Here we have always followed the directions of Mgr. Lefebvre, who has always fought both modernism and sedevacantism.
This is garbage. +Lefebvre was open to sedevacantism and rather sympathetic to the thesis that these men might not be legitimate popes. This is obviously a ploy to try to dissuade Vigano from going in that direction. I suspect that the Bishop here got the same sedevacantists vibes from Vigano's letter that I did.I am beginning to see the damage of calling someone "pope" simply in recognition of the fact that a heretic is seated in the chair of Peter. I think that goes to the heart of the Sedevacantist objection, and I see it's merit and its consistency.
He continues to peddle thos head of two Churches crap that R&R developed in an act of desperation. Sure Berogoglio is the head of a counter-Church while at the same time being the head of the Catholic Church. This is pure theological trash.
I'd love to see Vigano slap this down.
I am beginning to see the damage of calling someone "pope" simply in recognition of the fact that a heretic is seated in the chair of Peter. I think that goes to the heart of the Sedevacantist objection, and I see it's merit and its consistency.
I am OK with calling him a Pope out of acknowledgement of the reality that he materially occupies the See. Vigano of course constantly referred to him simply as Bergoglio. But to keep claiming that these men don't have the faith but then have legitimate authority in the Church, it's total desperation, an emotional reaction against sedevacantism ... but it's totally bankrupt.Yes. As I said, it is becoming clearer to me, and apparently others - Vigano it seems also - as time goes by.
This is garbage. +Lefebvre was open to sedevacantism and rather sympathetic to the thesis that these men might not be legitimate popes. This is obviously a ploy to try to dissuade Vigano from going in that direction. I suspect that the Bishop here got the same sedevacantist vibes from Vigano's letter that I did.And he'll drop him like a hot potato if he does.
I am OK with calling him a Pope out of acknowledgement of the reality that he materially occupies the See. Vigano of course constantly referred to him simply as Bergoglio. But to keep claiming that these men don't have the faith but then have legitimate authority in the Church, it's total desperation, an emotional reaction against sedevacantism ... but it's totally bankrupt.Does the Archbishop call Pope Benedict XVI as "Ratzinger"?
This is garbage. +Lefebvre was open to sedevacantism and rather sympathetic to the thesis that these men might not be legitimate popes. This is obviously a ploy to try to dissuade Vigano from going in that direction. I suspect that the Bishop here got the same sedevacantist vibes from Vigano's letter that I did..
He continues to peddle that head of two Churches crap that R&R developed in an act of desperation. Sure Berogoglio is the head of a counter-Church while at the same time being the head of the Catholic Church. This is pure theological trash.
I'd love to see Vigano slap this down.
This is garbage. +Lefebvre was open to sedevacantism and rather sympathetic to the thesis that these men might not be legitimate popes. This is obviously a ploy to try to dissuade Vigano from going in that direction. I suspect that the Bishop here got the same sedevacantist vibes from Vigano's letter that I did.
He continues to peddle that head of two Churches crap that R&R developed in an act of desperation. Sure Berogoglio is the head of a counter-Church while at the same time being the head of the Catholic Church. This is pure theological trash.
I'd love to see Vigano slap this down.
That quote from +Lefebvre sounds more like an articulation of sedeprivationism, that they materially occupy the positions of their predecessors but do not have the same faith.Yes, yes: If we can’t make Lefebvre a sedevacantist, we will make him a closet sedevacantist (sedeprivationist).
If they do not have the faith, they are not Catholic. If they are not Catholic, they do not legitimately hold authority in the Church.
I am OK with calling him a Pope out of acknowledgement of the reality that he materially occupies the See. Vigano of course constantly referred to him simply as Bergoglio. But to keep claiming that these men don't have the faith but then have legitimate authority in the Church, it's total desperation, an emotional reaction against sedevacantism ... but it's totally bankrupt.Unless Cajetan, JST, Billuart, Billot, Bellarmine, Torquemada, Vitoria, et al are right!
.
Ideally, if Vigano responded, he would point out exactly what you have here: that the Archbishop was no committed enemy of sedevacantism.
