply wasn't his position, even if he came down hard on sedevacantists at times.
-
Father Noel Barbara, Fortes in Fide No. 12, 1993, wrote:
I subsequently learned that I was not the only person to press the Archbishop to break with John Paul II. Mgr. Antonio de Castro Mayer, the Bishop of Campos in Brazil, shared this attitude and openly expressed his opinion to your founder. But the Archbishop refused to listen to reason. - This however did not prevent the Brazilian prelate from declaring and from saying out loud, as he walked through the crowds of the faithful on the day of the consecrations, that "We do not have a pope! We do not have a pope!" - This was confirmed to me by two reliable people.
The first confirmation was provided to me at Steffeshausen in Belgium. During the course of a lecture which I was giving on the crisis in the Church at Father Paul Schoonbroodt's, one of the auditors, surprised to hear me declare that, since he lacked Authority, John Paul II could not be a true pope, stood up and said, "You are surely aware, Reverend Father, that Mgr. Lefebvre has said exactly the opposite." Father Paul Schoonbroodt did not give me an opportunity to answer. Standing up, he declared: "The Reverend Father is only saying out loud what Mgr. Lefebvre thinks but doesn't say." He added, "On the day of the consecrations, after the ceremony, I went to Mgr. Lefebvre. "Your Excellency," I said to him, "in my name and in the name of the German-speaking faithful who have come with me to these consecrations, I have come to tell you our surprise and our disappointment. We were expecting a frank and open declaration of your break with John Paul II. Your confrere, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, did not hesitate to say to anyone interested in listening: "We do not have a pope!". "Yes indeed," replied the Archbishop, "some priests from Campos asked that I do this. But such a declaration would turn too many of the faithful away from us."
The second confirmation also came from Belgium. A young man sent me a signed statement. Here it is. "On the occasion of a conference given in Bruxelles by Mgr. Lefebvre, I had the opportunity to meet a priest who knew me and who shared with me the contents of a conversation he had had with the Archbishop. The priest had said to Mgr. Lefebvre: "I know a young man who thinks that John Paul II is not a true pope." The Archbishop replied: "I think that this young man is correct, but I cannot say so because it would cause harm in my priories and seminaries."
John Lane wrote:
Two other witnesses confirmed Bishop de Castro Mayer's actions on the day of the episcopal consecrations. William Morgan, of Great Britain, who was present, published his testimony in his newsletter afterwards, and Fr. Schmidberger, in person to me, confirmed that he heard the bishop express the words given above on that day.
John Lane, Bellarmine Forums, June 29, 2012
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1223&view=next
-
Father Noel Barbara, Fortes in Fide No. 12, 1993, wrote:
I subsequently learned that I was not the only person to press the Archbishop to break with John Paul II. Mgr. Antonio de Castro Mayer, the Bishop of Campos in Brazil, shared this attitude and openly expressed his opinion to your founder. But the Archbishop refused to listen to reason. - This however did not prevent the Brazilian prelate from declaring and from saying out loud, as he walked through the crowds of the faithful on the day of the consecrations, that "We do not have a pope! We do not have a pope!" - This was confirmed to me by two reliable people.
The first confirmation was provided to me at Steffeshausen in Belgium. During the course of a lecture which I was giving on the crisis in the Church at Father Paul Schoonbroodt's, one of the auditors, surprised to hear me declare that, since he lacked Authority, John Paul II could not be a true pope, stood up and said, "You are surely aware, Reverend Father, that Mgr. Lefebvre has said exactly the opposite." Father Paul Schoonbroodt did not give me an opportunity to answer. Standing up, he declared: "The Reverend Father is only saying out loud what Mgr. Lefebvre thinks but doesn't say." He added, "On the day of the consecrations, after the ceremony, I went to Mgr. Lefebvre. "Your Excellency," I said to him, "in my name and in the name of the German-speaking faithful who have come with me to these consecrations, I have come to tell you our surprise and our disappointment. We were expecting a frank and open declaration of your break with John Paul II. Your confrere, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, did not hesitate to say to anyone interested in listening: "We do not have a pope!". "Yes indeed," replied the Archbishop, "some priests from Campos asked that I do this. But such a declaration would turn too many of the faithful away from us."
The second confirmation also came from Belgium. A young man sent me a signed statement. Here it is. "On the occasion of a conference given in Bruxelles by Mgr. Lefebvre, I had the opportunity to meet a priest who knew me and who shared with me the contents of a conversation he had had with the Archbishop. The priest had said to Mgr. Lefebvre: "I know a young man who thinks that John Paul II is not a true pope." The Archbishop replied: "I think that this young man is correct, but I cannot say so because it would cause harm in my priories and seminaries."
John Lane wrote:
Two other witnesses confirmed Bishop de Castro Mayer's actions on the day of the episcopal consecrations. William Morgan, of Great Britain, who was present, published his testimony in his newsletter afterwards, and Fr. Schmidberger, in person to me, confirmed that he heard the bishop express the words given above on that day.
John Lane, Bellarmine Forums, June 29, 2012
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1223&view=next
We have the exact - verifiable -words of the Archbishop in the consecration sermon compared with "unattributable" yet "honorable" sources who come forward AFTER his death.
Why, for years, Fr. Cekada has been attributing statements to the Archbishop in private conversations about what the Archbishop thought about the validity of Novus Ordo ordinations yet we can compare this with what the Archbishop said in writing in Open Letter to Confused Catholics etc. Are we now calling the Archbishop a duplicitous liar ?
In a court of law, evidence attributed to unnamed sources is hearsay and INADMISSIBLE. Evidence given in writing or publicly stated and docuмented by a recording device is absolutely ADMISSIBLE.
-
We have the exact - verifiable -words of the Archbishop in the consecration sermon compared with "unattributable" yet "honorable" sources who come forward AFTER his death.
Including Mgr Williamson who, after a decade of the SSPX denying Bishop dCM had any sedevacantist tendencies, penned the following newsletter when Campos was formally reconciled and received back into full communion with Rome:
http://www.leofec.com/bishop-williamson/275.html
It does not help R&R credibility on this issue that its main proponents keep changing their story.
-
We have the exact - verifiable -words of the Archbishop in the consecration sermon compared with "unattributable" yet "honorable" sources who come forward AFTER his death.
Including Mgr Williamson who, after a decade of the SSPX denying Bishop dCM had any sedevacantist tendencies, penned the following newsletter when Campos was formally reconciled and received back into full communion with Rome:
http://www.leofec.com/bishop-williamson/275.html
It does not help R&R credibility on this issue that its main proponents keep changing their story.
The Archbishop had this tendency too - we all do. But as I said last night we all walk a tight rope between two extremes. Even Bishop Williamson has had his sedevacantist tendencies too but he has never been convinced of them. Flirting doesn't mean marriage.
-
Whatever has happened to Father Pfeiffer's outstanding sermon?
-
Whatever has happened to Father Pfeiffer's outstanding sermon?
There were a few emotional outbursts and then I guess people couldn't take it anymore and the topic had to be changed?
-
Tomorrow I will try to find the Catholic transcription of the speech Bishop CDM gave at Econe...or get the recording from TIA.
Either way, we will soon put this matter to bed permanently.
It may or it may not.
Bishop dCM was not alleged to have declared a state of sedevacante during his speech, but during the entrance procession.
Nevertheless, if what is said in his docuмented speech contradicts sedevacantism, then it proves that the alleged comments are false (or the implication is that CDM changed his position within a matter of a couple hours, which seemd unlikely).
-
We have the exact - verifiable -words of the Archbishop in the consecration sermon compared with "unattributable" yet "honorable" sources who come forward AFTER his death.
Including Mgr Williamson who, after a decade of the SSPX denying Bishop dCM had any sedevacantist tendencies, penned the following newsletter when Campos was formally reconciled and received back into full communion with Rome:
http://www.leofec.com/bishop-williamson/275.html
It does not help R&R credibility on this issue that its main proponents keep changing their story.
This newsletter was penned in 2003.
It is therefore false to pretend Bishop Williamson denied any sedevacantist tendencies in CDM for the preceding 10 years, since he told us in the seminary in 2001/2002.
Therefore, you are guilty of spreading misinformation on the subject:
1) Anonymous "witnesses" claiming to have heard CDM declaring at the consecrations that there is no pope (when his speech -not sermon- to the contrary apparently recorded by TIA and published in Catholic dispels that urban myth);
2) That the SSPX did a flip-flop and "came clean" re CDM's sedevacantist leanings in 2003, after having hidden (or denied?) this for 10 years.
Matthew was in the spiritual conference in which BW told us this account.
Can you produce something in writing from the years 1990-2000 in which the SSPX is actually denying that CDM had these tendencies?
The axe you have been grinding with the SSPX for the last 25-30 years is becomming a bit dull.
-
So Mithrandylan, deduction must conclude that either
1) Vatican I was wrong and a Pope can er when he proclaims something In Ex Cathedra
or
2) A Pope can never er when he proclaims something In Ex Cathedra.
Therefore, either Vatican I was not dogmatic, (which we already know it was) or Francis cannot be Pope, (because it is obvious that JXIII and JPII are no saints).
-
So Mithrandylan, deduction must conclude that either
1) Vatican I was wrong and a Pope can er when he proclaims something In Ex Cathedra
or
2) A Pope can never er when he proclaims something In Ex Cathedra.
Therefore, either Vatican I was not dogmatic, (which we already know it was) or Francis cannot be Pope, (because it is obvious that JXIII and JPII are no saints).
And further deduction must (emphasis on must here) lead to the conclusion that Francis is not a pope, since the first conclusion is a matter of faith and to publicly doubt or deny it would not only threaten membership in the Church but destine a soul to everlasting torment.
-
Tomorrow I will try to find the Catholic transcription of the speech Bishop CDM gave at Econe...or get the recording from TIA.
I've been trying to find it also - I watched the video and CdM clearly states (in Portuguese) that he is present to manifest his attachment to the position of the Arch. who was no Sede !
June 30, 1988
Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
After the Consecration Sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, the co-consecrating bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, gave a short allocution which was very warmly applauded. He read it in Portuguese and it was translated afterwards into French and then into German and English.
My presence here at this ceremony is caused by a duty of conscience: that of making a profession of Catholic Faith in front of the whole Church and more particularly in front of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in front of all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a profession of faith at every moment. But when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even if it be at the risk of one’s own life.
Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis of the Church, a crisis that attacks her inner essence, in her very substance which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, two mysteries essentially united because without priesthood there is no sacrifice of the Mass and therefore no form of worship. It is also on this foundation that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is built.
For this reason, because the conservation of the priesthood and the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and pressures of many, I am here in order to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of faith.
It is painful to witness the deplorable blindness of so many confrères in the episcopate and in the priesthood who do not see or do not want to see the present crisis nor the necessity to resist the reigning modernism in order to be faithful to the mission entrusted to us by God.
I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
May the Most Holy Virgin Our Mother, who at Fatima has warned us in her motherly love with regard to the gravity of the present situation, give us the grace to be able by our attitude to help and enlighten the faithful in such a way that they depart from these pernicious errors of which they are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost.
May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work!
Including Mgr Williamson who, after a decade of the SSPX denying Bishop dCM had any sedevacantist tendencies, penned the following newsletter when Campos was formally reconciled and received back into full communion with Rome:
http://www.leofec.com/bishop-williamson/275.html
It does not help R&R credibility on this issue that its main proponents keep changing their story.
It is therefore false to pretend Bishop Williamson denied any sedevacantist tendencies in CDM for the preceding 10 years...
...Can you produce something in writing from the years 1990-2000 in which the SSPX is actually denying that CDM had these tendencies?
Exactly.
I am pretty familiar with +W's writings in those years, and I can't find nor can I recall him ever even alluding to the subject, until that 2003 letter.
-
Tomorrow I will try to find the Catholic transcription of the speech Bishop CDM gave at Econe...or get the recording from TIA.
I've been trying to find it also - I watched the video and CdM clearly states (in Portuguese) that he is present to manifest his attachment to the position of the Arch. who was no Sede !
June 30, 1988
Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
Looking back a few pages, I just realized that maybe another speech was being referred to, on June 27, 1988? (i.e. not his brief speech at the Consecrations, which I posted?)
-
Why should the prospect that bishop de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist by the 1988 consecrations cause any trouble for those that hold the R&R position ? Does anyone seriously think this somehow casts doubt on the validity of the consecration or something?
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't seem bothered by it, they remained friends to the very end. Perhaps there is a lesson there for all of us.
-
June 30, 1988
Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
After the Consecration Sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, the co-consecrating bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, gave a short allocution which was very warmly applauded. He read it in Portuguese and it was translated afterwards into French and then into German and English.
My presence here at this ceremony is caused by a duty of conscience: that of making a profession of Catholic Faith in front of the whole Church and more particularly in front of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in front of all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a profession of faith at every moment. But when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even if it be at the risk of one’s own life.
Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis of the Church, a crisis that attacks her inner essence, in her very substance which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, two mysteries essentially united because without priesthood there is no sacrifice of the Mass and therefore no form of worship. It is also on this foundation that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is built.
For this reason, because the conservation of the priesthood and the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and pressures of many, I am here in order to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of faith.
It is painful to witness the deplorable blindness of so many confrères in the episcopate and in the priesthood who do not see or do not want to see the present crisis nor the necessity to resist the reigning modernism in order to be faithful to the mission entrusted to us by God.
I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
May the Most Holy Virgin Our Mother, who at Fatima has warned us in her motherly love with regard to the gravity of the present situation, give us the grace to be able by our attitude to help and enlighten the faithful in such a way that they depart from these pernicious errors of which they are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost.
May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work!
Thanks for this - despite the other allegations this is the public record of his intention.
-
Wallflower,
Have you read the canonization formula?
"In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God's assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define [name] to be a saint [or "to be blessed"], and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the saints. In the name ofthe Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
Please explain how that is NOT an exercise of papal infallibility.
Mith, men better than me have argued this at length with you and others. I don't have any ground-shaking new aspects to put forward.
I am a little curious though, on one hand you seem very disturbed by the certainty of R&R (here, Fr Pfeiffer's sermon), and you're insisting that all trads ought to be doubtful. Yet, you seem pretty certain yourself and not entertaining any doubts at all. Do you truly believe that doubt is the proper stance? Or is bringing people back to doubt simply a tactic to give people another shot, so to speak, at choosing to take the sedevacantist fork?
I actually agree that all serious trads should entertain this doubt. But not for life. They eventually have to choose which side tips the scales. Even then, it probably doesn't hurt to run through the arguments every now and then to remind themselves of what they are and why they chose the side they did.
The arguments are neck and neck but there's something about R&R that always tips the scales for me. The moral certainty of R&R that disturbs you that Pope Francis IS Pope, is the same moral certainty that disturbs me about sedevacantists claiming he isn't. I just don't see how we can be morally certain that he isn't.
-
June 30, 1988
Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
After the Consecration Sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, the co-consecrating bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, gave a short allocution which was very warmly applauded. He read it in Portuguese and it was translated afterwards into French and then into German and English.
My presence here at this ceremony is caused by a duty of conscience: that of making a profession of Catholic Faith in front of the whole Church and more particularly in front of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in front of all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a profession of faith at every moment. But when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even if it be at the risk of one’s own life.
Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis of the Church, a crisis that attacks her inner essence, in her very substance which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, two mysteries essentially united because without priesthood there is no sacrifice of the Mass and therefore no form of worship. It is also on this foundation that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is built.
For this reason, because the conservation of the priesthood and the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and pressures of many, I am here in order to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of faith.
It is painful to witness the deplorable blindness of so many confrères in the episcopate and in the priesthood who do not see or do not want to see the present crisis nor the necessity to resist the reigning modernism in order to be faithful to the mission entrusted to us by God.
I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
May the Most Holy Virgin Our Mother, who at Fatima has warned us in her motherly love with regard to the gravity of the present situation, give us the grace to be able by our attitude to help and enlighten the faithful in such a way that they depart from these pernicious errors of which they are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost.
May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work!
Thanks for this - despite the other allegations this is the public record of his intention.
Great that you posted this, but there is nothing in the speech contra sedevacantism.
-
Why should the prospect that bishop de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist by the 1988 consecrations cause any trouble for those that hold the R&R position ? Does anyone seriously think this somehow casts doubt on the validity of the consecration or something?
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't seem bothered by it, they remained friends to the very end. Perhaps there is a lesson there for all of us.
I also find this fascinating. A position of how to respond to this crisis should be seeking facts not suppressing them. I am open to hearing all truths about this crisis, so that I can best form my mind on how to respond.
I also have good friends and people that I respect who hold the R&R position. This debate should be done as Catholics debate, arguments must be built on evidence and Catholic sources, and in a spirit of charity. This is not about winning or losing, or being part of a team, it's about the truth.
-
Curioustrad wrote:
In a court of law, evidence attributed to unnamed sources is hearsay and INADMISSIBLE. Evidence given in writing or publicly stated and docuмented by a recording device is absolutely ADMISSIBLE.
But the sources were named. In a court of law, named sources must be weighed for the trustworthiness and reliability.
-
June 30, 1988
Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
Thanks for this - despite the other allegations this is the public record of his intention.
Great that you posted this, but there is nothing in the speech contra sedevacantism.
I only posted it because it seemed some were looking for it, although when I read some of the other posts, I realized that it might be another speech of the bishop being referred to, on June 27. In any case, just trying to be helpful.
And the other part of my post was because I don't like unsubstantiated accusations, such as "Mgr Williamson who, after a decade of the SSPX denying Bishop dCM had any sedevacantist tendencies." I am not aware of him ever denying it, let-alone commenting on it one way or another, except in that June 1, 2002 letter.
-
I listened to Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon, and thought I heard something quite disturbing. I though I heard him saying that those Catholics, (e.g. sedes) not united to Francis would not go to heaven, or words to that effect. I don't care to re-listen to the sermon. Maybe one of you can confirm that he either said this or didn't.
-
June 30, 1988
Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
After the Consecration Sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, the co-consecrating bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, gave a short allocution which was very warmly applauded. He read it in Portuguese and it was translated afterwards into French and then into German and English.
My presence here at this ceremony is caused by a duty of conscience: that of making a profession of Catholic Faith in front of the whole Church and more particularly in front of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in front of all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a profession of faith at every moment. But when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even if it be at the risk of one’s own life.
Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis of the Church, a crisis that attacks her inner essence, in her very substance which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, two mysteries essentially united because without priesthood there is no sacrifice of the Mass and therefore no form of worship. It is also on this foundation that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is built.
For this reason, because the conservation of the priesthood and the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and pressures of many, I am here in order to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of faith.
It is painful to witness the deplorable blindness of so many confrères in the episcopate and in the priesthood who do not see or do not want to see the present crisis nor the necessity to resist the reigning modernism in order to be faithful to the mission entrusted to us by God.
I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
May the Most Holy Virgin Our Mother, who at Fatima has warned us in her motherly love with regard to the gravity of the present situation, give us the grace to be able by our attitude to help and enlighten the faithful in such a way that they depart from these pernicious errors of which they are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost.
May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work!
Thanks for this - despite the other allegations this is the public record of his intention.
Great that you posted this, but there is nothing in the speech contra sedevacantism.
Neither is there anything in favor - seems like the Archbishop R & R to me.
-
I am pretty familiar with +W's writings in those years, and I can't find nor can I recall him ever even alluding to the subject, until that 2003 letter.
Okay, so why did it become so important for the SSPX to point out in 2003 that Mgr dCM had sedevacantist tendencies after writing nothing on the matter before then?
-
Looking back a few pages, I just realized that maybe another speech was being referred to, on June 27, 1988? (i.e. not his brief speech at the Consecrations, which I posted?)
Yes, we are talking about oral statements Bishop dCM made publicly during the entrance procession, that were witnessed by several individuals.
-
Why should the prospect that bishop de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist by the 1988 consecrations cause any trouble for those that hold the R&R position ? Does anyone seriously think this somehow casts doubt on the validity of the consecration or something?
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't seem bothered by it, they remained friends to the very end. Perhaps there is a lesson there for all of us.
Exactly. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly and knowingly colluded with a sedevacantist bishop to bring about the 1988 episcopal consecrations. So why is the Resistance so vehemently opposed to sedevacantists today?
-
Why should the prospect that bishop de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist by the 1988 consecrations cause any trouble for those that hold the R&R position ? Does anyone seriously think this somehow casts doubt on the validity of the consecration or something?
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't seem bothered by it, they remained friends to the very end. Perhaps there is a lesson there for all of us.
Exactly. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly and knowingly colluded with a sedevacantist bishop to bring about the 1988 episcopal consecrations. So why is the Resistance so vehemently opposed to sedevacantists today?
I've come full circle on this issue. I avoided sedes, then believed we're all just Catholics trying to do our best and we should just get along, and now I realize there is some wisdom in keeping the sides separate.
If a person is convinced (at least moreso than not) of the correctness of their position then they do not want to give error rights. I think sedes like to flatter themselves that R&R are scared of their sede "truth", but really it's more an issue of not wanting to be led into error.
It doesn't mean individuals can't have respect for each other and build solid friendships, but as groups, each thinks the other is wrong so it only makes sense to avoid too much familiarity and, in the case of priests, preach against the error.
Do sede priests frequently (or ever) give sermons all about how the R&R position is *possibly* correct? I really, really doubt it. This goes both ways.
-
Regarding the Consecrations specifically, I've never had a problem with ABL working with Mgr dCM. It makes sense to me. He needed a bishop, a validly ordained one and one who understood his difficulties and intentions. I always thought he was sede.
That doesn't mean that practically speaking, sedes and R&R mix well in everyday life or that R&R is bound to defend sedes any more than Mgr dCM working with ABL binds sedes to defend R&R. It just doesn't make sense to expect that. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Othertimes, not so much.
-
I am pretty familiar with +W's writings in those years, and I can't find nor can I recall him ever even alluding to the subject, until that 2002 letter.
Okay, so why did it become so important for the SSPX to point out in 2003 that Mgr dCM had sedevacantist tendencies after writing nothing on the matter before then?
You said earlier "Including Mgr Williamson who, after a decade of the SSPX denying Bishop dCM had any sedevacantist tendencies... It does not help R&R credibility on this issue that its main proponents keep changing their story." Can we take your lack of docuмentary evidence, and your "okay" above to be an admission that the accusation you made earlier was a fabrication? To "write nothing" on a topic is a far cry from "denying" it. Don't say that someone "denied" something unless you can quote where he did.
Maybe he had no particular reason to mention it. Maybe he was even unaware of it. (Not saying that's likely, but you never know.) In fact, in the letter you reference (which is from 2002, BTW), the bishop is mostly quoting a priest in Brazil who is analyzing why he thinks the Campos priests fell.
Looking back a few pages, I just realized that maybe another speech was being referred to, on June 27, 1988? (i.e. not his brief speech at the Consecrations, which I posted?)
Yes, we are talking about oral statements Bishop dCM made publicly during the entrance procession, that were witnessed by several individuals.