Ideally, if Vigano responded, he would point out exactly what you have here: that the Archbishop was no committed enemy of sedevacantism.Ideally, if Vigano is serious about waking up the billions of novus ordo sheeple, the last thing on his agenda would be to spend time on the petty arguments of traditionalists and on what +ABL did or didn't mean. What matters is the hear and now. If Vigano comes out tomorrow and says that Francis isn't the pope, this has nothing to do with +ABL's comments, because he was dead before Francis was even elected. So the debate will rage on, endlessly. There's so many bigger fish to fry.
Isn’t it a little absurd to expect Vigano to presume to correct SSPXers and Resistance clergy and bishops on Lefebvre’s position on sedevacantism?Is emailing Vigano that easy? Is his email address public knowledge? Maybe this explains why he has written so many letters in the last couple of weeks.
Should Vigano need to look any further than the official policy in place for the last 40 years, which precludes sedevacantism ad infra?
In any case, we may know soon enough, since I emailed Vigano Bishop Thomas Aquinas’s letter.
Is emailing Vigano that easy? Is his email address public knowledge? Maybe this explains why he has written so many letters in the last couple of weeks.
Ideally, if Vigano is serious about waking up the billions of novus ordo sheeple, the last thing on his agenda would be to spend time on the petty arguments of traditionalists and on what +ABL did or didn't mean. What matters is the hear and now. If Vigano comes out tomorrow and says that Francis isn't the pope, this has nothing to do with +ABL's comments, because he was dead before Francis was even elected. So the debate will rage on, endlessly. There's so many bigger fish to fry.
I think you are upset that Bishop Thomas restated Lefebvre’s position to Vigano, as it hurts your hopes the latter would go sede. But there never really were any hopes Vigano was going in that direction anyway. The fact that he refers to Francis as Bergoglio is a human failing stemming from personal indignation, nor the indication of sedevacantist leanings you were hoping for.An alternate explanation exists for Vigano's calling Bergoglio that name, an explanation related neither to indignation nor sede leanings.
If they do not have the faith, they are not Catholic. If they are not Catholic, they do not legitimately hold authority in the Church.Here is summed up by Ladislaus the essential problem of sedevacantism, a problem that Archbishop Lefebvre understood, but Ladislaus, sadly, does not.
Here is summed up by Ladislaus the essential problem of sedevacantism, a problem that Archbishop Lefebvre understood, but Ladislaus, sadly, does not.
The sedevacantist effectively sets himself up as pope. He takes this opinion, expressed by Ladislaus, and promulgates it as absolute, definitive, dogmatic, binding on the Catholic conscience. Just as we see above. He adds something to the Catholic Faith. That is not Catholic. It is neither 'absurd', nor 'petty' to want to keep someone from embracing such an error, of which the Dominicans of Avrille said in their Small Catechism of Sedevacantism: "This is a position that has not been proven at the speculative level, and it is imprudent to hold it at a practical level, an imprudence that can bear very serious consequences.”
The folly of such a line of conduct should be immediately obvious by considering the opinion of just a few eminent theologians and canonists:
1. BILLUART: "The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2
2. GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE: "...a secretly heretical Pope would not remain a member of the Church in act (...) but he would keep the jurisdiction by which he has influence over the Church by governing it. Thus he would keep the reason (or nature) of being the head towards the Church, on which he would have an influence, but he would cease to be a member of Christ, the invisible and First Head. Thus, in a most abnormal fashion, he would be the head of the Church by jurisdiction, but he would not be a member.
"This would be impossible if it would be about a physical head, but this is not contradictory if we talk about a secondary moral head: The reason being whereas a physical head cannot exercise influence on the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul; a moral head, as the Roman Pontiff is, can exercise a jurisdiction on the Church even if he receives no influence of internal faith and charity from the soul of the Church.
"So, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, that he can lose, and the head of the visible Church by jurisdiciton and the power that can coexist with internal heresy..." - De Christo Salvatore, 1946, p232 Note: Fr Garrigou-Lagrange is obviously only referring to internal heretics, but it is relevant to the quote from Ladislaus.
3. JOHN OF ST THOMAS: "So long as it has not been declared to us juridically, that he is an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains, as far as we are concerned (quoad nos), a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned" - Cursus Theologici II-II, De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, Disp II, Art III, De Depositione Papa
4. FR PAUL LAYMANN SJ: "It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, could fall into heresy, even a notorious one, by reason of which he would deserve to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be separated from her. (...) Observe, however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church, (...) nevertheless, for as long as the Pope is tolerated by the Church and publicly recognised as the universal pastor, he is still endowed, in fact, with his power as pontiff, in such a way that all his decrees would have no less force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful" - Theol. Mor. Bk 2 Tract 1 Ch 7 p153
5. SUAREZ: "I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church (...) In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign this faculty to them, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, just as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that of itself it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law, there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus (q.35, 1584 ed, vol 13, p2)" - De Fide, Disp 10, Sect 6, n 10, pp 317-18
6. CAJETAN: "... a heretical Pope is not deprived (of the Papacy) by divine or human law... Other bishops if they become heretics are not deprived ipso facto by divine or human law; therefore, neither is the Pope. The conclusion is obvious, because the Pope is not in a worse situation than other bishops - On the Comparison of the Authority of Pope and Council, Ch XIX
7. BELLARMINE: "...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff" - De Membris Ecclesiae, Lib I De Clericis, Cap 7 (Opera Omnia, Paris: Vives, 1870, pp 428-429) Obviously not referring to the Pope, but still relevant to Ladislaus's quote.
"I honestly don't care where he ends up ultimately" (Ladislaus). I do. I hope he ends up in the truth. It matters! It has implications for the salvation of souls... "a position that has not been proven at the speculative level,.. it is imprudent to hold it at a practical level, an imprudence that can bear very serious consequences.”
You need to put the word "dogmatic" before Sedevacantist.Thanks, DR, I take your point, and I agree. But Lad's statement is in fact not expressed as an opinion.
As it is, you take an opinion about a certain type of Sedevacantist, as expressed by yourself, and promulgate it as definitive, dogmatic, binding on the Catholic conscience.
Or something like that.
Does the Archbishop call Pope Benedict XVI as "Ratzinger"?Italians use the pope's surname, always preceded by "papa" as in Papa Sarto, Papa Pacelli etc.
I heard, that it was common for Italians to refer to the Pope by their family name.
Thanks, DR, I take your point, and I agree. But Lad's statement is in fact not expressed as an opinion.Ok.
Ok.
But Lad's statement is fact, not opinion. If you do not have the Catholic faith, you are outside the Church; you are not Catholic.
And he is not a dogmatic Sedevacantist.
False:But that only means you believe material heretics have the Catholic faith.
Material heretics are not outside the Church.
But that only means you believe material heretics have the Catholic faith.Material heretics (caveat: 'material heretic' is understood in different ways) may have the Catholic Faith, and it is not up to me to judge!
In any event, the statement "if you don't have the Catholic faith, you're outside the Church" remains true.
Material heretics (caveat: 'material heretic' is understood in different ways) may have the Catholic Faith, and it is not up to me to judge!
False:Is Francis merely a material heretic?
Material heretics are not outside the Church.
Is Francis merely a material heretic?At least.
At least.How so?
How so?Bad hair.
Bad hair.Don't want to expand on your "at least" huh?
Don't want to expand on your "at least" huh?Nope
Nope:laugh1:
Material heretics (caveat: 'material heretic' is understood in different ways) may have the Catholic Faith, and it is not up to me to judge!Point well-taken.
Also, you left off the punch line from Ladislaus's quote, "...and therefore they do not legitimately hold authority in the Church". I hope you can see from my response that he is at variance in this with some of the greatest minds of the Church. So the statement is clearly not a Catholic one.
There are many distinctions in Catholic theology. An answer in a catechism is only the briefest of summaries of sometimes complex subjects that fill whole libraries in theological works, and these catechism answers are subject to many clarifications and distinctions.
Let me give just one example that relates to your assertion "if you don't have the Catholic Faith, you're outside the Church": St Robert Bellarmine, discussing the second of his famed 'five opinions', "that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God", replies "that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false". So immediately you can see that your assertion is not unconditionally true.
Point well-taken.It is interesting that Plenus Venter cites St Bellarmine with respect to secret heretics, but fails to include his reference to secret heretics in his fifth and true opinion when speaking of manifest heretic popes:
However, let me caution you on the last paragraph and the issue of occult heretics. First, St. Robert does not make my statement "not unconditionally true," as the issue of whether an occult heretic is still inside the Church sans possession of the Catholic faith is is a disputed issue which the Church has not settled.