No, that's yet a 3rd statement. Some have been talking about that; those statements have only oral sources - i.e. "a witness told me..." which were already cited. Another statement some seemed to be referring to was his speech at the Consecrations ceremony, June 30, 1988, which I posted. And the other one folks were referencing was supposed to be a speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Écône circa June 27, 1988, of which so far no one seems to have a transcript.
-
I'll try it once again. I heard Fr. Pfeiffer saying that unless we regard Pope Francis as a true pope, we are not going to heaven. Did anyone else hear that?
-
I'll try it once again. I heard Fr. Pfeiffer saying that unless we regard Pope Francis as a true pope, we are not going to heaven. Did anyone else hear that?
I didn't. That doesn't mean much though. I listen as I work, it's possible that I missed it. The parts that struck me more were all the examples of unfit and unfaithful leaders that have gone before us. I had never thought to consider Moses as a murderer before.
-
Here, I think, is Father's exact quote from that May 3 sermon:
[quote]"Our religion is in God. Our truth is is God, and therefore we can be united to a wicked Francis; not only that, but unless we are united to him, we cannot go to Heaven. It matters whether or not we accept him as pope, it really does."[/quote]
I'm not a sede, but this remark is just over the top, IMO.
-
Here, I think, is Father's exact quote from that May 3 sermon:
"Our religion is in God. Our truth is is God, and therefore we can be united to a wicked Francis; not only that, but unless we are united to him, we cannot go to Heaven. It matters whether or not we accept him as pope, it really does."
I'm not a sede, but this remark is just over the top, IMO.
Thanks hollingsworth!
I suppose one should ask what exactly Fr Pfeiffer means by united to Francis as pope? Is it the same thing that generations of saints and theologians going back to apostolic times have meant?
-
Looking back a few pages, I just realized that maybe another speech was being referred to, on June 27, 1988? (i.e. not his brief speech at the Consecrations, which I posted?)
Yes, we are talking about oral statements Bishop dCM made publicly during the entrance procession, that were witnessed by several individuals.
Yes, we are talking about those alleged and unprovable comments.
But we are also talking about contradictory, provable, docuмented comments from the same event which if true, would put to bed the former rumor forever, since CDM would not announce sedevacantism AND antisedevacantism in the space of two hours.
-
Why should the prospect that bishop de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist by the 1988 consecrations cause any trouble for those that hold the R&R position ? Does anyone seriously think this somehow casts doubt on the validity of the consecration or something?
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't seem bothered by it, they remained friends to the very end. Perhaps there is a lesson there for all of us.
Exactly. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly and knowingly colluded with a sedevacantist bishop to bring about the 1988 episcopal consecrations. So why is the Resistance so vehemently opposed to sedevacantists today?
Here we agree, since if that unfounded and unprovable rumor was true, it would still prove no obstacle for R&R.
PS: If ABL didn't seem bothered by it, it is because it didn't happen.
-
Once Catholics realize the truth, that submission to the Pope is necessary, and that Catholics have no good reason to resist the approved liturgies of the Church, the universal laws of the Church, canonizations, and authoritative teaching, that if they wish to be logical, they must make a choice: be a sedevacantist or place yourself under the man who you call Pope as his laws, authoritative teaching, approved liturgies, and canonizations cannot be evil or harmful.
So Mithrandylan, deduction must conclude that either
1) Vatican I was wrong and a Pope can er when he proclaims something In Ex Cathedra
or
2) A Pope can never er when he proclaims something In Ex Cathedra.
Therefore, either Vatican I was not dogmatic, (which we already know it was) or Francis cannot be Pope, (because it is obvious that JXIII and JPII are no saints).
Very good points. Thank you, men.
-
I am pretty familiar with +W's writings in those years, and I can't find nor can I recall him ever even alluding to the subject, until that 2002 letter.
Okay, so why did it become so important for the SSPX to point out in 2003 that Mgr dCM had sedevacantist tendencies after writing nothing on the matter before then?
You said earlier "Including Mgr Williamson who, after a decade of the SSPX denying Bishop dCM had any sedevacantist tendencies... It does not help R&R credibility on this issue that its main proponents keep changing their story." Can we take your lack of docuмentary evidence, and your "okay" above to be an admission that the accusation you made earlier was a fabrication? To "write nothing" on a topic is a far cry from "denying" it. Don't say that someone "denied" something unless you can quote where he did.
Maybe he had no particular reason to mention it. Maybe he was even unaware of it. (Not saying that's likely, but you never know.) In fact, in the letter you reference (which is from 2002, BTW), the bishop is mostly quoting a priest in Brazil who is analyzing why he thinks the Campos priests fell.
Looking back a few pages, I just realized that maybe another speech was being referred to, on June 27, 1988? (i.e. not his brief speech at the Consecrations, which I posted?)
Yes, we are talking about oral statements Bishop dCM made publicly during the entrance procession, that were witnessed by several individuals.
No, that's yet a 3rd statement. Some have been talking about that; those statements have only oral sources - i.e. "a witness told me..." which were already cited. Another statement some seemed to be referring to was his speech at the Consecrations ceremony, June 30, 1988, which I posted. And the other one folks were referencing was supposed to be a speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Écône circa June 27, 1988, of which so far no one seems to have a transcript.
Correct, and according to TIA, it was published in an issue of "Catholic;" a newspaper formerly published by the Transalpine Redemptorists.
I am contacting TIA presently to have them send me a copy, or at least point out the issue of Catholic in which CDM's statements contradicting the rumours attributed to him can be found.
-
I just called TIA in California to track down the article which allows them to make this claim on their website (supplied several pages ago in this thread by Curioustrad):
"It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
Since the Redemptorists (RIP) did not produce an online version of Catholic, internet searches will not avail.
Their voicemail says their offices close at 1:30PM California time.
So I guess this will have to drag on for another day.
I will call them in the morning and get the transcription and Catholic newspaper citation.
I can also ask for the recording of the speech.
-Sean
-
Fr Pfeiffer sermon is no good at all! During this sermon, Fr. says many errors and calumnies that were refuted before and during the Vatican Council (1870) by great Catholic authors.
I give you an example. Between 18:27 and 19:27, Fr. is talking about the denial of Saint Peter explaining that the first Pope denied Our Lord, so a pope can fell in heresy. That is not true! This is a calumny that was refuted many times before and Fr. Pfeiffer is refuted by the great Dom Guéranger in his book the The Papal Monarchy
This book is not just merely an opinion. It was giving a brief by Pius IX himself saying:
"Brief from Pope Pius IX
To Our dear son Prosper Guéranger, of the Benedictine Congregation of France, Abbot of Solesmes
PIUS IX, SUPREME PONTIFF.
Dear son, greetings and Our apostolic blessing (...)
(...) For this reason they boldly advance certain pernicious doctrines which have been condemned repeatedly, as if there could be no doubt about them, or as though they could be freely taught, at least; from old proponents of these doctrines they scrape together historical quibbles, mutilated passages, calumnies hurled at the Roman Pontiffs, and all sorts of sophistries. With the utmost impudence they bring all these things up again, completely setting aside the solid arguments with which they have been refuted a hundred times. Their purpose is to agitate minds and to incite the men of their faction and the ignorant crowd against the general consensus of the others."
You can read the brief of the Pope on this link:
http://www.loretopubs.org/papal-monarchy-the.html
I didn't find the book in English on the web, but in French at page 97-98 Dom Guéranger refute this Gallican lie that Saint Peter the Pope denied Jesus because he was no Pope at that time, he had only the promise of the Papacy.
Our Lord talk to him in the future when saying: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Saint Peter was officially Pope after the Resurrection when Our Lord talks to him at the present tense: " Feed my lambs, Feed my sheep".
For those knowing French:
http://www.liberius.net/livres/De_la_monarchie_pontificale_000000116.pdf
Never, before 1958, did a Pope been an heretic. If someone says so it is because they are repeating lies and calumnies that was first invented by the Schismatic Greeks, repeated by the Renaissance men, the Encyclopedists of the XVIIIth century and the Gallicans and sadly by the SSPX today. I never read or heard Archbishop Lefebvre saying those refuted calumnies, but the SSPX has always been more liberal that its founder!
-
Luker:
Why should the prospect that bishop de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist by the 1988 consecrations cause any trouble for those that hold the R&R position ? Does anyone seriously think this somehow casts doubt on the validity of the consecration or something?
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't seem bothered by it, they remained friends to the very end. Perhaps there is a lesson there for all of us.
Castro Mayer was a sede. That didn't bother ABL, but it bothers Fr. P plenty. According to Fr. Pfieffer, apparently, this bishop could not have gone to Heaven.
-
I will call them in the morning and get the transcription and Catholic newspaper citation.
I can also ask for the recording of the speech.
Hey Sean, as interested as I am in this debate, please don't go through the trouble or expense of paying for a transcription and/or audio recording of Bishop dCM's speech at the 1988 Consecrations.
Remember that it is not during his speech that witnesses heard him declare a state of sedevacante, but during the procession opening the liturgy. So his speech is kind of a red herring to this whole discussion.
-
PS: If ABL didn't seem bothered by it, it is because it didn't happen.
Well, that's the question, Sean. If it did not happen, how did so many witnesses, from different countries and independently of each other, and representing different areas of the traditionalist spectrum (indult, R&R and sede) all come up with the same story concerning the same individual at the same moment of the same event?
-
Why should the prospect that bishop de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist by the 1988 consecrations cause any trouble for those that hold the R&R position ? Does anyone seriously think this somehow casts doubt on the validity of the consecration or something?
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't seem bothered by it, they remained friends to the very end. Perhaps there is a lesson there for all of us.
Exactly. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly and knowingly colluded with a sedevacantist bishop to bring about the 1988 episcopal consecrations. So why is the Resistance so vehemently opposed to sedevacantists today?
Here we agree, since if that unfounded and unprovable rumor was true, it would still prove no obstacle for R&R.
PS: If ABL didn't seem bothered by it, it is because it didn't happen.
Or maybe, just maybe, Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't bothered by it because he was nowhere near as anti-sedevacantist as some people have made him out to be (though obviously he himself never publicly 'went sede')
Read this speech by the Archbishop in 1986, it is an excellent assessment of the crisis as it stood in 1986, gives much good advice (as all his speeches/writings do) and should if read plainly and meditated on, give all of us much to think on in this post-canonization time of crisis.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Archbishop-Speaks
I hope your research into bishop de Castro Mayer and the 1988 consecrations does yield some fruit one way or the other. I have looked around a bit and tried to find confirmation that dCM 'went sede' publicly at the consecrations but have only seen the evidence quoted already in this thread.
-
Wallflower,
Have you read the canonization formula?
"In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God's assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define [name] to be a saint [or "to be blessed"], and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the saints. In the name ofthe Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
Please explain how that is NOT an exercise of papal infallibility.
Mith, men better than me have argued this at length with you and others. I don't have any ground-shaking new aspects to put forward.
I am a little curious though, on one hand you seem very disturbed by the certainty of R&R (here, Fr Pfeiffer's sermon), and you're insisting that all trads ought to be doubtful. Yet, you seem pretty certain yourself and not entertaining any doubts at all. Do you truly believe that doubt is the proper stance? Or is bringing people back to doubt simply a tactic to give people another shot, so to speak, at choosing to take the sedevacantist fork?
I actually agree that all serious trads should entertain this doubt. But not for life. They eventually have to choose which side tips the scales. Even then, it probably doesn't hurt to run through the arguments every now and then to remind themselves of what they are and why they chose the side they did.
The arguments are neck and neck but there's something about R&R that always tips the scales for me. The moral certainty of R&R that disturbs you that Pope Francis IS Pope, is the same moral certainty that disturbs me about sedevacantists claiming he isn't. I just don't see how we can be morally certain that he isn't.
Mith, men better than me have argued this at length with you and others. I don't have any ground-shaking new aspects to put forward.
That is fine, but since you brought it up, I should remind readers that the arguments against the infallibility of these canonizations involve either adding conditions to papal infallibility which do not exist in the definition of papal infallibility per Vatican I (which has the consequent effect of turning infallibility into a meaningless tautology which has more of an effect on each individual member of the Church than it actually does on the Church proper) or in denying the infallibility of canonizations as such, thereby contradicting basically every known authority on the issue, including St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and Benedict XIV who says that if those who say that a pope can err in canonizations are not heretics (notice how he doesn't say they're not heretics, he leaves the possibility open for this to be heresy) they are temerarious, givers of scandal and a host of other things which are mortal sins. And then finally there are those who, ignoring the ex cathedra language used in the canonizations, deny the very concept of indirect infallibility altogether. Just so the air is clear on just what exactly those who are "better than you" have argued at length.
I am a little curious though, on one hand you seem very disturbed by the certainty of R&R (here, Fr Pfeiffer's sermon), and you're insisting that all trads ought to be doubtful. Yet, you seem pretty certain yourself and not entertaining any doubts at all. Do you truly believe that doubt is the proper stance? Or is bringing people back to doubt simply a tactic to give people another shot, so to speak, at choosing to take the sedevacantist fork?
Actually, my claim is that they (R&R Catholics) are doubtful, not that they ought to be, although I believe that, too. One cannot resist legitimate authority in toto without being doubtful of its legitimacy. The resistance itself indicates the doubt.
And let's be really clear: we're not talking about a single "evil command" or a series of bad judgements, we are talking about a new religion altogether, with a new liturgy, new doctrine, new sacraments (which are doubtful, I might add) new laws, etc. And by new I don't mean updated or reformed, I mean not contained within the deposit of faith, and oftentimes conflicting with or even contradicting the deposit of faith. In other words, the "we've had bad popes before" rhetoric is a tract so misleading and without consideration for reality that it should never be used again. This is eons beyond "bad popes."
No Catholic could possibly have moral certainty that the men and the organization which has imposed these novelties is legitimate. One can only accept the new program if one doesn't have the faith* to begin with.
If it is true that a certain "Catholic" is morally certain that X is the pope and simultaneously persists in resisting his liturgy, sacraments, laws, teachings, catechisms, calendar, saints, places of worship, etc. of that certain pope, then one is certainly a schismatic**.
I've met too many R&R Catholics who are really just good and holy people trying their best than to rashly accuse them categorically of schism. They doubt these papacies, they just don't realize that they doubt them. This is for a combination of reasons, but chiefly it's because they've been told by the SSPX clergy (who likewise, I believe, doubt these papacies) that sedevacantism is false. It's really just political, at the end of the day. Every group needs to keep the pews warm so every group needs a reason why they "have the truth." For the SSPX, it's that sedevacantists are wrong. For the SSPV it's that the Thuc clergy are doubtful or unlawful. For a lot of the non-CMRI sedes, it's that the "una cuм" mass is somehow unholy (I haven't yet figured out if the CMRI have their unique doctrine, I don't actually think they do). And then, even if "the group" or a significant number within the group are inclined to re-open a question or change their mind on an issue, there is the problem of scandalizing the faithful and of making the group look bad-- can you imagine what would happen if the SSPV just up and said "we were wrong about the Thuc clergy all those years?" Well, for starters, there's no reason for someone to continue going to the SSPV, all other things being equal. That's just one example. Anyways, it's effectively brainwashing. An R&R Catholic approaches every crisis question not with "what are the relevant Catholic principles I can apply to this, as established by the popes, saints and theologians so that I can arrive at the truth" but with "how can I explain this within the framework of the SSPX's view of the crisis?" They might employ some sound principles when they begin their investigation, but the other (and unspoken) premise is that "sedevacantism is false" and naturally any explanation of the crisis which leads to it is false. This is why R&R Catholics typically only cite modern SSPX theologians, because the theologians, saints and popes before VII cannot be found supporting their position, not in its current stage anyways. The sedevacantists, on the other hand, not only cite pre-VII authors, they cite them in droves. It is also interesting to consider that such writers do not have a "horse in the race." Naturally an SSPX writer will be writing with at least an implicit goal of enforcing his position on the crisis. Pre-VII authorities do not have this tinge, which is why they are so incredibly helpful in figuring this mess out.
As such, most R&R Catholics do not gather the relevant evidence or interpret it such a way that can even lead to moral certainty in the first place. The chief concern is with preserving the R&R structure. It "can't" be false.
I actually agree that all serious trads should entertain this doubt. But not for life. They eventually have to choose which side tips the scales. Even then, it probably doesn't hurt to run through the arguments every now and then to remind themselves of what they are and why they chose the side they did.
Doubts should be resolved, yes, but sometimes they can't be. I'm not saying this isn't a doubt that can't be resolved as I obviously think it is, but I am only me and I can speak for only me and others doubts may last longer, indefinitely or possibly never be resolved. In lieu of resolving a doubt (in this case, a speculative doubt which is not applied to a concrete case, i.e., one does not sin by acting without resolving it), the idea of "choosing a side" is not a decision that is morally certain; moral certainty means that with the evidence available, the opposite conclusion (i.e., the decision not made) would be imprudent and/or rash for any reasonable man. Taking a position simply to resolve a doubt, without actually resolving it is not the same as reaching moral certainty. Simply choosing to take a position for the sake of it does not resolve the doubt, it merely pushes it away so that one can appear to have a veneer of certainty while one actually doesn't.
The arguments are neck and neck but there's something about R&R that always tips the scales for me. The moral certainty of R&R that disturbs you that Pope Francis IS Pope, is the same moral certainty that disturbs me about sedevacantists claiming he isn't. I just don't see how we can be morally certain that he isn't.
Interestingly enough, you've actually exhibited your doubt. If something is, then it can't possibly not be. So if you can't have moral certainty that one isn't the pope, neither do you have moral certainty that he is the pope. If you have moral certainty that he is the pope, then you simultaneously have moral certainty that he isn't an antipope. To put it in more understandable terms, if you are morally certain that someone is alive, you also have moral certainty that someone isn't dead. But if you don't have moral certainty that he isn't dead, you don't have moral certainty that he is alive. You are in a state of doubt. This is exactly what I'm describing.
*I do accept that there are those within the Novus Ordo who are Catholic in spite of it, out of ignorance more than anything. Such Catholics merely pay lip service to "the pope" and say they "accept" Vatican II but when questioned, exhibit no unorthodoxy and do not positively express the errors of the New Church, their "membership" in it notwithstanding. But we are talking about traditional Catholics here, especially recognize and resist traditional Catholics.
** I know that Sean Johnson would probably interject here the doctrine of necessity article by the SSPX. It is true that an evil command can never be followed; the argument is not that "he's your pope you need to accept his errors" but to highlight the obstinate and relentless contradiction that St. Robert put to us rhetorically: "how can we avoid our head?" Herein is one of the reasons why theologians have taught that a manifest heretic loses his office, and that a heretic pope ceases to be pope ipso facto. The alternative (the heretic pope remaining pope, or in the case of most of the conciliar pontiffs, the heretic achieving the papacy) leads to a contradiction of right reason and Catholic discipline; i.e., we are "bound" to reject the magisterium and teaching authority of the pope and even the Church (viz. rejecting the N.O.M., the new CIC, the new catechism, the new saints, the new calendar, etc.).
-
I will call them in the morning and get the transcription and Catholic newspaper citation.
I can also ask for the recording of the speech.
Hey Sean, as interested as I am in this debate, please don't go through the trouble or expense of paying for a transcription and/or audio recording of Bishop dCM's speech at the 1988 Consecrations.
Remember that it is not during his speech that witnesses heard him declare a state of sedevacante, but during the procession opening the liturgy. So his speech is kind of a red herring to this whole discussion.
Dear Pete-
I certainly understand why you would not want me to obtain the transcription:
If at the same consecration ceremony docuмented and/or audio proof can be obtained showing Bishop Castro de Mayer to have made statements demonstrating his recognition of the (then current) papacy, how credible would the unsubstantiated rumors of CDM's alleged statements and sedevacantism be in comparison?
Therefore, I have contacted Atila Sinke Guimaraes at TIA to request a transcription, as well as a citation to the Catholic in which CDM's speech was published.
When I receive it, I will post it here.
Pax,
Sean
-
I certainly understand why you would not want me to obtain the transcription:
On the other hand, if it can be done without too much expense, and if it will shed light on the situation and give you peace of conscience, go for it.
I'm not opposed to you obtaining and sharing the transcript. I am simply pointing out that it likely will not contain Mgr dCM's declaration of sedevacante witnessed by several during the consecration liturgy.
If at the same consecration ceremony docuмented and/or audio proof can be obtained showing Bishop Castro de Mayer to have made statements demonstrating his recognition of the (then current) papacy, it stands to reason the unsubstantiated testimony of the anonymous "witnesses" is bunk, and would be proof positive CDM was no sede.
Is that what you are looking for? A statement from Mgr dCM during the consecrations in which Mgr recognizes John Paul II as a valid pope?
If his speech contains such a statement, then yes, I would agree with you that he could not have been sedevacantist during the consecrations, and that the various witnesses likely misheard or misunderstood the bishop earlier in the liturgy.
In fact, if his speech contains such a statement, I would hope that you would post it in order to shed light on the situation.
-
Has this become an episode of the Twilight Zone ? R & Rs are in schism - poor things ? De Castro Meyer was a sedevacantist ? A bishop that remained long past his retirement as an ordinary at the benevolence of John Paul II ? Hearsay in crowds trumps public statements at ordinations ?
Have we forgotten that Thuc was slammed by Ratzinger not only for illicit consecrations but because he declared the see of Peter vacant in 1982 at Munich, but in 1998, Rome never alleged this of either Lefebvre or de Castro Mayer. What on earth is going on here ?
Fr. P. preaches standard pre-accord SSPX theology and now he's a schismatic know-nothing ? What gives folks ?
The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !
-
Has this become an episode of the Twilight Zone ? R & Rs are in schism - poor things ? De Castro Meyer was a sedevacantist ? A bishop that remained long past his retirement as an ordinary at the benevolence of John Paul II ? Hearsay in crowds trumps public statements at ordinations ?
Have we forgotten that Thuc was slammed by Ratzinger not only for illicit consecrations but because he declared the see of Peter vacant in 1982 at Munich, but in 1998, Rome never alleged this of either Lefebvre or de Castro Mayer. What on earth is going on here ?
Fr. P. preaches standard pre-accord SSPX theology and now he's a schismatic know-nothing ? What gives folks ?
The sedes have invaded !
My poll made that clear months ago.
A current poll shows their growing domination of this forum (which by the way has nothing to do with the antics of Pope Francis, as they would like to believe, but because the word has gotten out that Matthew makes them welcome here).
-
Has this become an episode of the Twilight Zone ? R & Rs are in schism - poor things ? De Castro Meyer was a sedevacantist ? A bishop that remained long past his retirement as an ordinary at the benevolence of John Paul II ? Hearsay in crowds trumps public statements at ordinations ?
Have we forgotten that Thuc was slammed by Ratzinger not only for illicit consecrations but because he declared the see of Peter vacant in 1982 at Munich, but in 1998, Rome never alleged this of either Lefebvre or de Castro Mayer. What on earth is going on here ?
Fr. P. preaches standard pre-accord SSPX theology and now he's a schismatic know-nothing ? What gives folks ?