That men must treat occult heretics as members of the Church since there is no external manifestation of their lack of faith is necessary and true.
It is interesting that Plenus Venter cites St Bellarmine with respect to secret heretics, but fails to include his reference to secret heretics in his fifth and true opinion when speaking of manifest heretic popes:Thank you for a fuller context. I took the liberty of highlighting some sections.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.
At least.
Here is summed up by Ladislaus the essential problem of sedevacantism, a problem that Archbishop Lefebvre understood, but Ladislaus, sadly, does not.
The sedevacantist effectively sets himself up as pope. He takes this opinion, expressed by Ladislaus, and promulgates it as absolute, definitive, dogmatic, binding on the Catholic conscience.
Father Chazal without hesitation states that Berogoglio is without a doubt a manifest heretic. He merely adopts the position, against +Bellarmine, that manifest heretics need to be deposed. He repeatedly stated that he had to "agree with the sedevacantists" about this.Fr. Chazal without hesitation rejects SP and SV in his book.
Fr. Chazal without hesitation rejects SP and SV in his book.
I also agree that Bergoglio is a heretic.
The difference is that Chazal and I (along with JST, Cajetan, Billiart, Suarez, etc) believe the Church can have an heretical pope until his deposition is declared, and you do not.
No, the part you miss, Sean, is that Father Chazal states that this heretical pope has no authority, is impounded, and needs to be categorically ignored. That lack of authority is the sedeprivationist equivalent of ceasing to be Pope formally, while retaining material office. Father Chazal repeatedly used language like he sits there in the chair and wears white but has no authority. That's very closely akin to sedeprivationism despite his denials. He denounces SP in his book because it's a knee-jerk reaction, but when you analyze his position it's nearly identical. SSPX and former SSPX have been brainwashed into regarding SV as this nasty boogeyman that must be avoided at all costs so he feels obligated to reject it in so many words, despite actually articulating principles very much akin to SP. SP, by the way, is not SV ... despite the fact that +Sanborn has spun it that way because he only reluctantly accepted SP because +McKenna would not consecrate him otherwise. But after his consecration he started peddling a flavor of SP that was more SV than it was true SP.If Sanborn isn’t a good representative of SP, who is?( you’ve made comments to that effect several times but haven’t pointed to who this authentic SP alternative to Sanborn is)
Classical R&R holds that the Pope has formal authority and must be obeyed in all things that do not run contrary to faith or morals, but can and must be resisted in those things that do.
Father Chazal's position is closer to SP than to classical R&R.
If Sanborn isn’t a good representative of SP, who is?( you’ve made comments to that effect several times but haven’t pointed to who this authentic SP alternative to Sanborn is)
Yes, I've gone over this on other threads. +Sanborn presents SP as if it were SV. Other adherents of the SP position have also pointed this out.Yes so who articulates the position clearly and authentically? The position you articulated above seems reasonable but I wouldn’t call it SP- Francis is still materially Pope( insofar as we recognize his material occupancy of the chair and resist him, the position could still be classed as a variant of R&R- albeit not “classical R&R” as you put it)
Yes so who articulates the position clearly and authentically? The position you articulated above seems reasonable but I wouldn’t call it SP- Francis is still materially Pope( insofar as we recognize his material occupancy of the chair and resist him, the position could still be classed as a variant of R&R- albeit not “classical R&R” as you put it)
Here's one example. +Sanborn persists in his dogmatism regarding not putting una cuм in the Canon. But if someone is materially Pope-designate, it would not necessarily be inappropriate to insert his name in the Canon with the una cuм. So for him the material occupancy is meaningless, whereas the classic SP would be very similar to what Father Chazal articulated in terms of the implications of the material occupation, that the Pope (or Pope-designate) remains the visible sign of unity for the Church. He's also backed away from the notion that the current Cardinals could legitimately elect a pope or that Bergoglio could convert and resume the papacy. So it you take those implications out of the mix, the distinction between SV and SP become meaningless.I have had discussions with other sede friends and we also believe Bishop Sanborns stance on the una-cuм is inconsistent with the Cassiciacuм Thesis. I do agree with him about una cuм though...i will no longer assist at a mass una cuм a heretic.