The sedes have invaded !
My poll made that clear months ago.
A current poll shows their growing domination of this forum (which by the way has nothing to do with the antics of Pope Francis, as they would like to believe, but because the word has gotten out that Matthew makes them welcome here).
No, they're just more vociferous than the rest of us - or more adept at typing - they've invaded all the Trad fora.
-
Has this become an episode of the Twilight Zone ? R & Rs are in schism - poor things ? De Castro Meyer was a sedevacantist ? A bishop that remained long past his retirement as an ordinary at the benevolence of John Paul II ? Hearsay in crowds trumps public statements at ordinations ?
Have we forgotten that Thuc was slammed by Ratzinger not only for illicit consecrations but because he declared the see of Peter vacant in 1982 at Munich, but in 1998, Rome never alleged this of either Lefebvre or de Castro Mayer. What on earth is going on here ?
Fr. P. preaches standard pre-accord SSPX theology and now he's a schismatic know-nothing ? What gives folks ?
The sedes have invaded !
I think it IS the twilight zone.
True pope canonizes heretic non-saints. Solution: canonizations aren't infallible. Prerequisite to infallibility is being right. Indirect objects of infallibility don't exist.
Definite non-solution: Francis is an antipope.
Yep, sounds like the twilight zone. It sure says a lot about the state of R&R today when one of its chief proponents gives an "outstanding" sermon against sedevacantism on the internets "official unofficial" resistance discussion site and is met with a 2:1 ratio of down thumbs and the best defense R&R can muster up is the incessant and inane womanly pestering of BlackIrish and your vain and canned trolling.
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
-
Has this become an episode of the Twilight Zone ? R & Rs are in schism - poor things ? De Castro Meyer was a sedevacantist ? A bishop that remained long past his retirement as an ordinary at the benevolence of John Paul II ? Hearsay in crowds trumps public statements at ordinations ?
Have we forgotten that Thuc was slammed by Ratzinger not only for illicit consecrations but because he declared the see of Peter vacant in 1982 at Munich, but in 1998, Rome never alleged this of either Lefebvre or de Castro Mayer. What on earth is going on here ?
Fr. P. preaches standard pre-accord SSPX theology and now he's a schismatic know-nothing ? What gives folks ?
The sedes have invaded !
I think it IS the twilight zone.
True pope canonizes heretic non-saints. Solution: canonizations aren't infallible. Prerequisite to infallibility is being right. Indirect objects of infallibility don't exist.
Definite non-solution: Francis is an antipope.
Yep, sounds like the twilight zone. It sure says a lot about the state of R&R today when one of its chief proponents gives an "outstanding" sermon against sedevacantism on the internets "official unofficial" resistance discussion site and is met with a 2:1 ratio of down thumbs and the best defense R&R can muster up is the incessant and inane womanly pestering of BlackIrish and your vain and canned trolling.
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
Now there's theology at its finest - the thumbs down have it ! Francis isn't the Pope ! Does the Holy Spirit work in here ?
-
A current poll shows their growing domination of this forum (which by the way has nothing to do with the antics of Pope Francis, as they would like to believe, but because the word has gotten out that Matthew makes them welcome here).
I think you're exaggerating!
For the umpteenth time, Sean, I am not a sedevacantist.
I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.
The fact I support and promote traditional liturgy and devotions does not make me a sede. Nor does one person--and there is only one of me--constitute and invasion.
-
Who taught you how to read, CuriousTrad?
This has become so juvenile and ridiculous that I half expect you to reply "your mom."
-
The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !
Does this worry you curioustrad ?
If the pure R&R goodness of Cathinfo (and ) have been stained and sullied by filthy sedes, perhaps a new forum needs to be started. A forum that will stand strong against the evil tares of sedevacantism and allow only the pure wheat of solid R&R theology. You curioustrad are the man to start this forum. Do not ignore this call. All of R&Rdom is relying on you !!!
-
The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !
All joking aside, you seem surprised that the Resistance movement appears to have one foot in sedevacantism. Why?
-
Try this for logic:
Okay, so why did it become so important for the SSPX to point out in 2003 that Mgr dCM had sedevacantist tendencies after writing nothing on the matter before then?
A few posts later:
Yes, we are talking about oral statements Bishop dCM made publicly during the entrance procession, that were witnessed by several individuals.
(Any hints as to the names ?)
Then finally:
Exactly. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly and knowingly colluded with a sedevacantist bishop to bring about the 1988 episcopal consecrations. So why is the Resistance so vehemently opposed to sedevacantists today?
So de Castro Mayer goes from tendencies to actualities in the space of 3 posts.
What does: a posse ad esse non valet illatio mean ?
-
The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !
All joking aside, you seem surprised that the Resistance movement appears to have one foot in sedevacantism. Why?
Cleverly put.
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
-
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?
-
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?
Begging the question I would say...
-
June 30, 1988
Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
After the Consecration Sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, the co-consecrating bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, gave a short allocution which was very warmly applauded. He read it in Portuguese and it was translated afterwards into French and then into German and English.
My presence here at this ceremony is caused by a duty of conscience: that of making a profession of Catholic Faith in front of the whole Church and more particularly in front of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in front of all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a profession of faith at every moment. But when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even if it be at the risk of one’s own life.
Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis of the Church, a crisis that attacks her inner essence, in her very substance which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, two mysteries essentially united because without priesthood there is no sacrifice of the Mass and therefore no form of worship. It is also on this foundation that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is built.
For this reason, because the conservation of the priesthood and the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and pressures of many, I am here in order to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of faith.
It is painful to witness the deplorable blindness of so many confrères in the episcopate and in the priesthood who do not see or do not want to see the present crisis nor the necessity to resist the reigning modernism in order to be faithful to the mission entrusted to us by God.
I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
May the Most Holy Virgin Our Mother, who at Fatima has warned us in her motherly love with regard to the gravity of the present situation, give us the grace to be able by our attitude to help and enlighten the faithful in such a way that they depart from these pernicious errors of which they are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost.
May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work!
Thanks for this - despite the other allegations this is the public record of his intention.
Great that you posted this, but there is nothing in the speech contra sedevacantism.
Neither is there anything in favor - seems like the Archbishop R & R to me.
If there is nothing for and against, to which I agree, it is not relevant to this discussion.
-
The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !
Does this worry you curioustrad ?
If the pure R&R goodness of Cathinfo (and ) have been stained and sullied by filthy sedes, perhaps a new forum needs to be started. A forum that will stand strong against the evil tares of sedevacantism and allow only the pure wheat of solid R&R theology. You curioustrad are the man to start this forum. Do not ignore this call. All of R&Rdom is relying on you !!!
I almost missed this one - I am humbled !
-
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You really believe the Resistance in its current state will be able to compete one-on-one with the sedes?
:laugh2:
-
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You really believe the Resistance in its current state will be able to compete one-on-one with the sedes?
:laugh2:
No ! But that's an ad hominem - logic old boy - LOGIC !
-
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You really believe the Resistance in its current state will be able to compete one-on-one with the sedes?
:laugh2:
No ! But that's an ad hominem - logic old boy - LOGIC !
Frankly the whole Traditional movement will (to quote Harold Macmillan on his first speech after entering the House of Lords - which I watched live decades ago) "sink majestically beneath the waves" and this debate is living proof of it.
-
The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !
All joking aside, you seem surprised that the Resistance movement appears to have one foot in sedevacantism. Why?
Cleverly put.
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You are obviously out of sync with CMRI. Their chapels are growing all over, and the priests cannot keep up with the demand for new locations.
The CMRI situation is the exact opposite of emptying chapels as you assert. I cannot speak of SSPV and would not recommend them anyway.
Btw, we are not shock troops. I do not report to anyone, and I am in no army but the Church militant. Your analysis of us is grossly biased. I say and do what I do, because I love the Church and the truth.
If CMRI sold out to the Conciliar church, I would drop them immediately. I am a Catholic not a member of any group. Your assertions against us are unjust.
-
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?
But the Archbishop himself was not an anti-sedevacantist. The quotes have circulated through here umpteen times-- quotes that span many years, indicating that while ABL was not a sedevacantist, neither was he opposed to it in principle, on the contrary he publicly addressed his own seminarians in 1986 and said that if things continue as they are (so, thirty years ago) we could be OBLIGED to be sedevacantists.
Heck, I don't even say anyone is OBLIGED to be a sedevacantist.
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
-
The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !
All joking aside, you seem surprised that the Resistance movement appears to have one foot in sedevacantism. Why?
Cleverly put.
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You are obviously out of sync with CMRI. Their chapels are growing all over, and the priests cannot keep up with the demand for new locations.
The CMRI situation is the exact opposite of emptying chapels as you assert. I cannot speak of SSPV and would not recommend them anyway.
Btw, we are not shock troops. I do not report to anyone, and I am in no army but the Church militant. Your analysis of us is grossly biased. I say and do what I do, because I love the Church and the truth.
If CMRI sold out to the Conciliar church, I would drop them immediately. I am a Catholic not a member of any group. Your assertions against us are unjust.
Didn't we have that conversation last night ? (A CMRI plugger - oh well !) Actually I have in on good repute that their flagship Mt. St. Michael is like a ghost town compared with when I was there in the 90s.
-
Ambrose, he's a troll. And apparently the best that can come to Fr. P's defense. In fact, who knows, he might even be a Menzingen plant to put a few nails in a few coffins, haha. Fr. Pfeiffer comes out with rash and ridiculous claims, most users can only stay silent and the few who can say anything only make the rest who are staying silent waiting for the storm to blow over look like fools, inasmuch as loudmothed and rash individuals make their cohorts in the group look like idiots when no one speaks up to correct him.
-
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?
But the Archbishop himself was not an anti-sedevacantist. The quotes have circulated through here umpteen times-- quotes that span many years, indicating that while ABL was not a sedevacantist, neither was he opposed to it in principle, on the contrary he publicly addressed his own seminarians in 1986 and said that if things continue as they are (so, thirty years ago) we could be OBLIGED to be sedevacantists.
Heck, I don't even say anyone is OBLIGED to be a sedevacantist.
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
Yes and he even ordained them (knowingly - gasp !)
-
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You really believe the Resistance in its current state will be able to compete one-on-one with the sedes?
:laugh2:
Francis has done more to convince Catholics of the state of sedevacante, than any of us. If they have a problem with this, they need to ask Francis to at least give the appearance of being a Pope.
Whether they like it or not, Francis is the leading sedevacantist promoter in the world right now.
-
Ambrose, he's a troll. And apparently the best that can come to Fr. P's defense. In fact, who knows, he might even be a Menzingen plant to put a few nails in a few coffins, haha. Fr. Pfeiffer comes out with rash and ridiculous claims, most users can only stay silent and the few who can say anything only make the rest who are staying silent waiting for the storm to blow over look like fools, inasmuch as loudmothed and rash individuals make their cohorts in the group look like idiots when no one speaks up to correct him.
What paranoia ! No - I'm Fr. Rostand trying to score a few points before I head to Menzingen !
-
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You really believe the Resistance in its current state will be able to compete one-on-one with the sedes?
:laugh2:
Francis has done more to convince Catholics of the state of sedevacante, than any of us. If they have a problem with this, they need to ask Francis to at least give the appearance of being a Pope.
Whether they like it or not, Francis is the leading sedevacantist promoter in the world right now.
Now there you have me - he is a good poster boy - isn't he ?
-
The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !
All joking aside, you seem surprised that the Resistance movement appears to have one foot in sedevacantism. Why?
Cleverly put.
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You are obviously out of sync with CMRI. Their chapels are growing all over, and the priests cannot keep up with the demand for new locations.
The CMRI situation is the exact opposite of emptying chapels as you assert. I cannot speak of SSPV and would not recommend them anyway.
Btw, we are not shock troops. I do not report to anyone, and I am in no army but the Church militant. Your analysis of us is grossly biased. I say and do what I do, because I love the Church and the truth.
If CMRI sold out to the Conciliar church, I would drop them immediately. I am a Catholic not a member of any group. Your assertions against us are unjust.
Didn't we have that conversation last night ? (A CMRI plugger - oh well !) Actually I have in on good repute that their flagship Mt. St. Michael is like a ghost town compared with when I was there in the 90s.
I was there not too long ago, and it was no ghost town, the church was packed at the Sunday Mass I assisted at. Is St. Michaels smaller than the 90's? Not sure, but it was packed the day I was there.
And no, I am not a CMRI plugger, I call it as I see it.
-
Ambrose, he's a troll. And apparently the best that can come to Fr. P's defense. In fact, who knows, he might even be a Menzingen plant to put a few nails in a few coffins, haha. Fr. Pfeiffer comes out with rash and ridiculous claims, most users can only stay silent and the few who can say anything only make the rest who are staying silent waiting for the storm to blow over look like fools, inasmuch as loudmothed and rash individuals make their cohorts in the group look like idiots when no one speaks up to correct him.
And to think I once called him "Calamity Joe" on this very forum - well I never !
-
I call it as I see it.
You do indeed !
-
Ambrose, he's a troll. And apparently the best that can come to Fr. P's defense. In fact, who knows, he might even be a Menzingen plant to put a few nails in a few coffins, haha. Fr. Pfeiffer comes out with rash and ridiculous claims, most users can only stay silent and the few who can say anything only make the rest who are staying silent waiting for the storm to blow over look like fools, inasmuch as loudmothed and rash individuals make their cohorts in the group look like idiots when no one speaks up to correct him.
What paranoia ! No - I'm Fr. Rostand trying to score a few points before I head to Menzingen !
I actually like you, CT. You make me laugh. That's why I berate you, because you can take it. I have no idea if you're real or not, but I think we could have beers together.
-
Ambrose, he's a troll. And apparently the best that can come to Fr. P's defense. In fact, who knows, he might even be a Menzingen plant to put a few nails in a few coffins, haha. Fr. Pfeiffer comes out with rash and ridiculous claims, most users can only stay silent and the few who can say anything only make the rest who are staying silent waiting for the storm to blow over look like fools, inasmuch as loudmothed and rash individuals make their cohorts in the group look like idiots when no one speaks up to correct him.
What paranoia ! No - I'm Fr. Rostand trying to score a few points before I head to Menzingen !
I actually like you, CT. You make me laugh. That's why I berate you, because you can take it. I have no idea if you're real or not, but I think we could have beers together.
ROFL - I'm sure we would get on famously - yes I can take it. A sense of humor is essential when dealing with real clowns like Bergoglio.
-
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
I disagree.
Granted, what you say is probably true and has long been understood by most sedes (and a handful of Ecclesia Dei trads like myself).
However, in light of the R&R mythology of Mgr Lefebvre as a consistent and principled anti-sede, his public cooperation with a sedevacantist Bishop de Castro Mayer -- especially in the matter of the liturgical consecration of bishops -- raises several questions.
-
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You really believe the Resistance in its current state will be able to compete one-on-one with the sedes?
:laugh2:
Francis has done more to convince Catholics of the state of sedevacante, than any of us. If they have a problem with this, they need to ask Francis to at least give the appearance of being a Pope.
Whether they like it or not, Francis is the leading sedevacantist promoter in the world right now.
Now there you have me - he is a good poster boy - isn't he ?
By all appearances, this "Pope" of yours is actively working to finish off what Paul VI started, the destruction of Catholicism. He is the principle of disunity and faithlessness.
But, despite all of that, according to SSPX, he is still St. Peter's Successor. :laugh2:
-
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
I disagree.
Granted, what you say is probably true and has long been understood by most sedes (and a handful of Ecclesia Dei trads like myself).
However, in light of the R&R mythology of Mgr Lefebvre as a consistent and principled anti-sede, his public cooperation with a sedevacantist Bishop de Castro Mayer -- especially in the matter of the liturgical consecration of bishops -- raises several questions.
Mythology yes ! Quite a bit to spare in this post. Do you think that John Kerry was channeling the Arch when he said: "I voted for the war before I voted against it ?"
-
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
I disagree.
Granted, what you say is probably true and has long been understood by most sedes (and a handful of Ecclesia Dei trads like myself).
However, in light of the R&R mythology of Mgr Lefebvre as a consistent and principled anti-sede, his public cooperation with a sedevacantist Bishop de Castro Mayer -- especially in the matter of the liturgical consecration of bishops -- raises several questions.
Pete,
There have been threads on here even recently where I was under the impression that most of those who viewed the Archbishop as being against sedevacantism (as in, being anti-sedevacantism as a matter of principle) came to realize this was not the case.
If those people still believe that he was some crusader against the sedevacantist theory, then I would agree that it is unsurprising that people who try to reinforce that view.
I wrote what I wrote thinking that they already realized that this is the ABL presented by the NSSPX, not the ABL who actually existed.
-
Mythology yes ! Quite a bit to spare in this post. Do you think that John Kerry was channeling the Arch when he said: "I voted for the war before I voted against it ?"
Sorry, who is John Kerry?
-
Mythology yes ! Quite a bit to spare in this post. Do you think that John Kerry was channeling the Arch when he said: "I voted for the war before I voted against it ?"
Sorry, who is John Kerry?
A democrat American politician who ran for President of the USA famous for talking out of both sides of his mouth (and thereby losing his presidential bid) Also the current US Secretary of State under Obama.
-
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
I disagree.
Granted, what you say is probably true and has long been understood by most sedes (and a handful of Ecclesia Dei trads like myself).
However, in light of the R&R mythology of Mgr Lefebvre as a consistent and principled anti-sede, his public cooperation with a sedevacantist Bishop de Castro Mayer -- especially in the matter of the liturgical consecration of bishops -- raises several questions.
As you rightfully say, it's mythology. They follow a narrative, and hold to it like gospel truth. Look at this issue of Bp. Castro de Mayer, it has been a long accepted fact that he was a sedevacantist, but it doesn't fit the narrative.
The same with Archbishop Lefebvre, it is commonly known that he saw sedevacantism as a real possibility, and many believed that he was most likely privately a sedevacantist by the mid-80's. But again, it does not fit the narrative.
The narrative must be defended at all costs.
-
I wrote what I wrote thinking that they already realized that this is the ABL presented by the NSSPX, not the ABL who actually existed.
Mithrandylan, you mention the ABL presented by the SSPX led by Bishop Fellay. But is the ABL presented by the Reistance any less mythologized?
I do agree with you, btw, that ABL was likely much more tolerant and undecided on the sedevacantist question than the R&R will often admit officially.
-
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
I disagree.
Granted, what you say is probably true and has long been understood by most sedes (and a handful of Ecclesia Dei trads like myself).
However, in light of the R&R mythology of Mgr Lefebvre as a consistent and principled anti-sede, his public cooperation with a sedevacantist Bishop de Castro Mayer -- especially in the matter of the liturgical consecration of bishops -- raises several questions.
As you rightfully say, it's mythology. They follow a narrative, and hold to it like gospel truth. Look at this issue of Bp. Castro de Mayer, it has been a long accepted fact that he was a sedevacantist, but it doesn't fit the narrative.
The same with Archbishop Lefebvre, it is commonly known that he saw sedevacantism as a real possibility, and many believed that he was most likely privately a sedevacantist by the mid-80's. But again, it does not fit the narrative.
The narrative must be defended at all costs.
A point which no-one has proved is an historical fact (for some here didn't Bishop Williamson have some trouble with this kind of thinking ?)
-
Mythology yes ! Quite a bit to spare in this post. Do you think that John Kerry was channeling the Arch when he said: "I voted for the war before I voted against it ?"
Sorry, who is John Kerry?
A democrat American politician who ran for President of the USA famous for talking out of both sides of his mouth (and thereby losing his presidential bid) Also the current US Secretary of State under Obama.
And he's SSPX?!?
-
Mythology yes ! Quite a bit to spare in this post. Do you think that John Kerry was channeling the Arch when he said: "I voted for the war before I voted against it ?"
Sorry, who is John Kerry?
A democrat American politician who ran for President of the USA famous for talking out of both sides of his mouth (and thereby losing his presidential bid) Also the current US Secretary of State under Obama.
And he's SSPX?!?
It was a joke the point of which escaped you. You were skirting the issue of the Lefebvre dualism over the sede issue and I attempted to draw a humorous parallel with a well known American politician famous for the same problems with "duality".
-
PV:
For the umpteenth time, Sean, I am not a sedevacantist.
I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.
I must make at least one more contribution to this exceedingly dull and unenlightened thread. I am not a sedvacantist either. But I do consider the NO as intrinsically evil. V2 was the greatest evil, so much so, in fact that it makes little difference whether it was "valid" or not. Like ABL, I believe the conciliar church to be an illegitimate parallel church, overseen and run by "anti-Christs" and clerics who have "left the Faith." But in order to avoid the possiblility of not going to Heaven, I must reluctantly concede that Francis is the pope and do my best to "unite" myself to him. This is an insane declaration, I know, but then, we live in an insane period. Traditional Catholicism, IMO, is on life supports.
-
I wrote what I wrote thinking that they already realized that this is the ABL presented by the NSSPX, not the ABL who actually existed.
Mithrandylan, you mention the ABL presented by the SSPX led by Bishop Fellay. But is the ABL presented by the Reistance any less mythologized?
I do agree with you, btw, that ABL was likely much more tolerant and undecided on the sedevacantist question than the R&R will often admit officially.
Inasmuch as Fr. P presents ABL, no; in fact Fr. P is probably the worst offender of a the Fellay tinted view of ABL as I have ever seen. Perhaps there are worse ones, but there are not louder ones.
A month or so ago Fr. Pfeiffer said that no true son of ABL could be a sedevacantist. Which is outrageous, since, as has already been mentioned, ABL actually told his entire class of "sons" in 1986 that if things didn't change, they'd be OBLIGED to be sedevacantists. Huh.
-
Ambrose, he's a troll. And apparently the best that can come to Fr. P's defense. In fact, who knows, he might even be a Menzingen plant to put a few nails in a few coffins, haha. Fr. Pfeiffer comes out with rash and ridiculous claims, most users can only stay silent and the few who can say anything only make the rest who are staying silent waiting for the storm to blow over look like fools, inasmuch as loudmothed and rash individuals make their cohorts in the group look like idiots when no one speaks up to correct him.
Maybe he is, but I am not sure. He strikes me as no different than those indoctrinated by the post-Lefebvre SSPX.
This is powerful stuff. When a narrative forms, whether it is true or false it has real power, and it is not easy to see through it, once one embraces it.
-
It was a joke the point of which escaped you. You were skirting the issue of the Lefebvre dualism over the sede issue and I attempted to draw a humorous parallel with a well known American politician famous for the same problems with "duality".
Why do some Americans assume their politicians are well-known in the rest of the world?
-
It was a joke the point of which escaped you. You were skirting the issue of the Lefebvre dualism over the sede issue and I attempted to draw a humorous parallel with a well known American politician famous for the same problems with "duality".
Why do some Americans assume their politicians are well-known in the rest of the world?
I don't know but I'm not an American.
-
It was a joke the point of which escaped you. You were skirting the issue of the Lefebvre dualism over the sede issue and I attempted to draw a humorous parallel with a well known American politician famous for the same problems with "duality".
What type of problem with duality? Is Mr Kerry a Nestorian or a Monophysite?
-
It was a joke the point of which escaped you. You were skirting the issue of the Lefebvre dualism over the sede issue and I attempted to draw a humorous parallel with a well known American politician famous for the same problems with "duality".
Why do some Americans assume their politicians are well-known in the rest of the world?
I don't know but I'm not an American.
I suspected as much from your curious jargon... we'll get along "famously."
You're a Brit, methinks. Or at least, from the Island. Maybe you're a Welshman.
-
It was a joke the point of which escaped you. You were skirting the issue of the Lefebvre dualism over the sede issue and I attempted to draw a humorous parallel with a well known American politician famous for the same problems with "duality".
Why do some Americans assume their politicians are well-known in the rest of the world?
I don't know but I'm not an American.
If you are not an American then why do you spell like one?
-
When a narrative forms, whether it is true or false it has real power, and it is not easy to see through it, once one embraces it.
I agree if the text began: "When a narrative is formed..." passive mood not active.
-
It was a joke the point of which escaped you. You were skirting the issue of the Lefebvre dualism over the sede issue and I attempted to draw a humorous parallel with a well known American politician famous for the same problems with "duality".
Why do some Americans assume their politicians are well-known in the rest of the world?
I don't know but I'm not an American.
If you are not an American then why do you spell like one?
As Bishop Williamson once said: "I like to be unpredictable"
-
PV:For the umpteenth time, Sean, I am not a sedevacantist.
I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.
I must make at least one more contribution to this exceedingly dull and unenlightened thread. I am not a sedvacantist either. But I do consider the NO as intrinsically evil. V2 was the greatest evil, so much so, in fact that it makes little difference whether it was "valid" or not. Like ABL, I believe the conciliar church to be an illegitimate parallel church, overseen and run by "anti-Christs" and clerics who have "left the Faith." But in order to avoid the possiblility of not going to Heaven, I must reluctantly concede that Francis is the pope and do my best to "unite" myself to him. This is an insane declaration, I know, but then, we live in an insane period. Traditional Catholicism, IMO, is on life supports.
Thanks hollingsworth. As self-contradictory as I find your position expressed above, I can respect you for being honest in recognizing these contradictions. I am sure you are someone who in real life, like Sean Johnson, I would enjoy riding and drinking beer with.
-
It was a joke the point of which escaped you. You were skirting the issue of the Lefebvre dualism over the sede issue and I attempted to draw a humorous parallel with a well known American politician famous for the same problems with "duality".
Why do some Americans assume their politicians are well-known in the rest of the world?
I don't know but I'm not an American.
If you are not an American then why do you spell like one?
As Bishop Williamson once said: "I like to be unpredictable"
Okay, that makes sense.
Next question: What is your favourite colour?
-
When a narrative forms, whether it is true or false it has real power, and it is not easy to see through it, once one embraces it.
I agree if the text began: "When a narrative is formed..." passive mood not active.
Thanks got the correction. If I only had a proper Catholic school in my youth, how much better I would have been at so many things.
-
It was a joke the point of which escaped you. You were skirting the issue of the Lefebvre dualism over the sede issue and I attempted to draw a humorous parallel with a well known American politician famous for the same problems with "duality".
Why do some Americans assume their politicians are well-known in the rest of the world?
I don't know but I'm not an American.
I suspected as much from your curious jargon... we'll get along "famously."
You're a Brit, methinks. Or at least, from the Island. Maybe you're a Welshman.
Just another red lobster !
-
It was a joke the point of which escaped you. You were skirting the issue of the Lefebvre dualism over the sede issue and I attempted to draw a humorous parallel with a well known American politician famous for the same problems with "duality".
Why do some Americans assume their politicians are well-known in the rest of the world?
I don't know but I'm not an American.
If you are not an American then why do you spell like one?
As Bishop Williamson once said: "I like to be unpredictable"
Okay, that makes sense.
Next question: What is your favourite colour?
You know it seems so strange, now, to see those "u"s there. At least +W escaped (as he once put it) from the "denaturing" of the Americans back to Old Blighty ! He never did adopt American spellings although he has some good turns of phrase even if his Mother was an American.
-
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
I disagree.
Granted, what you say is probably true and has long been understood by most sedes (and a handful of Ecclesia Dei trads like myself).
However, in light of the R&R mythology of Mgr Lefebvre as a consistent and principled anti-sede, his public cooperation with a sedevacantist Bishop de Castro Mayer -- especially in the matter of the liturgical consecration of bishops -- raises several questions.
As you rightfully say, it's mythology. They follow a narrative, and hold to it like gospel truth. Look at this issue of Bp. Castro de Mayer, it has been a long accepted fact that he was a sedevacantist, but it doesn't fit the narrative.
The same with Archbishop Lefebvre, it is commonly known that he saw sedevacantism as a real possibility, and many believed that he was most likely privately a sedevacantist by the mid-80's. But again, it does not fit the narrative.
The narrative must be defended at all costs.
A point which no-one has proved is an historical fact (for some here didn't Bishop Williamson have some trouble with this kind of thinking ?)
He sure did, but he was dealing with some big fish.
Almost all of us bad "sedes" would give Bp. Williamson the honor and respect he deserves even if we disagreed on this one issue.
-
When a narrative forms, whether it is true or false it has real power, and it is not easy to see through it, once one embraces it.
I agree if the text began: "When a narrative is formed..." passive mood not active.
Thanks got the correction. If I only had a proper Catholic school in my youth, how much better I would have been at so many things.
Oh I wasn't correcting your grammar just rephrasing your impeccable English to say something different from what you meant.
-
I must make at least one more contribution to this exceedingly dull and unenlightened thread.
:laugh1:
-
I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.
The fact I support and promote traditional liturgy and devotions does not make me a sede. Nor does one person--and there is only one of me--constitute and invasion.
For now... Doctrinally speaking, Francis is no worse than his "uncle" in the papacy, BUT..
The contrast is sort of like that weirdo most of us know/have encountered but will never admit to, who has a penchant for texting pictures of his latest "deposit". So long as the phone doesn't convey stink, he's easy enough to tolerate - simply ignore his texts. Francis however, is the sci-fi tech combination. His stench wafts out along with the notification beep. He's impossible to ignore, and given the chance, will eventually test the tolerance for inconsistency of us all, in addition to our threshold of intellectual pain.
-
I am not a sedvacantist either. But I do consider the NO as intrinsically evil. V2 was the greatest evil, so much so, in fact that it makes little difference whether it was "valid" or not. Like ABL, I believe the conciliar church to be an illegitimate parallel church, overseen and run by "anti-Christs" and clerics who have "left the Faith." But in order to avoid the possiblility of not going to Heaven, I must reluctantly concede that Francis is the pope and do my best to "unite" myself to him. This is an insane declaration, I know, but then, we live in an insane period. Traditional Catholicism, IMO, is on life supports.
:confused1:
-
Wallflower, in case you got lost sometime between when you replied to me and now (which I think is very likely) I answered your question on page forty of this thread: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31535&min=195&num=5
I would also like to add (since it's too late) a relevant quote from McHugh and Callan on moral certainty, and it's much too late to edit my reply:
643. Kinds of Certitude.--Judgments may be certain in a greater or less
degree.
(a) They are metaphysically certain, when error is absolutely
impossible, the opposite of what is held by the mind being a
contradiction in terms which omnipotence itself could not make true.
Example: The judgments that the same, identical act cannot be both good
and bad, that good is to be done and evil to be avoided, that God is to
be honored, are metaphysically certain, since they result immediately
from the very concepts of being, of goodness, and of God.
(b) Judgments are physically certain, when error is impossible
according to the laws of nature, the opposite of what is held by the
mind being unrealizable except through intervention of another cause.
Example: The judgments that he who takes poison will destroy life, that
he who applies fire to a house will destroy property, are physically
certain. because natural agencies, like poison and fire, act infallibly
when applied to suitable matters and under suitable conditions and left
to their course, unless they are overruled by superior power.
(c) Judgments are morally certain, when error is impossible according
to what is customary among mankind, the opposite of what is held by the
mind being so unlikely that it would be imprudent to be moved by it.
Examples: One is morally certain that what a reputedly truthful and
competent person relates to one is true. A person is morally certain
that a conclusion he has drawn about his duty in a particular instance
is correct, if he believes that he has overlooked no means of reaching
the truth. Testimony and inference, since they come from free and
fallible agencies, may lead into error; but, when they appear to have
the requisite qualities indicative of truth, they are for the most part
reliable and in practical life have to be considered as such.
...
644. As to the certainty that is required in the judgment of
conscience, the following points must be noted:
(a) Metaphysical certainty is not required, since conscience does not
deal with primary propositions, but with deductions about particular
acts. The first moral principles, which are the object of synderesis,
and at least some of the general conclusions, which are the object of
moral science, are metaphysically certain (see above 145, 300), as they
are based on necessary relations; but the particular conclusions, which
are the object of conscience, are concerned with the contingent and the
individual.
(b) Physical certainty is not required for the judgment of conscience,
since conscience is not concerned with the activities of natural
agents, but with the activities of moral agents that act with freedom
and responsibility.
(c) Moral certitude, therefore, is sufficient for the conclusions drawn
by conscience. That a higher kind of certitude is not necessary should
not surprise us, for it would be unreasonable to expect that the same
degree of assent be given to judgments that are concerned with
particular and contingent cases as to those that are concerned with
universal and necessary principles.
...
646. Moral certitude in the wide sense is sufficient for a safe
conscience, even in matters of great importance, since it is frequently
the only kind of certitude one can have, and he who would strive to be
free from every slight and baseless suspicion would be soon involved in
a maze of scruples and perplexities.
Source: McHugh and Callan (https://archive.org/stream/moraltheologyaco35354gut/pg35354.txt)
-
A current poll shows their growing domination of this forum (which by the way has nothing to do with the antics of Pope Francis, as they would like to believe, but because the word has gotten out that Matthew makes them welcome here).
I think you're exaggerating!
For the umpteenth time, Sean, I am not a sedevacantist.
I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.
The fact I support and promote traditional liturgy and devotions does not make me a sede. Nor does one person--and there is only one of me--constitute and invasion.
If you re-read the thread, you might notice I never accused you of being a sede.
-
The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !
All joking aside, you seem surprised that the Resistance movement appears to have one foot in sedevacantism. Why?
Yes, that was quite clear from the Fr. Pfeiffer sermon :facepalm:
-
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?
I'm pretty sure Mith understands what Pete does not:
That the debunking of the CDM/Sede theory is about to be debunked as soon as TIA responds.
-
June 30, 1988
Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
After the Consecration Sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, the co-consecrating bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, gave a short allocution which was very warmly applauded. He read it in Portuguese and it was translated afterwards into French and then into German and English.
My presence here at this ceremony is caused by a duty of conscience: that of making a profession of Catholic Faith in front of the whole Church and more particularly in front of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in front of all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a profession of faith at every moment. But when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even if it be at the risk of one’s own life.
Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis of the Church, a crisis that attacks her inner essence, in her very substance which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, two mysteries essentially united because without priesthood there is no sacrifice of the Mass and therefore no form of worship. It is also on this foundation that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is built.
For this reason, because the conservation of the priesthood and the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and pressures of many, I am here in order to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of faith.
It is painful to witness the deplorable blindness of so many confrères in the episcopate and in the priesthood who do not see or do not want to see the present crisis nor the necessity to resist the reigning modernism in order to be faithful to the mission entrusted to us by God.
I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
May the Most Holy Virgin Our Mother, who at Fatima has warned us in her motherly love with regard to the gravity of the present situation, give us the grace to be able by our attitude to help and enlighten the faithful in such a way that they depart from these pernicious errors of which they are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost.
May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work!
Thanks for this - despite the other allegations this is the public record of his intention.
Great that you posted this, but there is nothing in the speech contra sedevacantism.
Neither is there anything in favor - seems like the Archbishop R & R to me.
If there is nothing for and against, to which I agree, it is not relevant to this discussion.
You are reading the wrong CDM material.
This was his sermon.
His sedeplentist remarks were from a speech on the occasion, which TIA is shortly to supply.
-
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You really believe the Resistance in its current state will be able to compete one-on-one with the sedes?
:laugh2:
Far as I can tell, the Resistance faithful already equal the entire sede population after only 2+ years (vs 50+ yrs of sede existence).
-
The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !
All joking aside, you seem surprised that the Resistance movement appears to have one foot in sedevacantism. Why?
Cleverly put.
No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)
You are obviously out of sync with CMRI. Their chapels are growing all over, and the priests cannot keep up with the demand for new locations.
The CMRI situation is the exact opposite of emptying chapels as you assert. I cannot speak of SSPV and would not recommend them anyway.
Btw, we are not shock troops. I do not report to anyone, and I am in no army but the Church militant. Your analysis of us is grossly biased. I say and do what I do, because I love the Church and the truth.
If CMRI sold out to the Conciliar church, I would drop them immediately. I am a Catholic not a member of any group. Your assertions against us are unjust.
Um...would you pretend the worldwide CMRI population exceeded 20k?
And the entire worldwide sede population exceeded 40K?
-
Interestingly, it seems Mr Lane is following this thread and has posted some more in regards to the de Castro Mayer question, I will cross post it here for people to read:
Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations in 1988 telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." Multiple witnesses confirm this fact.
Somebody is quoting Don McLean on another forum as if it could overturn the witness testimony. Here is Don McLean's argument. "It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
Now, I happen to recall this and in fact I visited Don at his home near Melbourne when this controversy had just broken. Bill Morgan, who was at the consecrations as a guest of the Archbishop (his good friend) had published the fact that Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." This was very clear and specific testimony. Don got it into his head that if he listened to the recording of de Castro Mayer's speech and the words were not there, then that would constitute proof that Bill Morgan's report was false. Not only did he listen to the speech on tape, but he told me he had the entire thing transcribed, translated, and (ultimately) published in Catholic! No sign of the offending words was found, and so Don believed that he had killed the story. I tried to point out that his evidence did not bear on the claim at all (nobody claimed that de Castro Mayer said anything in his speech), but Don was not listening.
Many years later I enjoyed a breakfast with Fr. Schmidberger and I asked him if it was true that Bishop de Castro Mayer had said the words attributed to him. He said, "Yes."
I don't think any serious person disputes the facts now. It's exceedingly odd that we keep seeing Don McLean's non-argument presented as if it could settle the matter, but I imagine that's because such people get their information only via the Internet.
I can also testify to various communications (including via telephone) I have had with a retired airline pilot from Brazil, whose name is Arai Daniele, who was a good friend of Bishop de Castro Mayer's. He used to act as a private courier between de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre, since he himself was flying regularly between Brazil and France. Arai is vehement that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. He also describes an environment of hostility to sedevacantism surrounding the bishop, so that his entourage would go to great lengths to try and prevent his sedevacantist friends getting into his presence, and would obfuscate de Castro Mayer's true views to those not in a position to know. Evidently they felt that the old man had gone a bit potty and his image needed to be protected from himself.
Here is the link to the thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Since it seems Mr Lane is following this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to thank John Lane, as well as John S Daly and many others, for the work they have done on Bellarmine forums and elsewhere researching these important questions. I have found their research helpful in maintaining some semblance of Catholic sanity. Thanks again and God bless !
:cheers:
-
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?
But the Archbishop himself was not an anti-sedevacantist. The quotes have circulated through here umpteen times-- quotes that span many years, indicating that while ABL was not a sedevacantist, neither was he opposed to it in principle, on the contrary he publicly addressed his own seminarians in 1986 and said that if things continue as they are (so, thirty years ago) we could be OBLIGED to be sedevacantists.
Heck, I don't even say anyone is OBLIGED to be a sedevacantist.
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.
"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.
"We are the Catholic Church.
"I don't say that.
"I don't accept that.
"That is schism.
"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?
"Where?
"Where is the authority of the Church?
"Where is our leader in the Church?
"We can't know where we are going.
"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.
"We must pray for this pope.
"But don't say that he is not the pope."
There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.
-
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
I disagree.
Granted, what you say is probably true and has long been understood by most sedes (and a handful of Ecclesia Dei trads like myself).
However, in light of the R&R mythology of Mgr Lefebvre as a consistent and principled anti-sede, his public cooperation with a sedevacantist Bishop de Castro Mayer -- especially in the matter of the liturgical consecration of bishops -- raises several questions.
The de-bunking of this whopper cometh quickly!
-
PV:For the umpteenth time, Sean, I am not a sedevacantist.
I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.
I must make at least one more contribution to this exceedingly dull and unenlightened thread. I am not a sedvacantist either. But I do consider the NO as intrinsically evil. V2 was the greatest evil, so much so, in fact that it makes little difference whether it was "valid" or not. Like ABL, I believe the conciliar church to be an illegitimate parallel church, overseen and run by "anti-Christs" and clerics who have "left the Faith." But in order to avoid the possiblility of not going to Heaven, I must reluctantly concede that Francis is the pope and do my best to "unite" myself to him. This is an insane declaration, I know, but then, we live in an insane period. Traditional Catholicism, IMO, is on life supports.
Thanks hollingsworth. As self-contradictory as I find your position expressed above, I can respect you for being honest in recognizing these contradictions. I am sure you are someone who in real life, like Sean Johnson, I would enjoy riding and drinking beer with.
Same here, Pete!
Adversaries need not be enemies.
It is manly competition in my mind, to test one's convicions, and see if one's side prevails, not animus.
-
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?
But the Archbishop himself was not an anti-sedevacantist. The quotes have circulated through here umpteen times-- quotes that span many years, indicating that while ABL was not a sedevacantist, neither was he opposed to it in principle, on the contrary he publicly addressed his own seminarians in 1986 and said that if things continue as they are (so, thirty years ago) we could be OBLIGED to be sedevacantists.
Heck, I don't even say anyone is OBLIGED to be a sedevacantist.
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.
"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.
"We are the Catholic Church.
"I don't say that.
"I don't accept that.
"That is schism.
"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?
"Where?
"Where is the authority of the Church?
"Where is our leader in the Church?
"We can't know where we are going.
"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.
"We must pray for this pope.
"But don't say that he is not the pope."
There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.
I remember this. It was given in 1983, yes? As I mentioned earlier, my observation is that ABL was at least cautiously optimistic about JPII, and there is a seeming lack of "hardline" quotes in the very early 80's.
Three years later, he was telling his seminarians they might have to become sedevacantists if the apostasy doesn't stop. Has it stopped?
And five years earlier he posed quite a few difficult questions to Fideliter, I believe (unsure about the magazine's name, but sure about the time period and the sedevacantist inquiry he entertained).
Also the quote you've given is from IHM, yes? Well, knowing ABL to be the diplomat that he was, and trying to keep trads together rather than needlessly divide them, it is perfectly reasonable to think that he might cater to his audience a bit. I do not say that this is wrong, especially considering his own undecidedness on the issue, but it certainly paints a different picture than the typical "anti-SV ABL" we have all become so accustomed to hearing about.
The only thing your quote proves, I think, is that ABL's method of approach was a reactive one, applying Catholic principles to the situation as it changed. Toward the end of Paul VI's ruin when the N.O. was in full swing, he was entertaining sedevacantism publicly. In the early 80's he was not so sure JPII was a Church-wrecker so he tried to stay closer to him; and then after Assisi and the modernist trap in '88 he was back to how he had been in the late seventies.
If this is intended to prove that he was anti-sedevacantism, it doesn't. That he had some issues with some sedevacantISTS is granted-- you'll notice that 1983 was the year of the split with the nine. A lot of bad feelings around that.
-
Abp. Marcel Lefebvre not only acknowledged the legitimacy of the pope, but denied the possibility that sedevacantism could be true. In his words:
"As with the question of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo, those who affirm that there is no Pope over simplify the problem. The reality is more complex. If one begins to study the question of whether or not a Pope can be heretical, one quickly discovers that the problem is not as simple as one might have thought. The very objective study of Xaverio de Silveira on this subject demonstrates that a good number of theologians teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian, but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. [....]
The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an extricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others".
-
Interestingly, it seems Mr Lane is following this thread and has posted some more in regards to the de Castro Mayer question, I will cross post it here for people to read:
Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations in 1988 telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." Multiple witnesses confirm this fact.
Somebody is quoting Don McLean on another forum as if it could overturn the witness testimony. Here is Don McLean's argument. "It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
Now, I happen to recall this and in fact I visited Don at his home near Melbourne when this controversy had just broken. Bill Morgan, who was at the consecrations as a guest of the Archbishop (his good friend) had published the fact that Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." This was very clear and specific testimony. Don got it into his head that if he listened to the recording of de Castro Mayer's speech and the words were not there, then that would constitute proof that Bill Morgan's report was false. Not only did he listen to the speech on tape, but he told me he had the entire thing transcribed, translated, and (ultimately) published in Catholic! No sign of the offending words was found, and so Don believed that he had killed the story. I tried to point out that his evidence did not bear on the claim at all (nobody claimed that de Castro Mayer said anything in his speech), but Don was not listening.
Many years later I enjoyed a breakfast with Fr. Schmidberger and I asked him if it was true that Bishop de Castro Mayer had said the words attributed to him. He said, "Yes."
I don't think any serious person disputes the facts now. It's exceedingly odd that we keep seeing Don McLean's non-argument presented as if it could settle the matter, but I imagine that's because such people get their information only via the Internet.
I can also testify to various communications (including via telephone) I have had with a retired airline pilot from Brazil, whose name is Arai Daniele, who was a good friend of Bishop de Castro Mayer's. He used to act as a private courier between de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre, since he himself was flying regularly between Brazil and France. Arai is vehement that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. He also describes an environment of hostility to sedevacantism surrounding the bishop, so that his entourage would go to great lengths to try and prevent his sedevacantist friends getting into his presence, and would obfuscate de Castro Mayer's true views to those not in a position to know. Evidently they felt that the old man had gone a bit potty and his image needed to be protected from himself.
Here is the link to the thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Since it seems Mr Lane is following this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to thank John Lane, as well as John S Daly and many others, for the work they have done on Bellarmine forums and elsewhere researching these important questions. I have found their research helpful in maintaining some semblance of Catholic sanity. Thanks again and God bless !
:cheers:
It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).
When the TIA response from Mr. Guimaraes arrives, we shall kniow soon enough what it proves or does not prove.
-
PV:For the umpteenth time, Sean, I am not a sedevacantist.
I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.
I must make at least one more contribution to this exceedingly dull and unenlightened thread. I am not a sedvacantist either. But I do consider the NO as intrinsically evil. V2 was the greatest evil, so much so, in fact that it makes little difference whether it was "valid" or not. Like ABL, I believe the conciliar church to be an illegitimate parallel church, overseen and run by "anti-Christs" and clerics who have "left the Faith." But in order to avoid the possiblility of not going to Heaven, I must reluctantly concede that Francis is the pope and do my best to "unite" myself to him. This is an insane declaration, I know, but then, we live in an insane period. Traditional Catholicism, IMO, is on life supports.