Part of the SP mentality has to do with the notion that only the Church has the authority to handle the matter with any degree of finality, and that stance is largely incompatible with dogmatic sedevacantism. SP is by its nature a much more moderate variant of sedevacantism, and it actually addresses many of the R&R objections against sedevacantism proper.
I have had discussions with other sede friends and we also believe Bishop Sanborns stance on the una-cuм is inconsistent with the Cassiciacuм Thesis. I do agree with him about una cuм though...i will no longer assist at a mass una cuм a heretic.
You [2Vermont] need to be careful not to slide into schismatic dogmatic sedevacantism.
No, it's possible to be SP and offer Mass without the una cuм, but it's not consistent with CT to be dogmatic about it and denounce those who insert it as basically non-Catholic. You need to be careful not to slide into schismatic dogmatic sedevacantism. At the end of the day, we don't have the authority to excommunicate from the Church. There were clearly many heretics in the Church before Vatican II. So, for instance, Cardinal Cushing of Boston was every bit as heretical as any of the post-V2 papal claimants. But a priest would not have a right to omit his name from the Canon because he judged him a heretic. Inserting his name into the Canon was a statement that the priest remained in submission to the Church's hierarchy and not an attestation regarding the personal orthodoxy of Cushing.I don't necessarily believe a person who does assist at una cuм mass is not Catholic. But don't expect me, a sedevacantist, to assist at a mass una cuм a heretic who claims to be pope. My una cuм position is just consistent.
I think the dogmatic sedes might do well to reflect on this particular scenario to test their dogmatic sedeism.
It is interesting that Plenus Venter cites St Bellarmine with respect to secret heretics, but fails to include his reference to secret heretics in his fifth and true opinion when speaking of manifest heretic popes:I don't know why you would find that interesting, 2Vermont, since the other quote clearly illustrates the point I was making.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.
Nonsense, Full Stomach. Archbishop Lefebvre held a much more nuanced view of the Pope question that you claim. I get tired of those who claim that he was unequivocally anti-sedevacantist. That's just an outright lie.
No, what you're describing is DOGMATIC sedevacantism, but you try to lump all of sedevacantism in with it. I too have criticized dogmatic sedevacantism on the same grounds that you cite. That's grossly dishonest and you are hereby disqualified from this discussion.
Ladislaus, son of Boleslaus.
It is the likes of you that give me my full stomach. Yes, I've had a gutful! (Only slightly serious, Lad, it is more Bishop Fellay and his accomplices that are responsible for that phenomenon)
I apologise to all for dragging out this thread, I missed this comment of Lad's which I think requires a response.
The audacity of you, Lad, to come onto a Resistance website and attack one of our learned and holy bishops, and tell me I am disqualified from the discussion. It is you, who pervert the faithful followers of Archbishop Lefebvre with your false doctrine, and attack those whom we esteem, who ought to be barred from the discussion and the site, at least until you pull your head in.
Isn’t it a little absurd to expect Vigano to presume to correct SSPXers and Resistance clergy and bishops on Lefebvre’s position on sedevacantism?First you have to sew the net before you gather fish.
Should Vigano need to look any further than the official policy in place for the last 40 years, which precludes sedevacantism ad infra?
In any case, we may know soon enough, since I emailed Vigano Bishop Thomas Aquinas’s letter.
John of St Thomas says "So long as it has not been declared to us juridically, that he is an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains, as far as we are concerned (quoad nos), a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned", but Ladislaus says (pontificates): "If they do not have the faith, they are not Catholic. If they are not Catholic, they do not legitimately hold authority in the Church.", and "to keep claiming that these men don't have the faith but then have legitimate authority in the Church, it's total desperation, an emotional reaction against sedevacantism ... but it's totally bankrupt". John of St Thomas, stand corrected!