Thanks hollingsworth. As self-contradictory as I find your position expressed above, I can respect you for being honest in recognizing these contradictions. I am sure you are someone who in real life, like Sean Johnson, I would enjoy riding and drinking beer with.
Same here, Pete!
Adversaries need not be enemies.
It is manly competition in my mind, to test one's convicions, and see if one's side prevails, not animus.
:cheers:
-
Sean, is this the speech you are waiting for the transcript of ?
From the same thread on Bellarmine: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Here is the speech. There's nothing in it which is incompatible with the reported informal statements of Bishop de Castro Mayer on the same day. His statement, "I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries," is merely referring to the decision to continue to resist Modernism and go ahead and consecrate bishops despite the protests of the Modernists.
Quote:
June 30, 1988
Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
After the Consecration Sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, the co-consecrating bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, gave a short allocution which was very warmly applauded. He read it in Portuguese and it was translated afterwards into French and then into German and English.
My presence here at this ceremony is caused by a duty of conscience: that of making a profession of Catholic Faith in front of the whole Church and more particularly in front of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in front of all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a profession of faith at every moment. But when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even if it be at the risk of one’s own life.
Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis of the Church, a crisis that attacks her inner essence, in her very substance which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, two mysteries essentially united because without priesthood there is no sacrifice of the Mass and therefore no form of worship. It is also on this foundation that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is built.
For this reason, because the conservation of the priesthood and the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and pressures of many, I am here in order to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of faith.
It is painful to witness the deplorable blindness of so many confrères in the episcopate and in the priesthood who do not see or do not want to see the present crisis nor the necessity to resist the reigning modernism in order to be faithful to the mission entrusted to us by God.
I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
May the Most Holy Virgin Our Mother, who at Fatima has warned us in her motherly love with regard to the gravity of the present situation, give us the grace to be able by our attitude to help and enlighten the faithful in such a way that they depart from these pernicious errors of which they are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost.
May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work!
-
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?
But the Archbishop himself was not an anti-sedevacantist. The quotes have circulated through here umpteen times-- quotes that span many years, indicating that while ABL was not a sedevacantist, neither was he opposed to it in principle, on the contrary he publicly addressed his own seminarians in 1986 and said that if things continue as they are (so, thirty years ago) we could be OBLIGED to be sedevacantists.
Heck, I don't even say anyone is OBLIGED to be a sedevacantist.
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.
"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.
"We are the Catholic Church.
"I don't say that.
"I don't accept that.
"That is schism.
"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?
"Where?
"Where is the authority of the Church?
"Where is our leader in the Church?
"We can't know where we are going.
"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.
"We must pray for this pope.
"But don't say that he is not the pope."
There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.
I remember this. It was given in 1983, yes? As I mentioned earlier, my observation is that ABL was at least cautiously optimistic about JPII, and there is a seeming lack of "hardline" quotes in the very early 80's.
Three years later, he was telling his seminarians they might have to become sedevacantists if the apostasy doesn't stop. Has it stopped?
And five years earlier he posed quite a few difficult questions to Fideliter, I believe (unsure about the magazine's name, but sure about the time period and the sedevacantist inquiry he entertained).
Also the quote you've given is from IHM, yes? Well, knowing ABL to be the diplomat that he was, and trying to keep trads together rather than needlessly divide them, it is perfectly reasonable to think that he might cater to his audience a bit. I do not say that this is wrong, especially considering his own undecidedness on the issue, but it certainly paints a different picture than the typical "anti-SV ABL" we have all become so accustomed to hearing about.
The only thing your quote proves, I think, is that ABL's method of approach was a reactive one, applying Catholic principles to the situation as it changed. Toward the end of Paul VI's ruin when the N.O. was in full swing, he was entertaining sedevacantism publicly. In the early 80's he was not so sure JPII was a Church-wrecker so he tried to stay closer to him; and then after Assisi and the modernist trap in '88 he was back to how he had been in the late seventies.
If this is intended to prove that he was anti-sedevacantism, it doesn't. That he had some issues with some sedevacantISTS is granted-- you'll notice that 1983 was the year of the split with the nine. A lot of bad feelings around that.
One reading of your response would imply ABL was uncertain, unstable, wavering from one position to another, and therefore unreliable.
Another reading would be that he was simply reactive to the changing circuмstances (i.e., prudent rather than principled, which throws a monkey-wrentch into the argument that "no agreement before the doctrinal issues are resolved" was a matter of principle rather than prudence).
And in this latter case, why not extend the same courtesy to Bishop Fellay:
"Yes, we had to resist Rome for a long time, but then things changed under BXVI, so I was willing to see if he was serious, but then he renigges, and under Francis we have to be firm again."
In other words, is Bishop Fellay really a liberal (as the Resistances charges him with), or like Lefebvre, is he just "reactive?"
-
It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).
Lane is not pretending. I know this because over 20 years ago we had an online exchange on this issue after I challenged him and James McNally (Jim was a sede on very friendly terms with the Indult) on their claim that Mgr dCM was a sede.
Shortly thereafter I was taken aside privately by friends who were present at the 1988 consecrations, but adopted the indult position afterward. They corroborated sede claims of the Bishop dCM's sedevacantist statements at the 1988 consecrations.
Which is why I will be very interested if the docuмents you obtain, Sean, resolve the controversy the way you believe they will. This would force many to re-evaluate their understanding of the event--myself included.
That being said, right I agree with Lane and others that the evidence leans heavily toward Mgr de Castro Mayer having been a sedevacantist.
-
Sean, is this the speech you are waiting for the transcript of ?
From the same thread on Bellarmine: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Here is the speech. There's nothing in it which is incompatible with the reported informal statements of Bishop de Castro Mayer on the same day. His statement, "I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries," is merely referring to the decision to continue to resist Modernism and go ahead and consecrate bishops despite the protests of the Modernists.
Quote:
June 30, 1988
Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
After the Consecration Sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, the co-consecrating bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, gave a short allocution which was very warmly applauded. He read it in Portuguese and it was translated afterwards into French and then into German and English.
My presence here at this ceremony is caused by a duty of conscience: that of making a profession of Catholic Faith in front of the whole Church and more particularly in front of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in front of all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a profession of faith at every moment. But when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even if it be at the risk of one’s own life.
Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis of the Church, a crisis that attacks her inner essence, in her very substance which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, two mysteries essentially united because without priesthood there is no sacrifice of the Mass and therefore no form of worship. It is also on this foundation that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is built.
For this reason, because the conservation of the priesthood and the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and pressures of many, I am here in order to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of faith.
It is painful to witness the deplorable blindness of so many confrères in the episcopate and in the priesthood who do not see or do not want to see the present crisis nor the necessity to resist the reigning modernism in order to be faithful to the mission entrusted to us by God.
I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
May the Most Holy Virgin Our Mother, who at Fatima has warned us in her motherly love with regard to the gravity of the present situation, give us the grace to be able by our attitude to help and enlighten the faithful in such a way that they depart from these pernicious errors of which they are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost.
May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work!
Luke-
Since I do not know what the speech is that TIA has recorded from Econe, I am in no position to answer the question.
-
Interestingly, it seems Mr Lane is following this thread and has posted some more in regards to the de Castro Mayer question, I will cross post it here for people to read:
Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations in 1988 telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." Multiple witnesses confirm this fact.
Somebody is quoting Don McLean on another forum as if it could overturn the witness testimony. Here is Don McLean's argument. "It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
Now, I happen to recall this and in fact I visited Don at his home near Melbourne when this controversy had just broken. Bill Morgan, who was at the consecrations as a guest of the Archbishop (his good friend) had published the fact that Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." This was very clear and specific testimony. Don got it into his head that if he listened to the recording of de Castro Mayer's speech and the words were not there, then that would constitute proof that Bill Morgan's report was false. Not only did he listen to the speech on tape, but he told me he had the entire thing transcribed, translated, and (ultimately) published in Catholic! No sign of the offending words was found, and so Don believed that he had killed the story. I tried to point out that his evidence did not bear on the claim at all (nobody claimed that de Castro Mayer said anything in his speech), but Don was not listening.
Many years later I enjoyed a breakfast with Fr. Schmidberger and I asked him if it was true that Bishop de Castro Mayer had said the words attributed to him. He said, "Yes."
I don't think any serious person disputes the facts now. It's exceedingly odd that we keep seeing Don McLean's non-argument presented as if it could settle the matter, but I imagine that's because such people get their information only via the Internet.
I can also testify to various communications (including via telephone) I have had with a retired airline pilot from Brazil, whose name is Arai Daniele, who was a good friend of Bishop de Castro Mayer's. He used to act as a private courier between de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre, since he himself was flying regularly between Brazil and France. Arai is vehement that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. He also describes an environment of hostility to sedevacantism surrounding the bishop, so that his entourage would go to great lengths to try and prevent his sedevacantist friends getting into his presence, and would obfuscate de Castro Mayer's true views to those not in a position to know. Evidently they felt that the old man had gone a bit potty and his image needed to be protected from himself.
Here is the link to the thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Since it seems Mr Lane is following this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to thank John Lane, as well as John S Daly and many others, for the work they have done on Bellarmine forums and elsewhere researching these important questions. I have found their research helpful in maintaining some semblance of Catholic sanity. Thanks again and God bless !
:cheers:
It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).
When the TIA response from Mr. Guimaraes arrives, we shall kniow soon enough what it proves or does not prove.
There is no contradiction, so I do not see the humor. John Lane and Pete Vere have both said repeatedly that he did not say "there is no pope" in the speech, but at the event outside of the speech.
The speech will not prove them wrong, and it will only show you what they have told you multiple times. This has been made clear to you repeatedly, why are you not able to understand it?
-
Interestingly, it seems Mr Lane is following this thread and has posted some more in regards to the de Castro Mayer question, I will cross post it here for people to read:
Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations in 1988 telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." Multiple witnesses confirm this fact.
Somebody is quoting Don McLean on another forum as if it could overturn the witness testimony. Here is Don McLean's argument. "It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
Now, I happen to recall this and in fact I visited Don at his home near Melbourne when this controversy had just broken. Bill Morgan, who was at the consecrations as a guest of the Archbishop (his good friend) had published the fact that Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." This was very clear and specific testimony. Don got it into his head that if he listened to the recording of de Castro Mayer's speech and the words were not there, then that would constitute proof that Bill Morgan's report was false. Not only did he listen to the speech on tape, but he told me he had the entire thing transcribed, translated, and (ultimately) published in Catholic! No sign of the offending words was found, and so Don believed that he had killed the story. I tried to point out that his evidence did not bear on the claim at all (nobody claimed that de Castro Mayer said anything in his speech), but Don was not listening.
Many years later I enjoyed a breakfast with Fr. Schmidberger and I asked him if it was true that Bishop de Castro Mayer had said the words attributed to him. He said, "Yes."
I don't think any serious person disputes the facts now. It's exceedingly odd that we keep seeing Don McLean's non-argument presented as if it could settle the matter, but I imagine that's because such people get their information only via the Internet.
I can also testify to various communications (including via telephone) I have had with a retired airline pilot from Brazil, whose name is Arai Daniele, who was a good friend of Bishop de Castro Mayer's. He used to act as a private courier between de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre, since he himself was flying regularly between Brazil and France. Arai is vehement that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. He also describes an environment of hostility to sedevacantism surrounding the bishop, so that his entourage would go to great lengths to try and prevent his sedevacantist friends getting into his presence, and would obfuscate de Castro Mayer's true views to those not in a position to know. Evidently they felt that the old man had gone a bit potty and his image needed to be protected from himself.
Here is the link to the thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Since it seems Mr Lane is following this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to thank John Lane, as well as John S Daly and many others, for the work they have done on Bellarmine forums and elsewhere researching these important questions. I have found their research helpful in maintaining some semblance of Catholic sanity. Thanks again and God bless !
:cheers:
It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).
When the TIA response from Mr. Guimaraes arrives, we shall kniow soon enough what it proves or does not prove.
There is no contradiction, so I do not see the humor. John Lane and Pete Vere have both said repeatedly that he did not say "there is no pope" in the speech, but at the event outside of the speech.
The speech will not prove them wrong, and it will only show you what they have told you multiple times. This has been made clear to you repeatedly, why are you not able to understand it?
TIA alleges they have a speech from the same event which contradicts your narrative.
Why are you so determined I should not receive it?
-
It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).
Lane is not pretending. I know this because over 20 years ago we had an online exchange on this issue after I challenged him and James McNally (Jim was a sede on very friendly terms with the Indult) on their claim that Mgr dCM was a sede.
Shortly thereafter I was taken aside privately by friends who were present at the 1988 consecrations, but adopted the indult position afterward. They corroborated sede claims of the Bishop dCM's sedevacantist statements at the 1988 consecrations.
Which is why I will be very interested if the docuмents you obtain, Sean, resolve the controversy the way you believe they will. This would force many to re-evaluate their understanding of the event--myself included.
That being said, right I agree with Lane and others that the evidence leans heavily toward Mgr de Castro Mayer having been a sedevacantist.
Pete,
I am happy to see a man who puts the truth first. I find it edifying that you as a "non-sede" will put the truth first even if it is in favor of the "sede" position.
You could count me in your list of those that would have a beer with you. :cheers:
-
And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand. Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false? I don't know. Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.
Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?
But the Archbishop himself was not an anti-sedevacantist. The quotes have circulated through here umpteen times-- quotes that span many years, indicating that while ABL was not a sedevacantist, neither was he opposed to it in principle, on the contrary he publicly addressed his own seminarians in 1986 and said that if things continue as they are (so, thirty years ago) we could be OBLIGED to be sedevacantists.
Heck, I don't even say anyone is OBLIGED to be a sedevacantist.
The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.
"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.
"We are the Catholic Church.
"I don't say that.
"I don't accept that.
"That is schism.
"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?
"Where?
"Where is the authority of the Church?
"Where is our leader in the Church?
"We can't know where we are going.
"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.
"We must pray for this pope.
"But don't say that he is not the pope."
There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.
I remember this. It was given in 1983, yes? As I mentioned earlier, my observation is that ABL was at least cautiously optimistic about JPII, and there is a seeming lack of "hardline" quotes in the very early 80's.
Three years later, he was telling his seminarians they might have to become sedevacantists if the apostasy doesn't stop. Has it stopped?
And five years earlier he posed quite a few difficult questions to Fideliter, I believe (unsure about the magazine's name, but sure about the time period and the sedevacantist inquiry he entertained).
Also the quote you've given is from IHM, yes? Well, knowing ABL to be the diplomat that he was, and trying to keep trads together rather than needlessly divide them, it is perfectly reasonable to think that he might cater to his audience a bit. I do not say that this is wrong, especially considering his own undecidedness on the issue, but it certainly paints a different picture than the typical "anti-SV ABL" we have all become so accustomed to hearing about.
The only thing your quote proves, I think, is that ABL's method of approach was a reactive one, applying Catholic principles to the situation as it changed. Toward the end of Paul VI's ruin when the N.O. was in full swing, he was entertaining sedevacantism publicly. In the early 80's he was not so sure JPII was a Church-wrecker so he tried to stay closer to him; and then after Assisi and the modernist trap in '88 he was back to how he had been in the late seventies.
If this is intended to prove that he was anti-sedevacantism, it doesn't. That he had some issues with some sedevacantISTS is granted-- you'll notice that 1983 was the year of the split with the nine. A lot of bad feelings around that.
One reading of your response would imply ABL was uncertain, unstable, wavering from one position to another, and therefore unreliable.
Another reading would be that he was simply reactive to the changing circuмstances (i.e., prudent rather than principled, which throws a monkey-wrentch into the argument that "no agreement before the doctrinal issues are resolved" was a matter of principle rather than prudence).
And in this latter case, why not extend the same courtesy to Bishop Fellay:
"Yes, we had to resist Rome for a long time, but then things changed under BXVI, so I was willing to see if he was serious, but then he renigges, and under Francis we have to be firm again."
In other words, is Bishop Fellay really a liberal (as the Resistances charges him with), or like Lefebvre, is he just "reactive?"
That is absolutely not my intention. I think Archbishop Lefebvre was a saint, and after Pius X probably the greatest of the last century.
I do think that he was uncertain about the legitimacy of the papacies, yes. And I do not think that is a bad thing or indicative of anything other than a thoughtful and careful approach. A doubt must be resolved. Acting before resolution often leads to, or is the result of rash judgement.
The difference between ABL and Fellay is that Fellay is doing this more than a generation into the crisis. ABL was not. I think it is reasonable to say +Fellay "should know better" after seeing what the modernists have already put the society through.
BUT
At the same time, you have a point inasmuch as, for someone who "recognizes" the authority (and recognizes it much more than ABL did) he is compelled to "reconcile" with the authority. I cannot hold the logic against Fellay, only the difference in judgement as to the status of who he is recognizing.
But to compare them much further than that would be folly, I think. ABL did not recognize the new mass as legitimate. ABL withdrew his protocol. Fellay has never made it clear if it was withdrawn or not, and depending on who you ask it was or wasn't. ABL did not hold priests to unjust and fake canonical trials. ABL did not use subterfuge to remove those who disagreed with him. The list goes on.
-
When the TIA response from Mr. Guimaraes arrives, we shall kniow soon enough what it proves or does not prove.
There is no contradiction, so I do not see the humor. John Lane and Pete Vere have both said repeatedly that he did not say "there is no pope" in the speech, but at the event outside of the speech.
At this point all of us who have taken a position on this controversy are "all in" to use a poker analogy.
We will see what the river turns up.
Sean thinks it will be Bishop de Castro Mayer's explicitly recognizing John Paul II as a valid pope. If so, I agree with him that it calls into question the testimony of the many who claim to have heard Bishop dCM declare a state of sedevacante during the consecrations.
Personally, I will be surprised if his speech resolves the controversy one way or another. I am guessing that it will have been written in such a way that both R&R and sede can agree with its content.
-
Pete,
I am happy to see a man who puts the truth first. I find it edifying that you as a "non-sede" will put the truth first even if it is in favor of the "sede" position.
You could count me in your list of those that would have a beer with you. :cheers:
Thanks Ambrose. That would be a first since I have never actually drunk a beer with a sede. It seems that most of my sede friends prefer scotch.
So I am up for either a beer or a scotch if you ever find yourself in these parts!
-
Just to add to the list of differences (too late to edit)
I was not even alive at the time, but I doubt that under ABL the SSPX at large stopped preaching about the crisis. Priests certainly weren't reprimanded like dear Fr. Hewko was for giving a sermon he's given a thousand times.
-
Interestingly, it seems Mr Lane is following this thread and has posted some more in regards to the de Castro Mayer question, I will cross post it here for people to read:
Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations in 1988 telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." Multiple witnesses confirm this fact.
Somebody is quoting Don McLean on another forum as if it could overturn the witness testimony. Here is Don McLean's argument. "It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
Now, I happen to recall this and in fact I visited Don at his home near Melbourne when this controversy had just broken. Bill Morgan, who was at the consecrations as a guest of the Archbishop (his good friend) had published the fact that Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." This was very clear and specific testimony. Don got it into his head that if he listened to the recording of de Castro Mayer's speech and the words were not there, then that would constitute proof that Bill Morgan's report was false. Not only did he listen to the speech on tape, but he told me he had the entire thing transcribed, translated, and (ultimately) published in Catholic! No sign of the offending words was found, and so Don believed that he had killed the story. I tried to point out that his evidence did not bear on the claim at all (nobody claimed that de Castro Mayer said anything in his speech), but Don was not listening.
Many years later I enjoyed a breakfast with Fr. Schmidberger and I asked him if it was true that Bishop de Castro Mayer had said the words attributed to him. He said, "Yes."
I don't think any serious person disputes the facts now. It's exceedingly odd that we keep seeing Don McLean's non-argument presented as if it could settle the matter, but I imagine that's because such people get their information only via the Internet.
I can also testify to various communications (including via telephone) I have had with a retired airline pilot from Brazil, whose name is Arai Daniele, who was a good friend of Bishop de Castro Mayer's. He used to act as a private courier between de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre, since he himself was flying regularly between Brazil and France. Arai is vehement that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. He also describes an environment of hostility to sedevacantism surrounding the bishop, so that his entourage would go to great lengths to try and prevent his sedevacantist friends getting into his presence, and would obfuscate de Castro Mayer's true views to those not in a position to know. Evidently they felt that the old man had gone a bit potty and his image needed to be protected from himself.
Here is the link to the thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Since it seems Mr Lane is following this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to thank John Lane, as well as John S Daly and many others, for the work they have done on Bellarmine forums and elsewhere researching these important questions. I have found their research helpful in maintaining some semblance of Catholic sanity. Thanks again and God bless !
:cheers:
It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).
When the TIA response from Mr. Guimaraes arrives, we shall kniow soon enough what it proves or does not prove.
There is no contradiction, so I do not see the humor. John Lane and Pete Vere have both said repeatedly that he did not say "there is no pope" in the speech, but at the event outside of the speech.
The speech will not prove them wrong, and it will only show you what they have told you multiple times. This has been made clear to you repeatedly, why are you not able to understand it?
TIA alleges they have a speech from the same event which contradicts your narrative.
Why are you so determined I should not receive it?
Relax. I never said that I hoped you wouldn't receive it. What I said is that I am certain that the speech will not contradict the testimony of the witnesses. I really believe the good bishop would not contradict himself on this matter.
I am looking forward to the speech. Are they sending you audio as well, or just their transcription?
-
The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist. Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.
-
.
This thread is a good example of why Fr. Pfeiffer does not use the Internet.
130 posts in the past 24 hours, and they're largely about him.
But he's not here to defend himself, therefore this is detraction.
Detraction is a sin.
But in his absence, he would probably say that he doesn't mind the free publicity.
.
-
.
-
.
This is one of the few good posts here:
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31535&min=240#p4)
For the umpteenth time, Sean, I am not a sedevacantist.
I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.
I must make at least one more contribution to this exceedingly dull and unenlightened thread. I am not a sedvacantist either. But I do consider the NO as intrinsically evil. V2 was the greatest evil, so much so, in fact that it makes little difference whether it was "valid" or not. Like ABL, I believe the conciliar church to be an illegitimate parallel church, overseen and run by "anti-Christs" and clerics who have "left the Faith." But in order to avoid the possibility of not going to Heaven, I must reluctantly concede that Francis is the pope and do my best to "unite" myself to him. This is an insane declaration, I know, but then, we live in an insane period. Traditional Catholicism, IMO, is on life support.
.
-
I should probably clarify, then, since Neil got that impression, that I do not intend to cast aspersions on Fr P's will, but only to observe that his theology is wrong and dangerous. It is SSPX novelty, and its purpose is to preserve the SSPX program on the crisis. I don't doubt that Fr believes the SSPX program IS the truth, but that doesn't justify his novel approach which necessarily bends Catholic teaching and understanding to fit into that program.
I know Fr is trying to figure his way through the crisis like the rest of us. But he isn't above criticism on such a serious issue with grave implications and consequences.
-
But he's not here to defend himself, therefore this is detraction.
Interesting. Would this also mean detraction on Fr P's part given that he attacked sedevacantists in a venue where they presumably were not around to defend themselves or their position?
-
http://filiimariae.over-blog.com/2014/05/sermon-conference-fr-joseph-pfeiffer-may-3-2014.html
Truly the product of an SSPX education, and a faithful disciple of ABL.
In case you didn't get the tongue-in-cheek... I really meant "SSPX indoctrination" as opposed to education. :rolleyes:
There were at least a dozen faulty analogies and quasi (if not outright) heresies in his sermon. If I was his superior I would send him to a monastery to study in silence for the remainder of his life.
The "resistance" is definitely in a tailspin. :facepalm:
Sorry to stretch this thread even more! I've been a Traditional Catholic in India since December 1993 but I seriously considered switching to the Novus Ordo during the period 2008-10 during the tenure of three "outstanding" SSPX priests.
-
For the umpteenth time, Sean, I am not a sedevacantist
I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.
I am not a sedvacantist either. But I do consider the NO as intrinsically evil. V2 was the greatest evil, so much so, in fact that it makes little difference whether it was "valid" or not. Like ABL, I believe the conciliar church to be an illegitimate parallel church, overseen and run by "anti-Christs" and clerics who have "left the Faith." But in order to avoid the possibility of not going to Heaven, I must reluctantly concede that Francis is the pope and do my best to "unite" myself to him. This is an insane declaration, I know, but then, we live in an insane period. Traditional Catholicism, IMO, is on life support.
So, dear Hollingsworth,
To save your soul, you consciously adhere to a man who is an anti-Christ, who with other anti-Christs, is running an intrinsically evil conciliar church, just because, at the same time, the same person is also in charge of the Catholic Church--to which you wish to belong?
What you are saying, it appears, is that, Monday through Saturday "your man" Francis has "left the Catholic faith," but on Sunday morning, he and the rest of the conciliar bishops, come crawling back into the Catholic Church from their conciliar perches, long enough to celebrate an invalid , protestant mass, and this makes them Catholic in your book?
If Brogoglio is, as you say, an anti-Christ head of a false conciliar church; He Cannot be the head of the Catholic Church. The same person cannot at once be both the devil AND the Vicar of CHRIST.
-
.
This thread is a good example of why Fr. Pfeiffer does not use the Internet.
130 posts in the past 24 hours, and they're largely about him.
But he's not here to defend himself, therefore this is detraction.
Detraction is a sin.
But in his absence, he would probably say that he doesn't mind the free publicity.
.
Yes, it is time to put this to rest.
Father Pfeiffer has his own view on things which comes from his SSPX formation. To those who are of the same mind, this probably was an outstanding sermon. To others it seems a bit off the mark in the pay of particular agenda which is more accommodating to Conciliar Rome but, what it does show, is that the SSPX and the resistance so called are identical save the conflict with Bishop Fellay's more expansive attitude towards the Rome of the Council.
Father is out in the public, preaching and counseling to a worldwide audience, and the fact that he stretches allegories at times to make his point is going to gain for him detractors. He knows that is a given when attacks others for their opposing views.
There are few if any Traditional groups today who do not have theological soft spots. True Catholic rigour is lost in this generation which is mired in a caliginous liberal fog.
So, yes, it is time to move on, this arrow is spent.
-
Interestingly, it seems Mr Lane is following this thread and has posted some more in regards to the de Castro Mayer question, I will cross post it here for people to read:
Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations in 1988 telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." Multiple witnesses confirm this fact.
Somebody is quoting Don McLean on another forum as if it could overturn the witness testimony. Here is Don McLean's argument. "It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
Now, I happen to recall this and in fact I visited Don at his home near Melbourne when this controversy had just broken. Bill Morgan, who was at the consecrations as a guest of the Archbishop (his good friend) had published the fact that Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." This was very clear and specific testimony. Don got it into his head that if he listened to the recording of de Castro Mayer's speech and the words were not there, then that would constitute proof that Bill Morgan's report was false. Not only did he listen to the speech on tape, but he told me he had the entire thing transcribed, translated, and (ultimately) published in Catholic! No sign of the offending words was found, and so Don believed that he had killed the story. I tried to point out that his evidence did not bear on the claim at all (nobody claimed that de Castro Mayer said anything in his speech), but Don was not listening.
Many years later I enjoyed a breakfast with Fr. Schmidberger and I asked him if it was true that Bishop de Castro Mayer had said the words attributed to him. He said, "Yes."
I don't think any serious person disputes the facts now. It's exceedingly odd that we keep seeing Don McLean's non-argument presented as if it could settle the matter, but I imagine that's because such people get their information only via the Internet.
I can also testify to various communications (including via telephone) I have had with a retired airline pilot from Brazil, whose name is Arai Daniele, who was a good friend of Bishop de Castro Mayer's. He used to act as a private courier between de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre, since he himself was flying regularly between Brazil and France. Arai is vehement that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. He also describes an environment of hostility to sedevacantism surrounding the bishop, so that his entourage would go to great lengths to try and prevent his sedevacantist friends getting into his presence, and would obfuscate de Castro Mayer's true views to those not in a position to know. Evidently they felt that the old man had gone a bit potty and his image needed to be protected from himself.
Here is the link to the thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Since it seems Mr Lane is following this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to thank John Lane, as well as John S Daly and many others, for the work they have done on Bellarmine forums and elsewhere researching these important questions. I have found their research helpful in maintaining some semblance of Catholic sanity. Thanks again and God bless !
:cheers:
It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).
When the TIA response from Mr. Guimaraes arrives, we shall kniow soon enough what it proves or does not prove.
There is no contradiction, so I do not see the humor. John Lane and Pete Vere have both said repeatedly that he did not say "there is no pope" in the speech, but at the event outside of the speech.
The speech will not prove them wrong, and it will only show you what they have told you multiple times. This has been made clear to you repeatedly, why are you not able to understand it?
Ambrose-
I don't CARE what John and Pete say.
If the transcript TIA sends back shows CDM making statements at the consecrations supportive of JPII's papacy, then it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the rumors of him telling people there is no pope are bunk.
Until that transcript arrives, the matter is on hold.
-
Interestingly, it seems Mr Lane is following this thread and has posted some more in regards to the de Castro Mayer question, I will cross post it here for people to read:
Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations in 1988 telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." Multiple witnesses confirm this fact.
Somebody is quoting Don McLean on another forum as if it could overturn the witness testimony. Here is Don McLean's argument. "It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
Now, I happen to recall this and in fact I visited Don at his home near Melbourne when this controversy had just broken. Bill Morgan, who was at the consecrations as a guest of the Archbishop (his good friend) had published the fact that Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." This was very clear and specific testimony. Don got it into his head that if he listened to the recording of de Castro Mayer's speech and the words were not there, then that would constitute proof that Bill Morgan's report was false. Not only did he listen to the speech on tape, but he told me he had the entire thing transcribed, translated, and (ultimately) published in Catholic! No sign of the offending words was found, and so Don believed that he had killed the story. I tried to point out that his evidence did not bear on the claim at all (nobody claimed that de Castro Mayer said anything in his speech), but Don was not listening.
Many years later I enjoyed a breakfast with Fr. Schmidberger and I asked him if it was true that Bishop de Castro Mayer had said the words attributed to him. He said, "Yes."
I don't think any serious person disputes the facts now. It's exceedingly odd that we keep seeing Don McLean's non-argument presented as if it could settle the matter, but I imagine that's because such people get their information only via the Internet.
I can also testify to various communications (including via telephone) I have had with a retired airline pilot from Brazil, whose name is Arai Daniele, who was a good friend of Bishop de Castro Mayer's. He used to act as a private courier between de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre, since he himself was flying regularly between Brazil and France. Arai is vehement that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. He also describes an environment of hostility to sedevacantism surrounding the bishop, so that his entourage would go to great lengths to try and prevent his sedevacantist friends getting into his presence, and would obfuscate de Castro Mayer's true views to those not in a position to know. Evidently they felt that the old man had gone a bit potty and his image needed to be protected from himself.
Here is the link to the thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Since it seems Mr Lane is following this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to thank John Lane, as well as John S Daly and many others, for the work they have done on Bellarmine forums and elsewhere researching these important questions. I have found their research helpful in maintaining some semblance of Catholic sanity. Thanks again and God bless !
:cheers:
It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).
When the TIA response from Mr. Guimaraes arrives, we shall kniow soon enough what it proves or does not prove.
There is no contradiction, so I do not see the humor. John Lane and Pete Vere have both said repeatedly that he did not say "there is no pope" in the speech, but at the event outside of the speech.
The speech will not prove them wrong, and it will only show you what they have told you multiple times. This has been made clear to you repeatedly, why are you not able to understand it?
TIA alleges they have a speech from the same event which contradicts your narrative.
Why are you so determined I should not receive it?
Relax. I never said that I hoped you wouldn't receive it. What I said is that I am certain that the speech will not contradict the testimony of the witnesses. I really believe the good bishop would not contradict himself on this matter.
I am looking forward to the speech. Are they sending you audio as well, or just their transcription?
Ambrose-
I requested an English transcription, as well as the citation to the issue of Catholic in which it was published.
I did not request the audio, since it would be in Portugese, but supposing the transcript contains language from CDM affirming the papacy of JPII, and someone calls the translation/transcription into question, I will request the audio (but not sure how much good it will do for an English speaking forum).
-
The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist. Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.
Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.
-
Interestingly, it seems Mr Lane is following this thread and has posted some more in regards to the de Castro Mayer question, I will cross post it here for people to read:
Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations in 1988 telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." Multiple witnesses confirm this fact.
Somebody is quoting Don McLean on another forum as if it could overturn the witness testimony. Here is Don McLean's argument. "It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
Now, I happen to recall this and in fact I visited Don at his home near Melbourne when this controversy had just broken. Bill Morgan, who was at the consecrations as a guest of the Archbishop (his good friend) had published the fact that Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." This was very clear and specific testimony. Don got it into his head that if he listened to the recording of de Castro Mayer's speech and the words were not there, then that would constitute proof that Bill Morgan's report was false. Not only did he listen to the speech on tape, but he told me he had the entire thing transcribed, translated, and (ultimately) published in Catholic! No sign of the offending words was found, and so Don believed that he had killed the story. I tried to point out that his evidence did not bear on the claim at all (nobody claimed that de Castro Mayer said anything in his speech), but Don was not listening.
Many years later I enjoyed a breakfast with Fr. Schmidberger and I asked him if it was true that Bishop de Castro Mayer had said the words attributed to him. He said, "Yes."
I don't think any serious person disputes the facts now. It's exceedingly odd that we keep seeing Don McLean's non-argument presented as if it could settle the matter, but I imagine that's because such people get their information only via the Internet.
I can also testify to various communications (including via telephone) I have had with a retired airline pilot from Brazil, whose name is Arai Daniele, who was a good friend of Bishop de Castro Mayer's. He used to act as a private courier between de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre, since he himself was flying regularly between Brazil and France. Arai is vehement that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. He also describes an environment of hostility to sedevacantism surrounding the bishop, so that his entourage would go to great lengths to try and prevent his sedevacantist friends getting into his presence, and would obfuscate de Castro Mayer's true views to those not in a position to know. Evidently they felt that the old man had gone a bit potty and his image needed to be protected from himself.
Here is the link to the thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Since it seems Mr Lane is following this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to thank John Lane, as well as John S Daly and many others, for the work they have done on Bellarmine forums and elsewhere researching these important questions. I have found their research helpful in maintaining some semblance of Catholic sanity. Thanks again and God bless !
:cheers:
It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).
When the TIA response from Mr. Guimaraes arrives, we shall kniow soon enough what it proves or does not prove.
There is no contradiction, so I do not see the humor. John Lane and Pete Vere have both said repeatedly that he did not say "there is no pope" in the speech, but at the event outside of the speech.
The speech will not prove them wrong, and it will only show you what they have told you multiple times. This has been made clear to you repeatedly, why are you not able to understand it?
Ambrose-
I don't CARE what John and Pete say.
If the transcript TIA sends back shows CDM making statements at the consecrations supportive of JPII's papacy, then it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the rumors of him telling people there is no pope are bunk.
Until that transcript arrives, the matter is on hold.
John Lane and Pete Vere are stating what witnesses at the 1988 consecrations told them. John Lane has related what William Morgan and Fr. Smidberger, both witnesses to this fact, have stated.
Pete Vere has related what some of the witnesses at the consecrations, who later embraced the indult, stated the identical story as those related by John Lane.
When evaluating witnesses, you must examine their reputations and motives for their statement.
William Morgan, a sedevacatist, was a close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, and would not lie about something so grave.
Fr. Smidberger, if anything would not be supportive of Bp. Castro de Mayer's sedevacatism, but still relates the truth of the event, showing his integrity.
The same can be said of Pete Vere's witnesses that returned to the indult. They have absolutely no good reason to lie, as this fact is not supportive of their position.
With that said, I, along with you look forward to the transcription of the speech, and we can pick this up again when you post it.
-
Interestingly, it seems Mr Lane is following this thread and has posted some more in regards to the de Castro Mayer question, I will cross post it here for people to read:
Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations in 1988 telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." Multiple witnesses confirm this fact.
Somebody is quoting Don McLean on another forum as if it could overturn the witness testimony. Here is Don McLean's argument. "It is certain that Msgr. Lefebvre was not sedevacantist, and it is equally certain that neither was Bishop de Castro Mayer. We have the audio tape of the speech of Msgr. de Castro Mayer, given at Econe circa June 27, 1988, that shows he was not sede-vacantist, as many have tried to prove. A translation of the speech was also published in Catholic."
Now, I happen to recall this and in fact I visited Don at his home near Melbourne when this controversy had just broken. Bill Morgan, who was at the consecrations as a guest of the Archbishop (his good friend) had published the fact that Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about on the day of the episcopal consecrations telling anybody who would listen, "We have no pope." This was very clear and specific testimony. Don got it into his head that if he listened to the recording of de Castro Mayer's speech and the words were not there, then that would constitute proof that Bill Morgan's report was false. Not only did he listen to the speech on tape, but he told me he had the entire thing transcribed, translated, and (ultimately) published in Catholic! No sign of the offending words was found, and so Don believed that he had killed the story. I tried to point out that his evidence did not bear on the claim at all (nobody claimed that de Castro Mayer said anything in his speech), but Don was not listening.
Many years later I enjoyed a breakfast with Fr. Schmidberger and I asked him if it was true that Bishop de Castro Mayer had said the words attributed to him. He said, "Yes."
I don't think any serious person disputes the facts now. It's exceedingly odd that we keep seeing Don McLean's non-argument presented as if it could settle the matter, but I imagine that's because such people get their information only via the Internet.
I can also testify to various communications (including via telephone) I have had with a retired airline pilot from Brazil, whose name is Arai Daniele, who was a good friend of Bishop de Castro Mayer's. He used to act as a private courier between de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre, since he himself was flying regularly between Brazil and France. Arai is vehement that de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. He also describes an environment of hostility to sedevacantism surrounding the bishop, so that his entourage would go to great lengths to try and prevent his sedevacantist friends getting into his presence, and would obfuscate de Castro Mayer's true views to those not in a position to know. Evidently they felt that the old man had gone a bit potty and his image needed to be protected from himself.
Here is the link to the thread: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1618
Since it seems Mr Lane is following this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to thank John Lane, as well as John S Daly and many others, for the work they have done on Bellarmine forums and elsewhere researching these important questions. I have found their research helpful in maintaining some semblance of Catholic sanity. Thanks again and God bless !
:cheers:
It is humorous to watch Lane prefer "witness" testimony over an audio recording or transcription (as though the former were a stronger evidence than the latter?).
When the TIA response from Mr. Guimaraes arrives, we shall kniow soon enough what it proves or does not prove.
There is no contradiction, so I do not see the humor. John Lane and Pete Vere have both said repeatedly that he did not say "there is no pope" in the speech, but at the event outside of the speech.
The speech will not prove them wrong, and it will only show you what they have told you multiple times. This has been made clear to you repeatedly, why are you not able to understand it?
Ambrose-
I don't CARE what John and Pete say.
If the transcript TIA sends back shows CDM making statements at the consecrations supportive of JPII's papacy, then it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the rumors of him telling people there is no pope are bunk.
Until that transcript arrives, the matter is on hold.
John Lane and Pete Vere are stating what witnesses at the 1988 consecrations told them. John Lane has related what William Morgan and Fr. Smidberger, both witnesses to this fact, have stated.
Pete Vere has related what some of the witnesses at the consecrations, who later embraced the indult, stated the identical story as those related by John Lane.
When evaluating witnesses, you must examine their reputations and motives for their statement.
William Morgan, a sedevacatist, was a close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, and would not lie about something so grave.
Fr. Smidberger, if anything would not be supportive of Bp. Castro de Mayer's sedevacatism, but still relates the truth of the event, showing his integrity.
The same can be said of Pete Vere's witnesses that returned to the indult. They have absolutely no good reason to lie, as this fact is not supportive of their position.
With that said, I, along with you look forward to the transcription of the speech, and we can pick this up again when you post it.
Ambrose-
You do not seem to be able to grasp the idea that indisputable docuмented and recorded evidence from the mouth of CDM would be more credible and weighty than heresay (i.e., "someone told me that...").
I acknowledge that the credibility of the "CDM was a sede" claim is enhanced now that John (unlike Pete) is giving names of the witnesses who corroborate the story.
Nevertheless, nothing anyone can say will suffice to trump the indisputable words of CDM himself, if they end up contradicting what the witnesses are claiming.
Not sure why that is not sinking in.
If you were in a court, and 50 people testified you said one thing, and you later produced a recording that showed you did not say it, would any judge on the planet side with the 50 witnesses?
That is my point.
But for now, it is all academic.
If the speech turns out not to evince the claims TIA says it makes, or if it is inconclusive, your position is strengthened.
But if it does contradict CDM's alleged sede-ism at the consecrations, no amount of witnesses will be able to prevail....unless CDM had multiple personality disorder, and was simultaneously making contradictory claims at the very same event.
-
The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist. Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.
Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.
Agreed. Provided the speech was given the day of the episcopal consecrations.
-
The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist. Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.
Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.
Agreed. Provided the speech was given the day of the episcopal consecrations.
It should also be noted (if it hasn't been already) that Fr. Schmidberger was once a sedevacantist himself - does that make him always one ? He confirmed this to me when I reminded him of this point in a private discussion with him in 1993.
-
hugeman:
So, dear Hollingsworth,
To save your soul, you consciously adhere to a man who is an anti-Christ, who with other anti-Christs, is running an intrinsically evil conciliar church, just because, at the same time, the same person is also in charge of the Catholic Church--to which you wish to belong?
What you are saying, it appears, is that, Monday through Saturday "your man" Francis has "left the Catholic faith," but on Sunday morning, he and the rest of the conciliar bishops, come crawling back into the Catholic Church from their conciliar perches, long enough to celebrate an invalid , protestant mass, and this makes them Catholic in your book?
If Brogoglio is, as you say, an anti-Christ head of a false conciliar church; He Cannot be the head of the Catholic Church. The same person cannot at once be both the devil AND the Vicar of CHRIST.
My earlier comments were a bit tongue in cheek, Huge. In fact, I was playing off the words of Fr. Pfeiffer in the sermon topic at hand. He said, and I repeat:
Our religion is in God. Our truth is is God, and therefor we can be united to a wicked Francis; not only that, but unless we are united to him, we cannot go to Heaven. It matters whether or not we accept him as pope, it really does."
Fr. P said that Francis was "wicked," and if pressed, would probably concede that the pope is basically an anti-Christ. However, he cautions, you must nevertheless be "united to him." I you are not, you "cannot go to Heaven." Obviously what I'm getting at is this: If we reject the New Order on every other level; if we argue that those who run the conciliar church are evil, apostate and no longer have the Catholic faith, as did ABL; if we agree that the crimes of the NO church cry out to Heaven for vengeance: even so, we must remain united to pope Francis. Otherwise, we are practical sedes, and as a consequence, entrance into Heaven is automatically cut off. I think that position is all pretty silly on the face of it, don't you?
-
Totally agree Hollingsworth. Fathers position and the position of the entire SSPX is absurd!
-
Emeren:
Totally agree Hollingsworth. Fathers position and the position of the entire SSPX is absurd!
But unless I'm wrong Father's position is that of the Society as it always was under ABL, for the most part. The Archbishop rejected Vatican 2 and the new church in every conceivable way. He excoriated the post-conciliar church with utter abandon. Yet, in all of that new church rejection, he was careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Though he called the new church leadership a bunch of "anti-Christs" and "apostates," he avoided including the pope, at least by directly linking him to those descriptions. He was always sympathetic to the sede position, I think. (Bp. Williamson certainly is). But Fr. Pheiffer carries the basic SSPX position a little farther than his mentor did. He claims, apparently, that any of us who reject the present papacy are not going to Heaven, but are, one must conclude, destined for Hell. These words need to be explained.
-
hugeman: So, dear Hollingsworth,
My earlier comments were a bit tongue in cheek, Huge. In fact, I was playing off the words of Fr. Pfeiffer in the sermon topic at hand. He said, and I repeat:
Our religion is in God. Our truth is is God, and therefor we can be united to a wicked Francis; not only that, but unless we are united to him, we cannot go to Heaven. It matters whether or not we accept him as pope, it really does."
Fr. P said that Francis was "wicked," and if pressed, would probably concede that the pope is basically an anti-Christ. However, he cautions, you must nevertheless be "united to him." I you are not, you "cannot go to Heaven." Obviously what I'm getting at is this: If we reject the New Order on every other level; if we argue that those who run the conciliar church are evil, apostate and no longer have the Catholic faith, as did ABL; if we agree that the crimes of the NO church cry out to Heaven for vengeance: even so, we must remain united to pope Francis. Otherwise, we are practical sedes, and as a consequence, entrance into Heaven is automatically cut off. I think that position is all pretty silly on the face of it, don't you?
WHEW ! Thanks, Hollingsworth! I must have been getting bleary-eyed!
God Bless You!
Hugeman
-
Our religion is in God. Our truth is is God, and therefor we can be united to a wicked Francis; not only that, but unless we are united to him, we cannot go to Heaven. It matters whether or not we accept him as pope, it really does."
Problem is that unity with a pope requires much more than a photo in the sacristy and an una cuм on Sunday.
You cannot roll in the mud of heresy and infidelity without it adhering to you.
Consider if you want to appear at the Lord's doorstep covered with and smelling with the filth of apostasy upon your Baptismal gown.
-
The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist. Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.
Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.
Agreed. Provided the speech was given the day of the episcopal consecrations.
It should also be noted (if it hasn't been already) that Fr. Schmidberger was once a sedevacantist himself - does that make him always one ? He confirmed this to me when I reminded him of this point in a private discussion with him in 1993.
I have known that Fr. Schmidberger was once a sedevacantist. I did not mention it, as I did not see how it would relate to his account of what happened at Écône, 30 June 1988.