The only people who believe John of St Thomas had it right are the R&R folks. The Novus Ordo folks, the Resignationists (e.g. Fr. Paul Kramer), sede privationists, and sede vacantists all recognize that JST is not correct and that St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, had the correct view (regardless of the nonsense that Siscoe and Salsa are peddling about Bellarmine's view being the same as JST). But let's suppose that JST is correct. The SSPX (R&R) view is that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church led almost the entire Church (save for the SSPX, apparently) into a silent apostasy. So much for the indefectibility of the Church! If on the other hand you limit the hierarchy of the Church to only those clergy who have remained faithful to the traditional doctrine of the Church, then I would have to point out that the Church has already made a judgement about the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo "popes". We don't follow them!
Perhaps a better distinction regarding the various Traditional Catholic groups, rather than R&R vs. sedevacantist, would be whether or not people believe that the V2 papal claimants still have authority in the Church.
Do the V2 papal claimants still have authority in the Church?
NO -- Sedevacantists, Sedeprivationists, Father Chazal
YES -- classic R&R
Do the V2 papal claimants still hold office in the Church?
NO -- Sedevacantists
YES -- classic R&R, Father Chazal, sedeprivationists
It's this division that helps explain why Sean Johnson puts Father Chazal in the R&R camp, while I put him in the non-R&R camp. I distinguish between classic R&R and Father Chazal's "R&R".
Classic R&R is the only position that holds that these Conciliar popes have held legitimate authority in the Church; they believe that they have authority when they teach/command what is true/moral but not when they teach/command what is erroneous/immoral.
And this is why I'm perfectly fine with Father Chazal's positon. He does not impute the destruction in the Church to legitimate papal authority. I care very little for the academic debate between Bellarminists and Cajetanists/JSTists. All I care about is the pernicious allegation of classic R&R which holds that legitimate papal authority can destroy the Church's doctrine/discipline and can lead souls to hell.
You KNOWINGLY misrepresent Fr. Chazal's position, and have done so for quite awhile. And no, I'm not going to belabor the point.
Get off this thread, Meg. You provide no meaningful contribution whatsoever. There's no misrepresentation. Father Chazal clearly states that they "have no authority" and are impounded and can be ignored entirely. I went through his entire two-hour presentation and cited chapter and verse (gave the exact minute and second marks. You have no earthly idea what you're talking about. You have no idea with the authority vs. office distinction even means.
You clearly have a psychological impairment about the issues raised by sedevacantists to the point that you cannot get past words and terms and semantics.
I've just come to the realisation that I have no idea what + means.
I first ever saw it on this site with +ABL and I just shrugged it off assuming it meant a clergyman or bishop or something, but now with ++ I'm really curious what these mean.
Stop lying about Fr. Chazal, and I'll be happy to not post on this thread.
So what? You, Ladislaus, you already slid into "schismatic dogmatic anti-(dogmatic sedevacantism)".
Yeti tried to explain it to you recently in your Jenkins-thread. But unfortunately you don't even listen. You haven't been careful and thus already got lost in "schismatic dogmatic anti-(dogmatic sedevacantism)".
:fryingpan: :jester:
[/IRONY OFF]
You KNOWINGLY misrepresent Fr. Chazal's position,Oh, Meg, you are one triggered Lady. If there existed sede statues you’d be first in line to topple them over, all the while muttering to yourself “St Lefebvre, pray for me.”
That's because you're completely ignorant about even the most basic of distinctions. You and Yeti both. I'm a dogmatic indefectibilist ... because the indefectibility of the Church and the Magisterium is in fact, ahem, dogma. If you want to say that Paul VI was a pope but was being blackmailed, or that he was replaced by a double, and that his acts were not free or were not his own, I might disagree but have no problem with that theologically as an indefectibilist. If you want to say, like, Fr. Chazal, that they have lost authority and been impounded but retain their office until the Church decides otherwise, I have zero problem with that.
And, if you remain in the Novus Ordo and claim that Vatican II should have the "hermeneutic of continuity" applied to it and that it doesn't contain any error, and that the New Mass is not positively defective, especially in its Latin form, I am going to seriously disagree with you, but that position also doesn't violate indefectibility ... as wrong and as misguided as it might be. I have much else less a problem with the conservative NO Catholic hermeneutic crowd than I do with classic R&R, which is Protestant.
So obviously my problem is not whether you happen to believe that the V2 papal claimants have been popes, but it has to do with the dogma of indefectibility.