It seems to me that when numerous reliable witnesses independent of each other all say the same thing, that makes for a compelling case. Apparently Sean Johnson does not think so. I wonder how he would have gotten by if he lived in another age when there was no audio and video recordings, and people has to rely on witnesses and testimony.
-
The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist. Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.
Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.
Agreed. Provided the speech was given the day of the episcopal consecrations.
It should also be noted (if it hasn't been already) that Fr. Schmidberger was once a sedevacantist himself - does that make him always one ? He confirmed this to me when I reminded him of this point in a private discussion with him in 1993.
I have known that Fr. Schmidberger was once a sedevacantist. I did not mention it, as I did not see how it would relate to his account of what happened at Écône, 30 June 1988.
It seems to me that when numerous reliable witnesses independent of each other all say the same thing, that makes for a compelling case. Apparently Sean Johnson does not think so. I wonder how he would have gotten by if he lived in another age when there was no audio and video recordings, and people has to rely on witnesses and testimony.
You are hopeless.
-
It seems to me that when numerous reliable witnesses independent of each other all say the same thing, that makes for a compelling case. Apparently Sean Johnson does not think so. I wonder how he would have gotten by if he lived in another age when there was no audio and video recordings, and people have to rely on witnesses and testimony.
Perhaps an analogy would be helpful now.
Imagine a church before a wedding.  2 members of the groom's family are waiting in the sacristy for the not-yet-arrived groom and his chum--formally the 'best man'--to "get him to the church on time". The celebrant priest departs briefly to check on some arrangements. While waiting by themselves, 1 family member tells the other: "I hope I'm wrong, but I have a really bad feeling about this. I fear that the bride is a really bad choice: She's behaved like a self-centered b####--not even bothering to hide that--waaay too often since the family announced their engagement."
Later that day, at the wedding reception, the same family member offers an unreservedly optimistic toast to the newly married couple, which, like other toasts there, is videotaped.
Years later, as the marriage tumbles downhill, the originally fearful family member is accused of being unsupportive of the wedding, by the other family member who was also in the sacristy before the wedding. (Whether or not the accused family member had any responsibility--of any kind--to act on his fears before the wedding is not the issue herein.)  But the accused repeatedly avoids any straightforward answers.
No problem: It'll be easy to set the record straight: Just replay the videotape of his toast at the wedding reception!  That'll prove whether he was really supportive of the wedding--or not.
Sooo, might there be any logical flaws in the insistence by recording-technology enthusiasts that that the videotape of the reception would provide conclusive proof one way or t'other?
-
It seems to me that when numerous reliable witnesses independent of each other all say the same thing, that makes for a compelling case. Apparently Sean Johnson does not think so. I wonder how he would have gotten by if he lived in another age when there was no audio and video recordings, and people have to rely on witnesses and testimony.
Perhaps an analogy would be helpful now.
Imagine a church before a wedding.  2 members of the groom's family are waiting in the sacristy for the not-yet-arrived groom and his chum--formally the 'best man'--to "get him to the church on time". The celebrant priest departs briefly to check on some arrangements. While waiting by themselves, 1 family member tells the other: "I hope I'm wrong, but I have a really bad feeling about this. I fear that the bride is a really bad choice: She's behaved like a self-centered b####--not even bothering to hide that--waaay too often since the family announced their engagement."
Later that day, at the wedding reception, the same family member offers an unreservedly optimistic toast to the newly married couple, which, like other toasts there, is videotaped.
Years later, as the marriage tumbles downhill, the originally fearful family member is accused of being unsupportive of the wedding, by the other family member who was also in the sacristy before the wedding. (Whether or not the accused family member had any responsibility--of any kind--to act on his fears before the wedding is not the issue herein.)  But the accused repeatedly avoids any straightforward answers.
No problem: It'll be easy to set the record straight: Just replay the videotape of his toast at the wedding reception!  That'll prove whether he was really supportive of the wedding--or not.
Sooo, might there be any logical flaws in the insistence by recording-technology enthusiasts that that the videotape of the reception would provide conclusive proof one way or t'other?
Nice try.
However:
1) The testimony of 2-5 people asserting +CDM, er (sorry Matthew) +DCM said "The is no Pope"
vs
2) Audio recording of him saying the opposite.
Same day.
Same event.
Which is the more believable?
-
2) Audio recording of him saying the opposite.
I think this is precisely the bone of contention. The speech transcript has been published here and everywhere, many times. In that speech Bp de Castro Mayer neither comes out and says outright the See is vacant, nor does he say anything conclusively that he still regards John Paul II as the valid pope. The witness testimony is regarding his comments before the consecrations. It has not been either definitively confirmed or refuted. The witness testimony stands alone, you either believe it or you don't.
-
Imagine a church before a wedding.   2  members of the groom's family are waiting in the sacristy for the not-yet-arrived groom and his chum--formally the 'best man'--to "get him to the church on time". The celebrant priest departs briefly to check on some arrangements. While waiting by themselves, 1 family member tells the other [....]
1) The testimony of 2--5 people asserting + CDM  [...] +DCM said " The  There is no Pope"
vs
2) Audio recording of him saying the opposite.
You're haggling over the number of witnesses available from a traditional Catholic family? So add in cousins if need be, and we can count 2--5 male family members waiting in the sacristy, all attentive listeners, and all unequipped with audio recorders. And maybe, years later, 'twas the once-snot-nosed ring-bearing brat who ratted, and the family men present back then, remembering the conversations in the sacristy well enough, declined to cover up the well-earned--but unflattering--comments about the bride from 1--or more--of their members.
Same day. Same event.
Perhaps it's done differently in countries outside the U.S.A., but weddings and their receptions here are "same day". The reception is practically a continuation of the wedding itself: Same principals, pretty much the same guests, altho' sometimes with intervening vehicular travel to a near-by venue.
-
Imagine a church before a wedding.   2  members of the groom's family are waiting in the sacristy for the not-yet-arrived groom and his chum--formally the 'best man'--to "get him to the church on time". The celebrant priest departs briefly to check on some arrangements. While waiting by themselves, 1 family member tells the other [....]
1) The testimony of 2--5 people asserting + CDM  [...] +DCM said " The  There is no Pope"
vs
2) Audio recording of him saying the opposite.
You're haggling over the number of witnesses available from a traditional Catholic family? So add in cousins if need be, and we can count 2--5 male family members waiting in the sacristy, all attentive listeners, and all unequipped with audio recorders. And maybe, years later, 'twas the once-snot-nosed ring-bearing brat who ratted, and the family men present back then, remembering the conversations, declined to cover up the well-earned--but unflattering--comments from 1 or more of their members.
Same day. Same event.
Perhaps it's done differently in countries outside the U.S.A., but weddings and their receptions here are "same day". The reception is practically a continuation of the wedding itself: Same principals, pretty much the same guests, altho' sometimes with intervening vehicular travel to a near-by venue.
Would 100,000,000 so-called witnesses be able to overcome contradictory audio?
Some of your allies have already conceded it would not.
-
Imagine a church before a wedding.   2  members of the groom's family are waiting in the sacristy for the not-yet-arrived groom and his chum--formally the 'best man'--to "get him to the church on time". The celebrant priest departs briefly to check on some arrangements. While waiting by themselves, 1 family member tells the other [....]
1) The testimony of 2--5 people asserting + CDM  [...] +DCM said " The  There is no Pope"
vs
2) Audio recording of him saying the opposite.
You're haggling over the number of witnesses available from a traditional Catholic family? So add in cousins if need be, and we can count 2--5 male family members waiting in the sacristy, all attentive listeners, and all unequipped with audio recorders. And maybe, years later, 'twas the once-snot-nosed ring-bearing brat who ratted, and the family men present back then, remembering the conversations, declined to cover up the well-earned--but unflattering--comments from 1 or more of their members.
Same day. Same event.
Perhaps it's done differently in countries outside the U.S.A., but weddings and their receptions here are "same day". The reception is practically a continuation of the wedding itself: Same principals, pretty much the same guests, altho' sometimes with intervening vehicular travel to a near-by venue.
Would 100,000,000 so-called witnesses be able to overcome contradictory audio?
Some of your allies have already conceded it would not.
Are you aware that Mr. Lane has already posted the text of Bp. de Castro Mayer's speech from that day, 30 June 1988.
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=16438&sid=68afdd0e38112e2110a76c78227d1b9b#p16438
-
Did you see this from another thread?
This was written a few years after the First Vatican Council declared papal infallibility. It has the imprimatur and 2 theologians recommended this book for it's accuracy.
Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine
by Rev. Michael Müller, C.SS.R.
Adapted for the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools and Colleges. with the Approbation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
No. III.
Benziger Brothers: New York, 1876 Printers to the Holy Apostolic See
Nihil Obstat:
Joseph Helmpraecht, C.SS.R.
Baltimore, MD., 24 Sept., 1874
Imprimatur:
J. Roosevelt Bayley
Archiep. Baltimorensis
Baltimore, 24 Sept., 1874
copyright. M. Muller. 1876
Lesson IV.—Infallibility of the Pope
Q. Did our Blessed Saviour foresee that certain men would corrupt or misinterpret His holy Doctrine?
A. He did.
Q. When certain men either corrupted or misinterpreted Christ's holy Doctrine, what was necessary to remove all doubts about its true meaning, and preserve it always pure and uncorrupted?
A. That there should be one particularly priviledged by God to set forth and state plainly with divine certainty the true meaning of Christ's doctrine in all questions where His doctrine was concerned.
Q. What do we call such a priviledged person?
A. The supreme judge in all points of divine law, from whose sentences there is no appeal.
Q. Why is such a judge necessary?
A. To put an end to all disputes about points of divine law.
Q. How so?
A. If every man in the country were to take the laws of the State, and to explain them as he pleased, there would be nothing but confusion and disorder in society. In like manner, if every man were to take the sacred, eternal law of God, the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and to interpret it as he pleased, there would be nothing but confusion in religion.
Q. What safeguard has human wisdom adopted to prevent confusion and disorder in society?
A. It has found it necessary to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all disputed points of civil law.
Q. What is the plain inference from this?
A. That if even human wisdom sees the necessity of appointing a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of civil law, it cannot be supposed that God, who is InfiniteWisdom, should neglect to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of divine law, in order thus to prevent all confusion in religion.
Q. What safeguard has human wisdom adopted to prevent confusion and disorder in society?
A. It has found it necessary to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all disputed points of civil law.
Q. What is the plain inference from this?
A. That if even human wisdom sees the necessity of appointing a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of civil law, it cannot be supposed that God, who is Infinite Wisdom, should neglect to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of divine law, in order thus to prevent all confusion in religion.
Q. Was there ever a time when men were left to themselves, to fashion their own religion, to invent their own creed, their own form of worship, and to decide in matters of religion?
A. No; there always existed on earth a visible teaching authority, to which it was a bounden duty of every man to submit.
Q. Whom did God appoint to be this visible teaching authority before the coming of the Redeemer?
A. During the four thousand years that elapsed before the coming of the Redeemer, the doctrines that were to be believed, the feasts that were to be observed, the sacrifices, the ceremonies of worship, everything was regulated by the living, authoritative voice of the patriarchs, the priests, and the prophets.
Q. How do we know that God in the Old Law appointed a tribunal, presided over by the High-Priest, to judge in all controversies, both of doctrine and morals, and from whose decision there was no appeal?
A. The Jєωιѕн historian, Josephus, who was well aquainted with the laws and religion of his own nation, says: "The High-Priest offers sacrifice to God before the other priests; he guards the laws, judges controversies, punishes the guilty, and whoever disobeys him is punished as one that is impious towards God." Lib. 2, Contra Appium.
Q. Is there still a greater authority than Josephus bearing witness to the fact?
A. Yes; the Word of God itself bears witness to the fact. "If thou perceive," says holy Scripture, "that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment between blood and blood, cause and cause, and thou seest that the words of the judges within the gates do vary, arise and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come to the priests, and to the judge that shall be at that time, and thou shalt ask them, and they shall show thee the truth of the judgment. And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, and thou shalt follow their sentence. Neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand. Nut he that will be proud and refuse to obey the commandments of the priest, who ministereth at the time to the Lord thy God, and to the decree of the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel." Deut. xvii. 8-12.
Q. What do we see from this?
A. Here we see clearly a tribunal appointed by Almighty God Himself to decide in the last resort; a tribunal from whose sentence there is no appeal. There is no exception, the rule is for all, the terrible sentence is pronounced against every transgressor. Whosoever shall refuse to abide by the decision of the High-Priest shall die the death.
Q. How long did this tribunal remain intact?
A. Until the coming of the Saviour
.
Q. Who assures us of this?
A. Our Blessed Redeemer Himself, in these words: "The Scribes and Pharisees have sat in the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do." Matt. xxiii. 2.
Q. Now, did our Lord Jesus Christ establish a supreme tribunal; did He give to the world and infallible judge and teacher, to decide ultimately in all controversies, both of faith and morals, whose decision is final, and without appeal?
A. Our Blessed Saviour came not to destroy the Law, but to make it perfect. He therefore established in the New Law that which the Old Law was most necessary for the preservation of faith and morals. He gave to the whole world an infallible judge and teacher, to decide ultimately in all points of faith and morals.
Q. Whom did Jesus Christ appoint as the infallible judge and teacher in all points of faith and morals?
A. St. Peter, the Head of His Church.
Q. Were not all the successors of the Apostles to possess the gift of infallibility?
A. No; the successor of St. Peter, the Pope of Rome, only.
Q. How do we know that the successors of the other Apostles, the Catholic Bishops, were not endowed with the gift of infallibility?
A. Because Jesus Christ never promised it to them.
Q. How do we know that Jesus Christ never promised it to them?
A. Because no such promise is recorded either in Holy Scripture or tradition.
Q. Why did Christ not promise to the Bishops the gift of infallibility?
A. Because He does not multiply and dispense His gifts without necessity.
Q. Was not the gift of infallibility necessary to the Bishops?
A. By no means.
Q. Why not?
A. Because after the Apostles had preached the full doctrine of Christ, their successors had only to guard this doctrine, and deliver it uncorrupted to the faithful.
Q. What does the Apostle St. Paul write to the Bishop St. Timothy on this subject?
A. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called." (1 Tim. vi. 20, and 2 Tim. i. 14.) "But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse, erring and driving into error. But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee." 2 Tim. iii. 13.
Q. But did not Christ promise the Apostles and their successors: "The Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, shall be in you, and abide with you forever"? John xiv. 16.
A. He did so promise.
Q. If, then, according to this promise, the Spirit of Truth shall abide forever with the successors of the Apostles, are they not personally infallible?
A. By no means.
Q. Why not?
A. The Spirit of Truth may abide in a person, and yet that person may not be infallible. The Spirit of Truth may abide in a multitude, and yet not each individual of the multitude may possess it in its entirety.
Q. Give an example.
A. A million men may not know the road to a certain city to which they must go. A single guide suffices to set this million on the right road. Once on it, they have only to follow their guide and they cannot go astray. Once the way is pointed out, all know it to be right, but only one could point out the right road to be followed.
Q. Do you mean that Christ wished that in this same manner the Spirit of Truth should abide with the Catholic Bishops?
A. Precisely so; for Christ gave them and all the faithful, in the person of the Head of His Church, an infallible teacher of all the truths which He and His Apostles taught. By invariably following this teacher the Spirit of Truth will always abide with them.
Q. How do we know that the Pope as successor to St. Peter possesses the gift of infallibility?
A. Christ Himself assured St. Peter and his successors of this.
Q. On what occasion?
A. When He told St. Peter that by His prayer to His heavenly Father He had obtained this gift of infallibility for him and all his successors. "I have prayed for thee (Peter) that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Luke xxii. 31, 32.
Q. Why did Christ pray to His Father that St. Peter and his successors should be endowed with the gift of infallibility?
A. Because Christ wished that the never-failing faith of St. Peter and his successors should be forever the foundation-stone of His Church.
Q. On what occasion did Christ assure us of this?
A. When He asked the Apostles: "Whom do you say that I am?" Matt. xvi. 15.
Q.Which of the Apostles made answer to this question?
A. St. Peter.
Q. What was his answer?
A. "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God."
Q. What answer did Christ make to this reply of St. Peter?
A. He said: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."
Q. What is the meaning of these words of our Lord?
A. Jesus Christ means to say that, as it is My Father who has made known to you, Peter, that I am His Son, I also make known to the whole world, that you and your successors will always know and understand who I am, and what I have taught.
Q. When did Christ build His Church upon Peter, that is, intrust him with the whole flock?
A. When He said to him: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." John xxi. 16.
Q. What is the meaning of this?
A. Christ says that His whole flock, teachers and hearers, priests and people, rulers and subjects, must believe and teach as Peter and his successors believe and teach.
Q. Why?
A. Because his faith, according to Christ's solemn words, shall not fail, since no power shall prevail against Peter or any of his successors so as to cause them to teach anything else than what Christ has taught. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church," built upon Peter's faith. Matt. xvi. 18.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That where Peter, that is, the Pope, is, there is the Church of Christ, or in other words, that all those who believe and teach as the Pope does, form the true Church of Christ. St. Ambrose.
Q. Who, by his own motion, often condemned heresies, both before and after the first general council?
A. The Pope.
Q. To whom did the Catholic Bishops always have recourse in all controversies both of faith and morals?
A. To the Pope.
Q. If the obstinacy of the party condemned by the Pope made it advisable to have recourse to general councils, were these councils, then, after the most mature deliberation, ever found to do anything else than to confirm the sentence already passed by the Pope?
A. They were not. (See Q. and A. in Additional Questions and Answers)
Q. Did any Pope ever issue any decree concerning the truths of the faith or sound morality, which was not afterwards received by the great body of the Bishops, as containing the most solid and wholesome doctrine?
A. Such a thing never happened.
Q. Could the greatest enemies of the Catholic faith ever prove that any Pope taught any doctrine contrary to the sacred truths taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles?
A. Never. (See Q. and A. in Additional Questions and Answers)
Q. What are we to understand from all this?
A. That it has always been the belief of the Catholic Church that the Pope, in his solemn decisions in matters of faith and morals, is infallible.
Q. If this be true, how then could it happen that some years ago a few Bishops and Priests were said not to have held this to be a doctrine of Catholic faith?
A. Because the divine tradition of this doctrine had not been as yet explicitly defined by the Holy Father.
Q. Did those Bishops, assembled in the Council of the Vatican, continue to oppose the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, after it was defined?
A. No. All, without exception, freely and joyfully subscribed their names to the decrees of the council, and professed their faith in the infallibility of the Pope.
Q. If, then, in a general council, or assembly of all the Catholic Bishops, the meaning of a certain doctrine of Christ was to be set forth in precise language, and the majority of Bishops would explain it in one sense, and the minority in another, on which side would be the truth?
A. On that side, though it be the minority of Bishops, which agrees with the Pope.
Q. Why?
A. Simply because Christ bound Himself solemnly only to Peter and his successors that their faith should never fail; that is, that every one of them would always be so enlightened by the Holy Ghost as to understand the true meaning of His doctrine, and state and teach it plainly with divine certainty. "Where Peter is, there is the Church."
Q. Must we, then, believe that such decisions of the Pope in matters of faith and morals are infallibly true?
A. Yes; because this is an article of faith, which we must believe, as firmly as we believe that there is a God.
Q. If anyone should say, or even think otherwise, what would he be before God?
A. An apostate from the faith.
Q. Does the Pope then teach anything new, when in such misinterpretations of Christ's doctrine he declares what is to be believed?
A. No; he plainly states the truth in the sense in which Jesus Christ and the Apostles preached it.
Q. Can you now tell me whose office it is to guard the doctrine of Christ, as preached by the Apostles, and proclaim and apply it always and everywhere, one and the same, and to defend the rights of God on earth against every enemy, at all times, and in all places?
A. This is the Pope's office.
Q. Who is appointed by God Himself to declare and apply the invariable doctrine of Jesus Christ, and to govern all men and nations, kings and peoples, according to this invariable doctrine?
A. The Pope.
Q. Must the Pope as guardian and judge of the law of God, resist with all his might every passion or tendency of every age, nation, community, or individual, whenever it leaves the law of God?
A. He is bound in conscience to do so.
Q. When does the Pope speak "ex Cathedra," or infallibly?
A. He speaks infallibly whenever in the discharge of his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines (that is, finally determines), according to his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church, or anything else that is conducive to the preservation of faith and morals.
Q.When the Pope, in accordance with the duty of his apostolic ministry and his supreme apostolic authority, proceeds, in briefs, encyclical letters, consistorial allocutions, and other apostolic letters, to declare certain truths, to reprobate perverse doctrines, and condemn certain errors, must such declarations of truth, and condemnations of error, be considered as infallible, and as binding in conscience, and requiring our firm interior assent, although they do not express an anathema on those who disagree?
A. Such declarations of truth and condemnations of error are infallible, or ex cathedra acts of the Pope, and, therefore are binding in conscience, and requiring our firm interior assent; to refuse which would be for us a mortal sin, since such a refusal would be a virtual denial of the dogma of infallibility, and we should be heretics were we conscious of such a denial. St. Alphonsus Liguori. Theol. Mor., Lib I., 104.
Q. Are not such doctrinal utterances of the Pontiff of imperfect and incomplete authority until they are confirmed and accepted by the Bishops of the Church?
A. Nothing is ever farther from the thoughts of the bishops than that the papal declarations of truth, and condemnations of error, should need the confirmation and acceptance of the pastors of the Church to be true utterances of the Holy Ghost, and binding in conscience, because their confirmation and acceptance does not add certainty to that which is already infallible.
Q. What does the Vatican Council teach on this subject?
A. It teaches that "the definitions of the Roman Pontiff, concerning faith and morals, are irreformable of themselves, and not by force of the consent of the Church thereto." Sess. iv., c. iv.
Q. What have the Fathers of the Church styled the Pope?
A. The mouth of the Church, ever living and open to teach the whole world;
The centre of Christian faith and unity, and the light of truth for the universe;
The Father of souls, the guide of consciences, and the sovereign judge of the religious interests of mankind; The Prince of priests—a greater Patriarch than Abraham—greater than Melchisedech in priesthood—than Moses in authority—than Samuel in jurisdiction; a Peter in power, Christ by unction, pastor of pastors, guide of guides, the cardinal joint of all churches, the impregnable citadel of the communion of the children of God, the immovable corner-stone upon which the Church of God reposes.
Q. Why have the Fathers given these titles to the Pope?
A. Because the Pope is the infallible teacher of the Church of Christ.
Q. What sentiments, then, should every Catholic express concerning the Pope?
A. I acknowledge in the Pope an authority before which my soul bows, and yet suffers no humiliation.
-
Imagine a church before a wedding.   2  members of the groom's family are waiting in the sacristy for the not-yet-arrived groom and his chum--formally the 'best man'--to "get him to the church on time". The celebrant priest departs briefly to check on some arrangements. While waiting by themselves, 1 family member tells the other [....]
1) The testimony of 2--5 people asserting + CDM  [...] +DCM said " The  There is no Pope"
vs
2) Audio recording of him saying the opposite.
You're haggling over the number of witnesses available from a traditional Catholic family? So add in cousins if need be, and we can count 2--5 male family members waiting in the sacristy, all attentive listeners, and all unequipped with audio recorders. And maybe, years later, 'twas the once-snot-nosed ring-bearing brat who ratted, and the family men present back then, remembering the conversations, declined to cover up the well-earned--but unflattering--comments from 1 or more of their members.
Same day. Same event.
Perhaps it's done differently in countries outside the U.S.A., but weddings and their receptions here are "same day". The reception is practically a continuation of the wedding itself: Same principals, pretty much the same guests, altho' sometimes with intervening vehicular travel to a near-by venue.
Would 100,000,000 so-called witnesses be able to overcome contradictory audio?
Some of your allies have already conceded it would not.
Are you aware that Mr. Lane has already posted the text of Bp. de Castro Mayer's speech from that day, 30 June 1988.
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=16438&sid=68afdd0e38112e2110a76c78227d1b9b#p16438
Have you confirmed the speech Lane is posting is the one that was published in the "Catholic" newspaper?
If so, can you please cite the edition?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqETTcO2eOc
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Why-isnt-RR-or-SV-victorious-yet-Been-45-years
-
Wallflower, in case you got lost sometime between when you replied to me and now (which I think is very likely) I answered your question on page forty of this thread: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31535&min=195&num=5
I would also like to add (since it's too late) a relevant quote from McHugh and Callan on moral certainty, and it's much too late to edit my reply:
643. Kinds of Certitude.--Judgments may be certain in a greater or less
degree.
(a) They are metaphysically certain, when error is absolutely
impossible, the opposite of what is held by the mind being a
contradiction in terms which omnipotence itself could not make true.
Example: The judgments that the same, identical act cannot be both good
and bad, that good is to be done and evil to be avoided, that God is to
be honored, are metaphysically certain, since they result immediately
from the very concepts of being, of goodness, and of God.
(b) Judgments are physically certain, when error is impossible
according to the laws of nature, the opposite of what is held by the
mind being unrealizable except through intervention of another cause.
Example: The judgments that he who takes poison will destroy life, that
he who applies fire to a house will destroy property, are physically
certain. because natural agencies, like poison and fire, act infallibly
when applied to suitable matters and under suitable conditions and left
to their course, unless they are overruled by superior power.
(c) Judgments are morally certain, when error is impossible according
to what is customary among mankind, the opposite of what is held by the
mind being so unlikely that it would be imprudent to be moved by it.
Examples: One is morally certain that what a reputedly truthful and
competent person relates to one is true. A person is morally certain
that a conclusion he has drawn about his duty in a particular instance
is correct, if he believes that he has overlooked no means of reaching
the truth. Testimony and inference, since they come from free and
fallible agencies, may lead into error; but, when they appear to have
the requisite qualities indicative of truth, they are for the most part
reliable and in practical life have to be considered as such.
...
644. As to the certainty that is required in the judgment of
conscience, the following points must be noted:
(a) Metaphysical certainty is not required, since conscience does not
deal with primary propositions, but with deductions about particular
acts. The first moral principles, which are the object of synderesis,
and at least some of the general conclusions, which are the object of
moral science, are metaphysically certain (see above 145, 300), as they
are based on necessary relations; but the particular conclusions, which
are the object of conscience, are concerned with the contingent and the
individual.
(b) Physical certainty is not required for the judgment of conscience,
since conscience is not concerned with the activities of natural
agents, but with the activities of moral agents that act with freedom
and responsibility.
(c) Moral certitude, therefore, is sufficient for the conclusions drawn
by conscience. That a higher kind of certitude is not necessary should
not surprise us, for it would be unreasonable to expect that the same
degree of assent be given to judgments that are concerned with
particular and contingent cases as to those that are concerned with
universal and necessary principles.
...
646. Moral certitude in the wide sense is sufficient for a safe
conscience, even in matters of great importance, since it is frequently
the only kind of certitude one can have, and he who would strive to be
free from every slight and baseless suspicion would be soon involved in
a maze of scruples and perplexities.
Source: McHugh and Callan (https://archive.org/stream/moraltheologyaco35354gut/pg35354.txt)
Thank you! I've been procrastinating coming back to this out of dread for the time it would take to pick through and find the post!
I have a little more time today. I'll post this first so I can go back to reread it more easily.
-
Mith, men better than me have argued this at length with you and others. I don't have any ground-shaking new aspects to put forward.
That is fine, but since you brought it up, I should remind readers that the arguments against the infallibility of these canonizations involve either adding conditions to papal infallibility which do not exist in the definition of papal infallibility per Vatican I (which has the consequent effect of turning infallibility into a meaningless tautology which has more of an effect on each individual member of the Church than it actually does on the Church proper) or in denying the infallibility of canonizations as such, thereby contradicting basically every known authority on the issue, including St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and Benedict XIV who says that if those who say that a pope can err in canonizations are not heretics (notice how he doesn't say they're not heretics, he leaves the possibility open for this to be heresy) they are temerarious, givers of scandal and a host of other things which are mortal sins. And then finally there are those who, ignoring the ex cathedra language used in the canonizations, deny the very concept of indirect infallibility altogether. Just so the air is clear on just what exactly those who are "better than you" have argued at length.
I am a little curious though, on one hand you seem very disturbed by the certainty of R&R (here, Fr Pfeiffer's sermon), and you're insisting that all trads ought to be doubtful. Yet, you seem pretty certain yourself and not entertaining any doubts at all. Do you truly believe that doubt is the proper stance? Or is bringing people back to doubt simply a tactic to give people another shot, so to speak, at choosing to take the sedevacantist fork?
Actually, my claim is that they (R&R Catholics) are doubtful, not that they ought to be, although I believe that, too. One cannot resist legitimate authority in toto without being doubtful of its legitimacy. The resistance itself indicates the doubt.
And let's be really clear: we're not talking about a single "evil command" or a series of bad judgements, we are talking about a new religion altogether, with a new liturgy, new doctrine, new sacraments (which are doubtful, I might add) new laws, etc. And by new I don't mean updated or reformed, I mean not contained within the deposit of faith, and oftentimes conflicting with or even contradicting the deposit of faith. In other words, the "we've had bad popes before" rhetoric is a tract so misleading and without consideration for reality that it should never be used again. This is eons beyond "bad popes."
No Catholic could possibly have moral certainty that the men and the organization which has imposed these novelties is legitimate. One can only accept the new program if one doesn't have the faith* to begin with.
If it is true that a certain "Catholic" is morally certain that X is the pope and simultaneously persists in resisting his liturgy, sacraments, laws, teachings, catechisms, calendar, saints, places of worship, etc. of that certain pope, then one is certainly a schismatic**.
I've met too many R&R Catholics who are really just good and holy people trying their best than to rashly accuse them categorically of schism. They doubt these papacies, they just don't realize that they doubt them. This is for a combination of reasons, but chiefly it's because they've been told by the SSPX clergy (who likewise, I believe, doubt these papacies) that sedevacantism is false. It's really just political, at the end of the day. Every group needs to keep the pews warm so every group needs a reason why they "have the truth." For the SSPX, it's that sedevacantists are wrong. For the SSPV it's that the Thuc clergy are doubtful or unlawful. For a lot of the non-CMRI sedes, it's that the "una cuм" mass is somehow unholy (I haven't yet figured out if the CMRI have their unique doctrine, I don't actually think they do). And then, even if "the group" or a significant number within the group are inclined to re-open a question or change their mind on an issue, there is the problem of scandalizing the faithful and of making the group look bad-- can you imagine what would happen if the SSPV just up and said "we were wrong about the Thuc clergy all those years?" Well, for starters, there's no reason for someone to continue going to the SSPV, all other things being equal. That's just one example. Anyways, it's effectively brainwashing. An R&R Catholic approaches every crisis question not with "what are the relevant Catholic principles I can apply to this, as established by the popes, saints and theologians so that I can arrive at the truth" but with "how can I explain this within the framework of the SSPX's view of the crisis?" They might employ some sound principles when they begin their investigation, but the other (and unspoken) premise is that "sedevacantism is false" and naturally any explanation of the crisis which leads to it is false. This is why R&R Catholics typically only cite modern SSPX theologians, because the theologians, saints and popes before VII cannot be found supporting their position, not in its current stage anyways. The sedevacantists, on the other hand, not only cite pre-VII authors, they cite them in droves. It is also interesting to consider that such writers do not have a "horse in the race." Naturally an SSPX writer will be writing with at least an implicit goal of enforcing his position on the crisis. Pre-VII authorities do not have this tinge, which is why they are so incredibly helpful in figuring this mess out.
As such, most R&R Catholics do not gather the relevant evidence or interpret it such a way that can even lead to moral certainty in the first place. The chief concern is with preserving the R&R structure. It "can't" be false.
I actually agree that all serious trads should entertain this doubt. But not for life. They eventually have to choose which side tips the scales. Even then, it probably doesn't hurt to run through the arguments every now and then to remind themselves of what they are and why they chose the side they did.
Doubts should be resolved, yes, but sometimes they can't be. I'm not saying this isn't a doubt that can't be resolved as I obviously think it is, but I am only me and I can speak for only me and others doubts may last longer, indefinitely or possibly never be resolved. In lieu of resolving a doubt (in this case, a speculative doubt which is not applied to a concrete case, i.e., one does not sin by acting without resolving it), the idea of "choosing a side" is not a decision that is morally certain; moral certainty means that with the evidence available, the opposite conclusion (i.e., the decision not made) would be imprudent and/or rash for any reasonable man. Taking a position simply to resolve a doubt, without actually resolving it is not the same as reaching moral certainty. Simply choosing to take a position for the sake of it does not resolve the doubt, it merely pushes it away so that one can appear to have a veneer of certainty while one actually doesn't.
The arguments are neck and neck but there's something about R&R that always tips the scales for me. The moral certainty of R&R that disturbs you that Pope Francis IS Pope, is the same moral certainty that disturbs me about sedevacantists claiming he isn't. I just don't see how we can be morally certain that he isn't.
Interestingly enough, you've actually exhibited your doubt. If something is, then it can't possibly not be. So if you can't have moral certainty that one isn't the pope, neither do you have moral certainty that he is the pope. If you have moral certainty that he is the pope, then you simultaneously have moral certainty that he isn't an antipope. To put it in more understandable terms, if you are morally certain that someone is alive, you also have moral certainty that someone isn't dead. But if you don't have moral certainty that he isn't dead, you don't have moral certainty that he is alive. You are in a state of doubt. This is exactly what I'm describing.
*I do accept that there are those within the Novus Ordo who are Catholic in spite of it, out of ignorance more than anything. Such Catholics merely pay lip service to "the pope" and say they "accept" Vatican II but when questioned, exhibit no unorthodoxy and do not positively express the errors of the New Church, their "membership" in it notwithstanding. But we are talking about traditional Catholics here, especially recognize and resist traditional Catholics.
** I know that Sean Johnson would probably interject here the doctrine of necessity article by the SSPX. It is true that an evil command can never be followed; the argument is not that "he's your pope you need to accept his errors" but to highlight the obstinate and relentless contradiction that St. Robert put to us rhetorically: "how can we avoid our head?" Herein is one of the reasons why theologians have taught that a manifest heretic loses his office, and that a heretic pope ceases to be pope ipso facto. The alternative (the heretic pope remaining pope, or in the case of most of the conciliar pontiffs, the heretic achieving the papacy) leads to a contradiction of right reason and Catholic discipline; i.e., we are "bound" to reject the magisterium and teaching authority of the pope and even the Church (viz. rejecting the N.O.M., the new CIC, the new catechism, the new saints, the new calendar, etc.).
I think I disagree that R&R are necessarily doubtful. Some individuals are (as I am on occasion) but it's not necessary to the position. I think it's more than possible to resist authority without doubting its legitimacy. When I think of other examples of authority I don't envision them dethroned, so to speak, the minute they are wrong or evil. Parents come to mind. Heads of household. One can resist them without doubting the legitimacy of that person's position. You're resisting the action, not the person or their God-given authority. You can even have an evil husband/father that you have to separate from and it doesn't change that he is the legitimate husband, father and head of that family. He would be a bad head, but a head nonetheless. So no, resistance to evil actions does not necessarily mean doubt about the legitimacy of that person's position. There were criticisms eariler about Fr Pfeiffer saying we are united to Pope Francis but not his Papacy. I took that to mean what I said above. We are united to him as Pope but not necessarily to his actions as a bad Pope.
R&R do have to tread more water than sedes though, I will give you that. Sedes hold an "easier" position. That man isn't the Pope, done, hands washed. There's a finality to it that is not found in R&R. R&R have to re-evaluate every time something happens. Is it possible for someone like Francis to be elected Pope? What about the recent canonizations? etc... I think that sense of finality is what attracts a lot of people to sedevacantism. I empathize but believe that ultimately it's misplaced.
Interestingly enough, you've actually exhibited your doubt. If something is, then it can't possibly not be. So if you can't have moral certainty that one isn't the pope, neither do you have moral certainty that he is the pope. If you have moral certainty that he is the pope, then you simultaneously have moral certainty that he isn't an antipope. To put it in more understandable terms, if you are morally certain that someone is alive, you also have moral certainty that someone isn't dead. But if you don't have moral certainty that he isn't dead, you don't have moral certainty that he is alive. You are in a state of doubt. This is exactly what I'm describing.
That is me but truthfully I haven't figured out if it's because I'm doing due diligence or because I am allowing stumbling blocks to confuse and create doubt where it ought not be. Even with this in mind though, my tendency is still towards R&R. From the positive viewpoint, I am more convinced of their arguments. From the negative viewpoint, on Judgment Day which would be worse --- being unsure therefore denying and disrespecting someone who it turns out WAS Pope? Or being unsure and recognizing someone who it turns out WASN'T Pope? I think the fact that we can't be sure that he isn't Pope bears more weight than the fact that we can't be sure that he is. I know these aren't considered theological arguments but when both are neck and neck these are the little things that tip the balance.
Another non-theological point is that I believe Satan wants what's God's. When you think about Satanists and Black Masses, Satan doesn't bother with fake protestant rituals. He wants the REAL thing. He wants a REAL host. I think he wants control of REAL Popes and he'll use every loophole beyond our understanding to do so. Not that the Faith itself has loopholes but our understanding of it does. Not everything has been defined yet which is why we largely have to depend on opinions, and sometimes contrary ones, to analyze the crisis. I honestly don't believe Satan could do near as much damage with a fake Pope. If this isn't the end, there will likely be many definitions that rise up out of these ashes for future reference.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31535&min=305#p1)
The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist. Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.
Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.
Agreed. Provided the speech was given the day of the episcopal consecrations.
Alternatively, perhaps +AdCM became a sede moments before the consecrations, and then after they were over, for example on the way home, he might have converted again so as to abandon the sede position.
.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31535&min=305#p1)
The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist. Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.
Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.
Agreed. Provided the speech was given the day of the episcopal consecrations.
Alternatively, perhaps +AdCM became a sede moments before the consecrations, and then after they were over, for example on the way home, he might have converted again so as to abandon the sede position.
.
That's possible. He may have been undecided about the whole sede question. This would, however, vindicate sedes since Mgr Lefebvre nevertheless chose to work with Mgr AdCM knowing that Mgr AdCM was at the very least open to sedevacantism.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31535&min=305#p1)
The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist. Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.
Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.
Agreed. Provided the speech was given the day of the episcopal consecrations.
Alternatively, perhaps +AdCM became a sede moments before the consecrations, and then after they were over, for example on the way home, he might have converted again so as to abandon the sede position.
.
That's possible. He may have been undecided about the whole sede question. This would, however, vindicate sedes since Mgr Lefebvre nevertheless chose to work with Mgr AdCM knowing that Mgr AdCM was at the very least open to sedevacantism.
Please provide the proof of which you speak.
-
Alternatively, perhaps +AdCM became a sede moments before the consecrations, and then after they were over, for example on the way home, he might have converted again so as to abandon the sede position.
.
That's possible. He may have been undecided about the whole sede question. This would, however, vindicate sedes since Mgr Lefebvre nevertheless chose to work with Mgr AdCM knowing that Mgr AdCM was at the very least open to sedevacantism.
Please provide the proof of which you speak.
I thought we were engaging in speculation. But no matter, evidence of Mgr AdCM's personal (at a minimum) wavering over sedevacantism is provided by Mgr Williamson in the latter's following public newsletter:
http://williamsonletters.blogspot.ca/2009/02/campos-what-went-wrong.html
-
Alternatively, perhaps +AdCM became a sede moments before the consecrations, and then after they were over, for example on the way home, he might have converted again so as to abandon the sede position.
.
That's possible. He may have been undecided about the whole sede question. This would, however, vindicate sedes since Mgr Lefebvre nevertheless chose to work with Mgr AdCM knowing that Mgr AdCM was at the very least open to sedevacantism.
Please provide the proof of which you speak.
I thought we were engaging in speculation. But no matter, evidence of Mgr AdCM's personal (at a minimum) wavering over sedevacantism is provided by Mgr Williamson in the latter's following public newsletter:
http://williamsonletters.blogspot.ca/2009/02/campos-what-went-wrong.html
Evidence does not equal proof.
Additionally, I am a convinced anti-sedevacantist who, from time to time has wondered whether the thesis could be true.
If I blurted out the questions of my internal monologue, it does not mean I am open to the thesis, but only that at that particular time I had a question...which was later resolved.
I am quite sure that such would be the same for +Mayer.
-
Alternatively, perhaps +AdCM became a sede moments before the consecrations, and then after they were over, for example on the way home, he might have converted again so as to abandon the sede position.
.
That's possible. He may have been undecided about the whole sede question. This would, however, vindicate sedes since Mgr Lefebvre nevertheless chose to work with Mgr AdCM knowing that Mgr AdCM was at the very least open to sedevacantism.
Please provide the proof of which you speak.
I thought we were engaging in speculation. But no matter, evidence of Mgr AdCM's personal (at a minimum) wavering over sedevacantism is provided by Mgr Williamson in the latter's following public newsletter:
http://williamsonletters.blogspot.ca/2009/02/campos-what-went-wrong.html
Evidence does not equal proof.
Additionally, I am a convinced anti-sedevacantist who, from time to time has wondered whether the thesis could be true.
If I blurted out the questions of my internal monologue, it does not mean I am open to the thesis, but only that at that particular time I had a question...which was later resolved.
I am quite sure that such would be the same for +Mayer.
I suppose that's another possible explanation.
Or perhaps someone in Econe (like a worldly priest disappointed that Mgr Lefebvre had not chosen him for episcopal consecration) spiked Mgr AdCM's salad with hallucinogenic mushrooms during the luncheon preceding the consecrations, so that His Excellency uttered the statement while watching magical unicorns fart rainbows to the tune of Kumbaya.
Thats possible as well.
At this point, though, I would prefer to stick to what is likely over what is possible.
-
Alternatively, perhaps +AdCM became a sede moments before the consecrations, and then after they were over, for example on the way home, he might have converted again so as to abandon the sede position.
.
That's possible. He may have been undecided about the whole sede question. This would, however, vindicate sedes since Mgr Lefebvre nevertheless chose to work with Mgr AdCM knowing that Mgr AdCM was at the very least open to sedevacantism.
Please provide the proof of which you speak.
I thought we were engaging in speculation. But no matter, evidence of Mgr AdCM's personal (at a minimum) wavering over sedevacantism is provided by Mgr Williamson in the latter's following public newsletter:
http://williamsonletters.blogspot.ca/2009/02/campos-what-went-wrong.html
Evidence does not equal proof.
Additionally, I am a convinced anti-sedevacantist who, from time to time has wondered whether the thesis could be true.
If I blurted out the questions of my internal monologue, it does not mean I am open to the thesis, but only that at that particular time I had a question...which was later resolved.
I am quite sure that such would be the same for +Mayer.
I suppose that's another possible explanation.
Or perhaps someone in Econe (like a worldly priest disappointed that Mgr Lefebvre had not chosen him for episcopal consecration) spiked Mgr AdCM's salad with hallucinogenic mushrooms during the luncheon preceding the consecrations, so that His Excellency uttered the statement while watching magical unicorns fart rainbows to the tune of Kumbaya.
Thats possible as well.
At this point, though, I would prefer to stick to what is likely over what is possible.
I have seen such things happen, but usually chalked it up to some bad Blatz Light.
-
...btw, the "statement" has yet to be proven.
-
Interestingly, the blog to which we were referred several posts back, which is a letter of Bishop Williamson's from 2002, and claims go analyze Bp. deCastro Meyer's "legalism " vs "sede-vacantism" stance, fails to do any such thing. For ABL to state that "MSGR would be a sede but for his friendship with us" is clear admission that Bp. dCM knew there was no valid pope, but simply kept low key about it. Also, no where in the "analysis" is it explained how the Bp accepted JP as the legal head of his Church there in Campos, bur ignored EVERYTHING he said and did, as if he weren't even alive!
Even more important, however, in this letter from the seminary, where we brag that the SSPX "is alone" holding the tide against modernist Rome, why is it not even mentioned
that Anglais, Lorans, Schmidberger and Fellay are spending their days courting the Romans, playing around with GREC, and, grnerally, destroying the SSPX? Why bother telling us that "tradition" is supposedly growing in the Phillipines, when, in reality, the SSPX embarked already, under Couture and Pflugger, on a massive program to have SSPX priests go into n.o. Churches, and have N.O. Pres-by-ters come into SSPX chapels??? Would not that have beeen important to tell the faithful as you asked them to "come to the fields and meadows of Winona so we may fill our seminaries with your boys?"
Perhaps the good bishop was just being obedient; perhaps he was blinded; perhaps he thought he could "fix them( the modernists already in the SSPX)
From the inside." But by not telling the faithful the facts, gave Frllay and Co. Over 12 years of a head start toward treason --and allowed him to solidify his dictatorial power base and place his henchmen into position!
Lesson to take away? Many members of the so-called resistance even participated and assisted in the SSPX' slide into the New Order. So-- take their arguments against sede vacantism snd Bp dCM with a grain of salt-- they flavored a lot of things they said to match the then-current party line.
Here's an example: pretend you are the newly consecrated "traditionalist" bishop of Campos. You are in Rome, stating your case and pleading your cause. While there, you run into Anglais in his street clothes. " Why, hello Father, what brings you here?" "Oh--stammer, stsmmer, ( inaudible), We 're meeting with some people in the Congregations!" Next day, cardinal Canizares casually mentions to you "so nice to see you!! Listen-- why don't you join us this Thursday for our regular
GREC get together? Father Lorans and Schmidberger will be there-- we have a great time!"
" REALLY!??" "Maybe ", you figure , we priests in Campos had better get off the stick, so to speak. These Econe people are well-advanced in their plans to re-join Rome
Seems the only ones NOT TOLD were the SSPX faithful!